G.R. No. RTJ-18-2527. June 18, 2018.
ATTY. MAKILITO B. MAHINAY, COMPLAINANT, V. HON. RAMON B. DAOMILAS, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE, AND ATTY. ROSADEY E. FAELNAR-BINONGO, CLERK OF COURT V, BOTH OF BRANCH 11, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CEBU CITY, CEBU, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay, counsel for plaintiffs in SRC Case No. SRC-223-CEB, charged Presiding Judge Ramon B. Daomilas, Jr. and Clerk of Court Atty. Rosadey E. Faelnar-Binongo with gross inexcusable negligence and gross ignorance of the law. The complaint stemmed from the judge’s alleged failure to act on a prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction for over two years after it was submitted for resolution in March 2013, despite repeated motions for early resolution. Following a letter from the complainant to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in November 2015, Judge Daomilas issued an Order granting the injunction on November 6, 2015, conditioned on a bond.
The defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was set for hearing. Judge Daomilas later issued a January 20, 2016 Order denying reconsideration but granting the defendants’ motion to post a counter-bond. The complainant alleged this was a prohibited pleading under the Interim Rules for Intra-Corporate Controversies and accused the Clerk of Court of collusion for accepting it. The judge defended the delay by citing an overwhelming caseload, multiple designations, and insufficient staff, and justified the counter-bond under Rule 58 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Judge Ramon B. Daomilas, Jr. and Atty. Rosadey E. Faelnar-Binongo are administratively liable for gross inexcusable negligence and gross ignorance of the law.

RULING

The Supreme Court found Judge Daomilas administratively liable for undue delay, but not for gross ignorance of the law, and absolved Clerk of Court Binongo. On the charge of gross ignorance, the Court ruled that while the Interim Rules for Intra-Corporate Controversies declare all decisions and orders immediately executory and disallow appeals of interlocutory orders, they do not explicitly prohibit motions for reconsideration. The judge’s act of allowing a counter-bond, a remedy under Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, was an error of judgment, not a grossly ignorant application of settled law. Gross ignorance requires a patent, deliberate, and malicious disregard of clear, basic principles.
However, Judge Daomilas was guilty of undue delay in resolving the pending incident for over two years. The constitutional mandate and rules require judges to decide matters within specified periods. Heavy caseload, multiple designations, and lack of personnel are not valid excuses for inordinate delay; a judge must request extensions or manage the docket efficiently. This failure constitutes simple neglect of duty. The Court imposed a fine of P10,000.00, with a stern warning. As for Clerk of Court Binongo, her duty is primarily ministerial in receiving pleadings; she cannot be faulted for accepting the motion absent a clear, direct prohibition from filing it, as her role does not involve determining its propriety.