G.R. No. MTJ-02-1403; February 3, 2003
Bobby Carriaga, complainant, vs. Municipal Judge Romeo L. Anasario, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Bobby Carriaga filed an administrative complaint against Municipal Judge Romeo Anasario for gross ignorance of the law and partiality. The complaint stemmed from the judge’s handling of two criminal cases for less serious physical injuries and grave threats, which are governed by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. In these cases, the respondent judge issued an order requiring the accused to submit their counter-affidavits within ten days from notice on March 5, 1998. The accused, however, filed their counter-affidavits 130 days later, or 120 days beyond the reglementary period. Despite this substantial delay, Judge Anasario issued an order on August 31, 1998, admitting the belatedly filed counter-affidavits.
Carriaga, apprehensive of bias, filed a motion for inhibition, which was denied by the judge on May 31, 1999. In his defense, Judge Anasario contended that the ten-day requirement under the Rule on Summary Procedure was merely directory, not mandatory. He argued that he had not yet formally admitted the counter-affidavits as evidence and that his actions were aimed at serving substantial justice over technicalities.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Romeo L. Anasario is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law for violating the mandatory provisions of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure by admitting counter-affidavits filed 120 days beyond the reglementary period.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable for violation of Supreme Court rules, specifically the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. The Court emphasized that the Rule was promulgated to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases. Section 12(b) explicitly requires the accused to submit counter-affidavits “not later than ten (10) days” from receipt of the court’s order. Furthermore, Section 19(e) expressly prohibits motions for extension of time to file these affidavits. These provisions are mandatory, not directory.
By admitting the counter-affidavits filed 120 days late, Judge Anasario subverted the very purpose of the summary procedure, which is to prevent parties from derailing proceedings through delay. His justification that the rule was merely directory and that he was prioritizing substantial justice constituted a clear misapprehension of the law. When a rule is clear and unambiguous, judges have no discretion but to obey it. However, the charge of partiality was dismissed for lack of clear and convincing evidence; the act of admitting the late filings, by itself, was insufficient to prove bias.
Consequently, for violating Supreme Court rules—a less serious charge under Rule 140—Judge Anasario was fined Eleven Thousand Pesos (P11,000.00) with a stern warning against repetition.