AM MTJ 02 1438; (January, 2004) (Digest)
A.M. No. MTJ-02-1438. January 22, 2004. EXECUTIVE JUDGE HENRY B. BASILIA, Complainant, vs. JUDGE AMADO L. BECAMON, CLERK OF COURT LOLITA DELOS REYES AND PROCESS SERVER EDDIE DELOS REYES, Respondents.
FACTS
Executive Judge Henry B. Basilia dismissed an appeal in a civil case for recovery of possession for being frivolous and filed out of time. He then required respondents from the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) to explain administrative charges for grave misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, and dishonesty. Judge Basilia observed gross irregularities: the MCTC decision dated January 15, 1999, was released only on March 2, 1999; a copy was received by the defendants on March 12, 1999. The defendants filed a motion for reconsideration on March 15, 1999. The order denying this motion, dated May 7, 1999, was mailed only on October 8, 1999. The defendants received the denial on October 27, 1999.
Despite the procedural missteps, the defendants filed a notice of appeal on November 3, 1999, without paying docket fees. Subsequently, on February 14, 2000, respondent Judge Amado L. Becamon issued an order granting an opposition and giving the defendants a fresh 15-day period to appeal from receipt of that order. The defendants filed a second notice of appeal on March 7, 2000, which the judge approved after receiving the appeal fee.
ISSUE
Whether respondents are administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and inefficiency due to mishandling the appeal period and court processes.
RULING
Yes, respondents are administratively liable. The Supreme Court found respondent Judge Becamon guilty of gross ignorance of the law. The legal logic is anchored on the mandatory and elementary rules for computing the appeal period. Under the Rules of Court, an appeal from an MCTC must be perfected within 15 days from notice of the judgment. The filing of a motion for reconsideration interrupts this period. Here, the defendants received the judgment on March 12, 1999, and filed a motion for reconsideration on March 15, 1999, which interrupted the period. The period resumed on October 27, 1999, when they received the denial, leaving them only until November 9, 1999, to perfect an appeal. Their November 3 notice of appeal was defective due to non-payment of docket fees, thus no appeal was perfected. The appeal period had indisputably lapsed by February 2000.
Judge Becamon’s order of February 14, 2000, granting a new 15-day period to appeal, constituted a clear disregard of these settled rules, amounting to gross ignorance of the law. A judge must maintain professional competence; disregarding basic procedural rules warrants disciplinary action. The Court modified the OCA’s recommended penalty, imposing a fine of P20,000 on Judge Becamon. Respondents Clerk of Court Lolita Delos Reyes and Process Server Eddie Delos Reyes, who admitted to errors in releasing and mailing decisions, were found guilty of simple neglect of duty and fined P5,000 each. Their adoption of the judge’s explanation and admission of mistakes, though not malicious, demonstrated negligence in the performance of their ministerial duties, which is prejudicial to the efficient administration of justice.