A.M. No. MTJ-04-1531. March 6, 2007.
Pastora Dela Cruz, et al. vs. Judge Placido B. Vallarta, MCTC, Cabiao-San Isidro, Nueva Ecija.

FACTS

Complainants, plaintiffs in an unlawful detainer case, filed a Motion to Render Judgment on August 21, 2000, after the defendants failed to file an answer within the reglementary period under Rule 70 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Instead of resolving this motion, respondent judge entertained the defendants’ belated Motion to Dismiss, which he eventually denied on November 10, 2000. Despite complainants’ subsequent Urgent Omnibus Motion to strike the late-filed answer and reiterate the motion for judgment, respondent judge failed to resolve these pending incidents for over a year and nine months, repeatedly setting the case for hearing instead of rendering judgment as mandated by the rules for summary procedure.
During the pendency of this administrative complaint, respondent judge filed a certificate of candidacy in the 2002 Barangay Elections, resulting in his automatic resignation from the judiciary effective June 10, 2002. He also failed to file his comment on the administrative charges despite two directives from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), which were received by him in May and October 2002.

ISSUE

Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for gross negligence and inefficiency for his failure to promptly resolve the pending motions in the unlawful detainer case and for his disregard of Supreme Court directives.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found him guilty of gross negligence and inefficiency. Under Section 7, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, governing summary procedure for ejectment cases, if the defendant fails to file an answer within ten days, the court must, motu proprio or upon plaintiff’s motion, render judgment. Respondent judge’s inaction on the Motion to Render Judgment for an excessive period, while giving judicial cognizance to a prohibited motion to dismiss, constituted undue delay and a blatant disregard of procedural rules designed for expeditious resolution. This delay of over a year and nine months violated the Court’s circulars mandating prompt disposition of cases.
Furthermore, his failure to comply with the OCA’s directives to file his comment constituted contempt of court and was interpreted as a waiver of his right to present evidence. His resignation from service did not divest the Court of jurisdiction to adjudicate the administrative charges. Considering his separation from service, the imposable penalty of suspension was no longer feasible. The Court instead imposed fines of Eleven Thousand Pesos (₱11,000.00) for gross negligence and Five Thousand Pesos (₱5,000.00) for contempt of court.