ATTY. JOSELITO A. OLIVEROS, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ROMULO G. CARTECIANO (RET.), MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, LOS BAÑOS, LAGUNA, RESPONDENT.

Oliveros versus Carteciano

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed by Atty. Joselito A. Oliveros against Judge Romulo G. Carteciano, then the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Los Baños, Laguna, charging him with gross neglect of duty for failing to decide an ejectment case within the thirty-day period fixed by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. The case matters because it fixes a simple, examinable rule: a judge who lets the mandatory period for judgment lapse, and offers only a broken computer as his excuse, is guilty of gross inefficiency and is fined, even if he has since retired from the service.

Procedural History

The complainant filed his complaint with the Supreme Court on March 16, 2001, attaching his own sworn affidavit. The respondent filed his comment on July 31, 2001, admitting the delay but explaining it, and attaching a copy of the decision he had by then rendered in the ejectment case, dated July 18, 2001. The matter was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator. Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. reported that the respondent's explanation was flimsy, since the judge could simply have used a manual typewriter, and recommended a fine of 1,000 pesos. The case was thus resolved by the Supreme Court as an original administrative matter, on the basis of the complaint, the comment, and the Court Administrator's report and recommendation.

Facts

Atty. Oliveros was counsel for the plaintiff in an ejectment case entitled Custer S. Oliveros versus Yolanda C. Corvera and others, filed in December 1999 in the Municipal Trial Court of Los Baños, Laguna, presided over by Judge Carteciano. The case was heard without delay. By order dated February 2, 2000, the respondent declared that unless he found it necessary to clarify certain material facts, the case would be deemed submitted for decision upon the expiration of the ten-day period for the parties' affidavits and position papers. The last position paper was filed on March 16, 2000.

Under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, the respondent then had thirty days from that date within which to render judgment. He rendered no decision. The plaintiff filed a motion to resolve and made follow-ups, but the case remained undecided. In his complaint dated March 16, 2001, the complainant alleged that the respondent had grossly neglected his duty in unduly delaying the decision.

In his comment, the respondent admitted that he failed to render a decision within the time fixed by law. He blamed a breakdown of the second-hand personal computer and printer that his court had been renting at his own personal expense, saying there was no deliberate intent to refuse to issue the decision. He attached his decision in the ejectment case, dated July 18, 2001, which ordered the defendants to vacate the leased premises, to remove their structures, and to pay unpaid rentals of 45,000 pesos per month from May 15, 1999, with twelve percent interest per annum, plus 85,000 pesos in attorney's fees and 1,000 pesos in costs. That decision came fifteen months after the mandatory thirty-day period had lapsed.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of gross neglect of duty, or gross inefficiency, for failing to render judgment in the ejectment case within the thirty-day period required by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
• Whether or not the respondent's explanation, that his computer repeatedly bogged down, is sufficient to excuse the delay.
• Whether or not the penalty of a fine may still be imposed on the respondent notwithstanding his retirement from the service.

Applicable Provisions

Section 10 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure provides:

Section 10. Rendition of judgment. — Within thirty (30) days after receipt of the last affidavits and position papers, or the expiration of the period for filing the same, the court shall render judgment. However, should the court find it necessary to clarify certain material facts, it may, during the said period, issue an order specifying the matters to be clarified, and require the parties to submit affidavits or other evidence on the said matters within ten (10) days from receipt of said order. Judgment shall be rendered within fifteen (15) days after the receipt of the last clarificatory affidavits, or the expiration of the period for filing the same. The court shall not resort to clarificatory procedure to gain time for the rendition of the judgment.

This is the very period the respondent violated, and its last sentence forbids the court from using the clarificatory procedure merely to gain time.

Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides:

A judge shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.

This is the ethical duty the Court found the respondent to have breached.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found that there was no delay in the hearing of the ejectment case; the parties submitted their affidavits and position papers within the ten-day period. The delay lay in the rendition of judgment. Since the respondent did not order the submission of additional affidavits or other evidence, he had thirty days from March 16, 2000, when the last position paper was filed, within which to render judgment. He rendered it only on July 18, 2001, fifteen months after the lapse of the mandatory period. His conduct constituted a violation of Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which enjoins judges to dispose of court business promptly and within the required periods.

On the second issue, the Court agreed with the Court Administrator that the explanation was flimsy. The respondent could have caused the preparation of his decision by manual typewriter if his computer malfunctioned. At any rate, he could have asked the Supreme Court for an extension of time within which to render judgment instead of simply allowing the thirty-day period to expire.

On the third issue, the Court held that, in line with applicable jurisprudence, the respondent was liable to pay a fine of 1,000 pesos for the infraction. Considering that he had retired from the service on August 29, 2001, the amount was to be deducted from his retirement benefits.

Doctrine

A judge must decide a case within the period fixed by the rules, and under Section 10 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure that period is thirty days after receipt of the last affidavits and position papers, or the expiration of the period for filing them. The clarificatory procedure may not be used to gain time for the rendition of judgment. Failure to decide within the mandatory period constitutes gross inefficiency, in violation of Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which commands every judge to dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. A mechanical breakdown, such as a defective computer, does not excuse the delay, because the judge may resort to a manual typewriter or ask the Supreme Court for an extension of time. Retirement from the service does not bar the imposition of the fine, which may be deducted from the judge's retirement benefits.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent, retired Judge Romulo G. Carteciano, guilty of gross inefficiency and fined him 1,000 pesos, to be deducted from his retirement benefits.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: a judge who fails to decide within the mandatory period is guilty of gross inefficiency, and a broken computer is no excuse, because he could have used a typewriter or asked for an extension. Examiners use this case to test the thirty-day period under Section 10 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, the command of Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the rule that a fine may be deducted from retirement benefits after the judge has retired.