G.R. No. MTJ-02-1398. February 27, 2002
JOSELITO R. ENRIQUEZ, complainant, vs. JUDGE PLACIDO B. VALLARTA, Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Cabiao-San Isidro, Nueva Ecija, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Joselito R. Enriquez, counsel for the accused in Criminal Case No. 215-98 for malicious mischief, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Placido B. Vallarta. The charges included falsification of certificates of service, gross ignorance of the law, and grave abuse of authority. The case, governed by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, involved the alleged cutting of tamarind tree branches. Complainant alleged that the judge improperly allowed a private prosecutor to handle the case without a public prosecutor and, after trial, erroneously ordered the parties to submit memoranda—a pleading expressly prohibited under the summary procedure rules.
Respondent judge, in his comment, defended the private prosecutor’s intervention as authorized under the Rules of Criminal Procedure when the public prosecutor is unavailable. He explained that his order for “memoranda” was a mere lapse in language, intending instead a “position paper.” He further argued that his decision, dated April 27, 2000, was rendered within 30 days from the submission of the case on March 28, 2000, as required by the summary rules.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Placido B. Vallarta is administratively liable for ignorance of the law and undue delay in the disposition of the criminal case.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable. The Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator that the judge could not be faulted for allowing a private prosecutor, as such intervention is permitted by Rule 110, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure when the public prosecutor is unavailable, and the complainant failed to object during the proceedings.
However, the judge was found guilty of ignorance of the law for ordering the submission of memoranda. The Revised Rule on Summary Procedure explicitly prohibits memoranda (Sec. 19(f)) to ensure expeditious and inexpensive disposition. His explanation that he meant “position paper” was untenable, as a position paper is submitted at an earlier stage after the affidavits, not after trial. This error demonstrated a lack of familiarity with basic procedural rules.
More significantly, the judge was liable for undue delay. The case was submitted for decision on March 28, 2000, but the decision was promulgated only on September 26, 2000—182 days later, far exceeding the 30-day period mandated for cases under summary procedure. The date of promulgation, not the date written on the decision, controls. This delay violated Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to dispose of court business promptly. For these infractions, Judge Vallarta was fined Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) with a stern warning.