G.R. No. MTC-02-1429. October 4, 2002.
Francisca P. Pascual, complainant, vs. Judge Eduardo U. Jovellanos, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Alcala, Pangasinan, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Francisca P. Pascual filed a forcible entry case (Civil Case No. 730) against Lorenzo L. Manaois, which was dismissed without prejudice for insufficient allegations. She filed a corrected complaint (Civil Case No. 740). Instead of filing an Answer, the defendant filed a “Motion to Strike Out.” After the period to answer lapsed, complainant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Respondent Judge granted the Motion to Strike Out 120 days after its filing. Complainant filed a motion for reconsideration and an Application for Preliminary Injunction, for which a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was issued. The TRO expired without respondent Judge resolving the injunction application. The defendant continued construction, prompting a contempt charge, which also remained unresolved. Complainant accused respondent Judge of gross ignorance of the law, bias, abuse of discretion, and neglect of duty for these failures and for not acting on the Motion for Summary Judgment for almost three years.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and undue delay in resolving incidents in a forcible entry case governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator’s findings but increased the penalty. The Court held that:
1. Gross Ignorance of the Law: Respondent Judge failed to apply the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, which governs all forcible entry cases. His grant of the defendant’s “Motion to Strike Out” (a prohibited pleading equivalent to a motion to dismiss) and his reliance on the regular Rules of Civil Procedure instead of the Summary Procedure demonstrated a serious degree of incompetence. Under the Summary Procedure, judgment should have been rendered based on the Complaint after the defendant failed to file an Answer within ten days. His failure to know this elementary law constitutes gross ignorance.
2. Undue Delay: Respondent Judge failed to decide the case and resolve pending incidents, including the Motion for Summary Judgment and the Application for Preliminary Injunction, within the reglementary periods prescribed by the Summary Procedure. His claim of heavy caseload did not excuse the delay, as he could have requested an extension from the Court. The delay defeated the expeditious purpose of summary proceedings.
3. Administrative Sanction: Considering this was respondent Judge’s second infraction (having been previously fined for gross misconduct in Espiritu v. Jovellanos), the Court imposed a fine heavier than the OCA’s recommended P10,000.00. The exact final penalty is stated in the unpublished conclusion of the decision.