AM MTJ 02 1458; (October, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-02-1458. October 10, 2002.
Socorro R. Hoehne, complainant, vs. Judge Ruben R. Plata, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Socorro R. Hoehne, representing JVE Lending Investor, filed a letter-complaint charging respondent Judge Ruben R. Plata, Presiding Judge of Branch 1, Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Santiago City, with delay in resolving a motion for execution in Civil Case No. I-261, a case for sum of money and damages. Respondent Judge had rendered a decision in that case on February 13, 1995, which became final and executory. The motion for execution was filed on April 17, 1998. The defendants, through Atty. Marino A. Abundo, Sr., filed an opposition on April 20, 1998. Respondent Judge claimed the writ of execution was issued on June 14, 1999. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended the case be redocketed as an administrative matter and that Judge Plata be fined. In a Supplementary Pleading, respondent Judge explained the numerous resettings of the hearing for the motion, attributing delay to the parties’ non-appearance, the plaintiff’s constant change of lawyers, and his own caution due to Atty. Abundo’s reputation for filing cases against judges.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Ruben R. Plata is administratively liable for undue delay in resolving the motion for execution of a final and executory judgment.
RULING
Yes, respondent Judge is administratively liable. The Court found his culpability for undue delay, amounting to gross inefficiency and neglect of duty, beyond dispute. The decision had been final since 1995, and execution should issue as a matter of right upon motion. The motion was not complicated, and the opposition could not legally prevent its issuance. Respondent Judge’s failure to act promptly, instead repeatedly resetting hearings, unduly prolonged the case. His attempt to blame the parties’ non-appearance and tactics was without merit, as judges must control proceedings and avoid improvident postponements, adhering to time limits and the duty to dispose of court business promptly. The Court noted respondent’s prior reprimand for similar delay. Although a writ was eventually issued, undue delay and prejudice had already occurred. The penalty was increased to a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000) with a stern warning. The Court also ordered Atty. Marino A. Abundo, Sr. to show cause for potentially violating the Code of Professional Responsibility by unduly delaying the execution.