AM 89 301; (November, 1993) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-89-301 November 8, 1993
Mateo Dumaya, complainant, vs. Judge Tertulo A. Mendoza, MCTC, Quezon-Licab, Nueva Ecija [Acting MTC Judge, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija], respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Mateo Dumaya filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Tertulo A. Mendoza concerning Civil Case No. 379 for Forcible Entry with Prayer for Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction. Dumaya filed the case on August 5, 1988. On September 9, 1988, respondent judge ordered the parties to file memoranda, after which the prayer for the writ would be deemed submitted for resolution. However, respondent judge failed to act on the matter for five months. On February 24, 1989, complainant’s counsel filed a petition to resolve the request for preliminary injunction. Respondent judge then issued an Order dated March 15, 1989, denying the issuance of the writ. The complaint alleges that the delay unnecessarily prolonged the litigation. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found respondent failed to resolve the prayer within fifteen days from September 9, 1988, and recommended a fine for failure to apply the Rule on Summary Procedure. However, the Court noted the case involved a question of ownership (as defendants claimed ownership), making the old Rule on Summary Procedure inapplicable.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Tertulo A. Mendoza is administratively liable for the unreasonable delay in resolving the motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in a forcible entry case.
RULING
Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable. Rule 70, Section 3 of the Rules of Court mandates that in forcible entry cases, a court shall decide a motion for a writ of preliminary injunction within thirty (30) days from its filing. Respondent judge failed to resolve the motion within this period and offered no satisfactory explanation for the delay. This constitutes misconduct for failing to ensure the speedy administration of justice, contrary to the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Court modified the OCA’s recommendation, finding the recommended fine of P2,000.00 too harsh. Respondent Judge Tertulo A. Mendoza is fined P1,000.00 and warned that any similar infraction will be dealt with more severely.