ERNESTO G. MALFERRARI, COMPLAINANT, VS. THE HONORABLE GREGORIO PANTANOSAS, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, BRANCH II, RESPONDENT.

Judge Gregorio Pantanosas of the
Municipal Trial Court, Cagayan de Oro
City, is the respondent in this administrative case.  According to the complainant Ernesto G. Malferrari, the judge should be “removed from office
by reason of his manifest bias and partiality which makes him incompetent to
properly perform the functions of his court.”

The record shows that the complainant was the counsel in two ejectment cases filed in the court presided by the respondent.  Complainant expected the respondent to apply
the Rule on Summary Procedure in Special Cases which took effect on August 1, 1983 but the latter did not
for which reason the former filed a petition for mandamus before the
Regional Trial Court of Misamis Oriental on August 15, 1984 to compel application
of the rule.

On December 28, 1984,
the respondent issued an order stating that the ejectment
cases were covered by the Rule on Summary Pro­cedure for which reason the mandamus
case was dismissed by the Regional Trial Court on January 9, 1985.

On February 18, 1985,
when the instant complaint was filed, the ejectment
cases had not yet been decided.

The addendum to the complaint filed on March 4, 1985, states that the ejectment
cases were decided on February 19,
1985.  In the decision the
respondent found the defendants to be in arrears in the payment of monthly
rentals the amount of which had not been specified by the parties and on the
basis of an aborted compromise agreement fixed the rentals at P1,300.00 a month but deducted from the amounts due to the
plaintiffs their back accounts to the defendants’ restaurant.  The decision closed with the following
judgment:  “In the event that
defendants will fail to pay the unpaid rentals within the period of 30 days, to
immediately vacate the premises and returned the respective properties of
plaintiffs; to pay plaintiffs the reasonable amount of P2,000.00 representing
attorney’s fees and to pay the cost of this suits.”

This decision will not touch on the merits of the decision in the
ejectment cases which may have been appealed by
either party.  It will be confined to the
delay in their disposition.

The respondent attributes the delay in the decision of the cases
to the filing of the mandamus case and the fact that he was on leave
from February 4 to 8, 1985.

We find the respondent’s explanation to be flimsy.  There would have been no delay if he had
immediately ruled on the applicability of the Rule on Summary Procedure to the ejectment cases.  The
Rule had been in effect since August 1,
1983 and it was his obstinacy that compelled the complainant to go
to a higher court to make him do what he should have done.  The respondent’s leave of absence is too
brief as to justify the delay of the resolution of the ejectment
cases.

WHEREFORE, the respondent is hereby reprimanded and
admonished to be more conscientious in the performance of his duties.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, Jr., (Chairman), Escolin, Cuevas, and
Alampay, JJ., concur.