In the case of SARMIENTO, ET. AV. VS. LINDAYAG, AM No.MTJ-09-1743, August 3, 2010, the respondent Judge Aznar D. Lindayag, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, San Jose Del Monte City, Bulacan, was FINED 15,000 Pesos for undue delay in resolving Civil case No. 11-2002-SJ (a summary ejectment suit). The doctrinal statements of the Supreme Court are as follows:
x x x.
The Court finds the evaluation and recommendation of the OCA well-taken. It bears stressing that ejectment cases must be resolved with great dispatch.[8] Their nature calls for it. As Five Star Marketing Co., Inc. v. Booc[9] holds:
Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases are summary proceedings designed to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or the right to the possession of the property involved. It does not admit of a delay in the determination thereof. It is a “time procedure” designed to remedy the situation. Stated in another way, the avowed objective of actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, which have purposely been made summary in nature, is to provide a peaceful, speedy and expeditious means of preventing an alleged illegal possessor of property from unjustly continuing his possession for a long time, thereby ensuring the maintenance of peace and order in the community; otherwise, the party illegally deprived of possession might feel the despair of long waiting and decide as a measure of self-protection to take the law into his hands and seize the same by force and violence. And since the law discourages continued wrangling over possession of property for it involves perturbation of social order which must be restored as promptly as possible, technicalities or details of procedure which may cause unnecessary delays should accordingly and carefully be avoided.
In accordance with the above objective, the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure set forth the steps to expeditiously dispose of the cases covered by the rules, as in ejectment…[10] (emphasis supplied)
That explains why Section 10 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure[11] which applies to an ejectment complaint, among others, directs that within 30 days after the receipt of the last affidavits and position papers, or the expiration of the period for filing the same, the trial court should render judgment on the case. Without any order of extension granted by this Court, the failure to decide even a single case within the required period constitutes gross inefficiency.[12]
That it took respondent almost four years to decide the second complaint unmistakably shows his inefficiency. His above-quoted explanation-justification therefor does not indeed convince. Just as his statement about records getting misplaced or misfiled does not. The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary requires judges to “devote their professional activity to judicial duties, which include not only the performance of judicial functions and responsibilities in court and the making of decisions, but also other tasks relevant to the judicial office or the court’s operations.”
Rule 3.08 of the Code of Judicial Conduct[13] requires that a judge should be diligent in discharging administrative responsibilities and should maintain professional competence in court management, hence, it is incumbent upon him to devise an efficient recording and filing system so that no disorderliness can affect the flow of cases and their speedy disposition.[14]
Under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering a decision is a less serious charge in which any of the following sanctions may be imposed: (a) suspension from the service without salary and other benefits for not less than one month nor more than three months; or (b) a fine of more than P10,000 but not more than P20,000.
Respondent having been previously admonished in A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-1885-MTJ to be more circumspect in observing the reglementary periods for resolving motions and rendering decisions, not to mention that he was again charged for undue delay in resolving a motion in OCA IPI No. 08-2009-MTJ which is pending evaluation, the recommended fine of P15,000 is in order.
