Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83012:56985&catid=1584&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:41:48+00:00

Document:
A.M. No. MTJ-14-1841 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 11-2388-MTJ), June 02, 2014 - GERSHON N. DULANG, Complainant, v. JUDGE MARY JOCYLEN1 G. REGENCIA, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT (MCTC), ASTURIAS-BALAMBAN, CEBU, Respondent.
GERSHON N. DULANG, Complainant, v. JUDGE MARY JOCYLEN1 G. REGENCIA, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT (MCTC), ASTURIAS-BALAMBAN, CEBU, Respondent.
This is an administrative case for gross inefficiency, gross ignorance of the law, gross incompetence, serious misconduct, and serious dereliction of duty against respondent Judge Mary Jocylen G. Regencia (Judge Regencia) of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Asturias-Balamban, Cebu (MCTC), commenced thru a Verified Complaint2 dated May 28, 2011 filed by complainant Gershon N. Dulang (Dulang) before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
The instant case stemmed from an ejectment complaint with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, docketed as Civil Case No. 212-B, entitled “Spouses Gershon Dulang and Luzviminda Dulang, represented by Reynaldo Moldez v. Emmanuel Flores,” which was filed before the MCTC on Februrary 2, 2000 (ejectment case).
However, the OCA no longer determined Judge Regencia’s administrative liability with respect to the charges of gross inefficiency, gross ignorance of the law, gross incompetence, serious misconduct, and serious dereliction of duty. Hence, in due deference to her right to be afforded due process, said charges shall no longer be tackled herein.
The sole issue raised for the Court’s resolution is whether or not Judge Regencia may be held administratively liable for undue delay in rendering a decision.
The Court agrees with the findings and conclusions of the OCA, with the modification, however, as to the penalty imposed on Judge Regencia.
Here, it is undisputed that Civil Case No. 212-B was already submitted for resolution on October 17, 2008. Being an ejectment case, it is governed by the Rules of Summary Procedure which clearly sets a period of thirty (30) days from the submission of the last affidavit or position paper within which a decision thereon must be issued.27 Despite this, Judge Regencia rendered judgment only about two (2) years and four (4) months later, or on February 18, 2011. While rules prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done are indispensable to prevent needless delays in the orderly and speedy disposition of cases and, thus, should be regarded as mandatory,28 the Court has nevertheless been mindful of the plight of judges and has been understanding of circumstances that may hinder them from promptly disposing of their businesses and, as such, has allowed extensions of time due to justifiable reasons.29 However, Judge Regencia failed to proffer any acceptable reason in delaying the disposition of the ejectment case, thus, making her administratively liable for undue delay in rendering a decision.
Further, as adverted to earlier, Judge Regencia tried to justify the delay in resolving Civil Case No. 212-B by claiming, inter alia, that there exists a prejudicial question brought about by the existence of a pending case in the Toledo RTC and that the parties agreed on the suspension of the proceedings. However, Judge Montero found that there was neither a prejudicial question nor an agreement between the litigants that would warrant substantial delays in the proceedings – a finding which is subscribed to by the OCA.30 Verily, Judge Regencia’s clear and blatant attempt to mislead the Court is deplorable and should never be countenanced.
Undue delay in rendering a decision is classified as a less serious charge, punishable either by: (a) suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three months; or (b) a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.31 In imposing the proper sanction on Judge Regencia, the Court notes that aside from her aforementioned misrepresentation, she was also previously found administratively liable for gross inefficiency where she was ordered to pay a fine of ?5,000.00 and warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.32 Moreover, as correctly observed by Justice Arturo D. Brion during the deliberations of this case, her length of service of more than 17 years should be taken against her instead of being considered a mitigating factor as she should have already known that Civil Case No. 212-B, being an ejectment case, is a summary proceeding and, thus, ought to be expeditiously resolved.33 Hence, a fine of P40,000.00, instead of suspension, should be the appropriate penalty for Judge Regencia’s misconduct.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Judge Mary Jocylen G. Regencia of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Asturias-Balamban, Cebu, GUILTY of undue delay in rendering a decision. Accordingly, she is ordered to pay a fine of P40,000.00 and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
1 “Jocelyn” in some parts of the records.
3 See Ex-Parte Motion to Decide/ Reslove Case dated April 26, 2009; id. at 13-14.
4 See Manifestation Relative to Order Dated June 24, 2009 dated July 19, 2009; id. at 15-16.
7 526 Phil. 25 (2006).
8Rollo, pp. 6-7 and 458.
15 See Comments (To the Verified Supplemental Complaint to the Verified Complaint dated May 28, 2011) dated November 15, 2011; id. at 122-137. See also id. at 458-459.
19 See id. at 459.
20 Id. at 297-306. Dated January 7, 2013.
23 Id. at 457-462. Signed by Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez and Deputy Court Administrator Jenny Lind R. Aldecoa-Delorino.
25Garado v. Gutierrez-Torres, A.M. No. MTJ-11-1778, June 5, 2013, 697 SCRA 176, 184-185, citing Valdez v. Torres, A.M. No. MTJ-11-1796, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 89, 96.
26 A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC entitled “Adopting the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary Supreme Court of the Philippines,” (2001).
27 See Section 10, Revised Rules on Summary Procedure.
28 See Jimenez, Jr. v. Amdengan, A.M. No. MTJ-12-1818, February 13, 2013, 690 SCRA 486, 491-494.
29 See Re: Failure of Former Judge Antonio A. Carbonell to Decide Cases Submitted for Decision and to Resolve Pending Motions in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, San Fernando, La Union, A.M. No. 08-5-305-RTC, July 9, 2013, 700 SCRA 806, 812.
30 See rollo, pp. 285-286 and 459-460.
31 See Sections 9 and 11, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC entitled “Re: Proposed Amendment to Rule 140 of the Rules of Court Re: Discipline of Justices and Judges,” (2001).
32Tam v. Judge Jocelyn G. Regencia, supra note 7, at 41.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.