Photo from Pexels | KATRIN BOLOVTSOVA
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
In the case of Castillo vs. Asuncion, the Supreme Court fined a judge for undue delay after taking seven years to resolve a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction holding that the constitutionally-guaranteed right of all persons to speedy disposition of cases is the cornerstone of the Judiciary.
FACTS: Complainant Rolly Castillo and other stallholders (plaintiffs) filed a complaint for damages with a request for a preliminary injunction against defendants Princeville Construction and Development Corporation and Engineer Alfred Figueras in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) alleging that the defendants forcibly drove them out of the New Cubao Central Market in order to take possession and control over it.
On April 1, 2016, Judge Asuncion conducted a hearing and ordered the parties to file their respective memoranda within 15 days from receipt of the court’s ruling on the formal offer of evidence, after which, the matter shall be deemed submitted for resolution. The plaintiffs filed their memorandum on July 14, 2016, while the defendants did not.
On July 20, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion to re-open the hearing on ground of newly discovered evidence. They submitted the pleadings required by Judge Asuncion but despite compliance, the motion remained unresolved. The plaintiffs continued to file additional motions to address their concerns until December 7, 2018.
Due to Judge Asuncion’s continued failure to resolve their prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, Castillo filed a complaint against him for gross inefficiency and dishonesty.
In a motion to admit with comment filed before the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB), Judge Asuncion argued that he had to attend to an influx of equally important and pressing matters that demanded his immediate attention such as his designation as the Executive Judge for the RTC Antipolo City during the COVID-19 Pandemic and the conduct of hearings for applications of search warrants, among others. In addition to this, Judge Asuncion averred that Castillo filed several motions that prayed for different reliefs.
While the complaint was pending, Judge Asuncion denied the plaintiffs’ prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction on April 11, 2023.
The Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) recommended that Judge Asuncion be found guilty of gross neglect of duty. It found that the prayer for the writ of preliminary injunction was submitted for resolution even before the COVID-19 pandemic began but was only resolved by Judge Asuncion on April 11, 2023.
ISSUE: Whether Judge Asuncion is guilty of gross neglect of duty in the performance or non-performance of official functions under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.
RULING: Yes. The Supreme Court upheld the JIB’s findings but modified the penalty imposed. It found that Judge Asuncion only ruled on plaintiff’s prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction on April 11, 2023, or almost seven years after it was submitted for resolution.
The Court held that the timely resolution of pending matters before the court is required no less than Article VIII, Section 15 of the Constitution which provides that all cases or matters in lower courts must be decided or resolved within three months from the filing of the last pleading required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself.
Canon 6, Section 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins judges to promptly rule on cases pending before the court. In addition to this, OCA Circular No. 243-2022 reminds judges to strictly observe the reglementary or prescribed periods to decide pending cases. Failure to do so is a ground for administrative liability, except for valid reasons.
Rule 140 of the Rules of Court subsumed undue delay in rendering an order as neglect of duty. It is considered gross neglect of duty when it is characterized by the want of even slight care, or by acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to the consequences, insofar as other persons may be affected.
In finding Judge Asuncion guilty of gross neglect of duty, the Court deemed his seven-year delay inexcusable considering that the prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction implies that it must be addressed with urgency.
The Court emphasized that the speedy disposition of cases is a constitutionally-guaranteed right of all persons. It is a cornerstone of the Judiciary. While the Court is mindful of the challenges faced by our judges in performing their duties, it shall not hesitate to hold them accountable when they fail to do so without any acceptable reason.
Ultimately, the Court held that it cannot countenance Judge Asuncion’s negligence in acting on the plaintiff’s prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. Accordingly, Judge Asuncion was ordered to pay a fine of Php 201,000.00 with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
Source:
Rolly C. Castillo vs Hon. Miguel S. Asuncion, Presiding Judge, Branch 99, Regional Trial Court, Antipolo City, Rizal
A.M. No. RTJ-23-039 [Formerly JIB FPI No. 21-075-RTJ] | August 20, 2024
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.