AM MTJ 00 1313; (April, 2005) (Digest)
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1313. April 27, 2005. VIRGILIO P. ALCONERA, Complainant, vs. JUDGE JOSE S. MAJADUCON, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Atty. Virgilio P. Alconera filed an administrative complaint for gross ignorance of the law and grave misconduct against respondent Judge Jose S. Majaducon, Presiding Judge of the MTCC, General Santos City. The complaint stemmed from a forcible entry case filed by Alconera’s clients. The defendant, Faustino Labao, filed an unverified answer beyond the ten-day period prescribed by the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. Despite this procedural defect, respondent judge admitted the late answer, set the case for preliminary conference, and failed to act on the plaintiffs’ subsequent motion for summary judgment. After multiple conferences, respondent issued an order allowing the defendant to file a position paper and later a “Motion to File Answer through Counsel,” which he granted. The defendant never filed the required position paper or answer. Respondent eventually rendered a decision dismissing the complaint in favor of Labao.
During the administrative proceedings, complainant attempted to withdraw his complaint. The case was referred for investigation to Associate Justice Juan Enriquez of the Court of Appeals, who found respondent guilty. It was also noted that respondent had been the subject of prior administrative sanctions and had retired from service during the pendency of the case, with a portion of his retirement benefits previously set aside.
ISSUE
Whether respondent judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law or procedure.
RULING
Yes, respondent judge is guilty of gross ignorance of procedure. The Supreme Court emphasized that the withdrawal of an administrative complaint by the complainant does not warrant its dismissal, as such cases involve public interest and the preservation of judicial integrity. On the merits, the Court found respondent’s actions constituted a blatant disregard of the mandatory Revised Rule on Summary Procedure governing forcible entry cases. The Rule explicitly requires an answer to be filed within ten days from service of summons and to be verified. By admitting an unverified answer filed out of time, failing to act on the motion for summary judgment, and granting further procedural leeway to the defendant who subsequently defaulted, respondent demonstrated a fundamental lack of familiarity with basic procedural rules. This failure to adhere to a straightforward, mandatory rule constitutes gross ignorance of the law.
Considering that this was not respondent’s first administrative offense, the Court modified the recommended penalty. Instead of a P20,000 fine, the Court imposed a fine of P40,000, the maximum for the offense, to be deducted from the retirement benefits previously withheld. The Court also referred complainant Atty. Alconera to the IBP Committee on Bar Discipline for investigation, admonishing members of the bar that administrative complaints must not be used as tools for vindictiveness.