G.R. No.: A.M. No. RTJ-11-2272; February 16, 2011 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2559-RTJ)
Case Title: MARCIANO ALCARAZ, Complainant, vs. JUDGE FATIMA GONZALES-ASDALA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 87, QUEZON CITY, Respondent.

FACTS

The administrative complaint stemmed from Civil Case No. Q-05-56029 (originally an ejectment case from the MeTC). The plaintiff-appellee, represented by complainant Marciano Alcaraz, won at the MeTC. The defendant-appellant appealed to the RTC, where the case was raffled to respondent Judge Fatima Gonzales-Asdala’s branch. On November 12, 2005, the plaintiff filed a “Motion for Execution Pending Appeal” with the RTC, arguing the defendant failed to make the required rental deposits during the appeal. The complainant later inquired and found the respondent judge had taken no action on this motion. On February 8, 2006, the plaintiff filed an “Urgent Motion” to resolve the earlier motion and to order rental deposits, which was set for hearing. The defendant failed to appear at the hearing, and the judge ordered him to comment. After no comment was filed, the respondent judge finally issued an order on April 25, 2006, granting execution pending appeal. The complainant charged the respondent with neglect for failing to act on the motions promptly. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found the respondent administratively liable for undue delay and recommended a reprimand.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Fatima Gonzales-Asdala is administratively liable for undue delay or neglect of duty in failing to act promptly on the “Motion for Execution Pending Appeal” filed on November 12, 2005.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the complaint and found the respondent judge NOT administratively liable. The Court held that the “Motion for Execution Pending Appeal” filed on November 12, 2005, was a mere scrap of paper due to a fatally defective notice of hearing. The notice was addressed to the Branch Clerk of Court instead of the adverse party and, crucially, it did not specify any date or time for a hearing. It merely asked the clerk to submit the motion for the court’s consideration “immediately upon receipt” or “at any time convenient.” This violated Sections 4 and 5, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, which require a litigious motion to be set for hearing with a notice specifying the time and date addressed to all parties. Since the motion was procedurally infirm, the court had no duty to act upon it. The respondent judge only acquired the duty to resolve the issue when a proper motion (the “Urgent Motion” of February 8, 2006) was filed with a valid hearing notice. The respondent resolved this proper motion within a reasonable time, issuing the execution order on April 25, 2006. Therefore, no administrative fault could be attributed to her for the period preceding the filing of the proper motion.