G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-93-781. November 16, 1993
EDUARDO R. SANTOS, complainant, vs. JUDGE ORLANDO C. PAGUIO, MTC, Meycauayan, Bulacan, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Eduardo R. Santos, the lawyer for the defendants in Civil Case No. 90-1706 (an unlawful detainer case), charged respondent Judge Orlando C. Paguio of the Municipal Trial Court of Meycauayan, Bulacan, with gross ignorance of the law and gross incompetence. The complaint alleged that after the answer was filed and without notice and hearing, respondent rendered a decision on June 28, 1991, whose dispositive portion merely stated: “WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing considerations, it is hereby respectfully prayed that judgment be rendered in accordance with plaintiff’s prayer in their Complaint in the above-entitled case. SO ORDERED.” The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bulacan, Branch 18, in an order dated January 19, 1993, in a certiorari petition (Sp. Civil Action No. 03-M-93) filed by the defendants, opined that this decision was void on its face as it was not a decision at all but merely a prayer. Despite this, respondent promulgated a new decision on January 25, 1993, with a complete dispositive portion ordering the defendants to vacate the premises, pay rentals, attorney’s fees, and costs. Complainant argued that the original decision exhibited respondent’s gross ignorance in decision preparation and that the amendment to nullify the RTC’s order was improper.
In his Comment, respondent denied the charges, explaining that the June 28, 1991 decision was rendered after a preliminary conference and after the defendants failed to comply with an order to submit position papers and evidence. He stated that the defendants did not appeal but filed a motion for reconsideration, and a writ of execution was issued. After the RTC directed him to desist from implementing the writ, he issued the January 25, 1993 decision to correct the missing sentences in the dispositive portion, arguing that the correction was permissible and did not prejudice the parties’ rights.
The Office of the Court Administrator found the complaint meritorious, noting that respondent’s failure to include a proper dispositive portion in the original decision indicated carelessness, as he likely did not read the decision before signing it. It also highlighted grammatical and syntactic errors in both decisions. It recommended a fine of P5,000.00 and a warning.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Orlando C. Paguio is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and gross incompetence due to rendering a decision with a defective dispositive portion and subsequently amending it after the RTC declared it void.

RULING

The Supreme Court found respondent administratively liable, but not for gross ignorance of the law. Instead, he was held liable for inefficiency and neglect of duty. The Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator that the June 28, 1991 decision was flawed, with a dispositive portion that was merely a prayer and did not dispose of the case, and contained grammatical errors. This reflected carelessness and a failure to read the decision before signing it. However, the Court noted that the case was properly under the Rule on Summary Procedure, and respondent could decide based on position papers and evidence, contrary to complainant’s claim of lack of notice and hearing. The Court also admonished complainant for suppressing facts and failing to show candor.
Respondent was fined P5,000.00 for violating Canons 5 and 31 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, with a warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely. Complainant was admonished to be more careful in drafting pleadings under Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.