G.R. No. MTJ-05-1610. September 26, 2005
DR. JOSE S. LUNA, Complainant, vs. JUDGE EDUARDO H. MIRAFUENTE, Municipal Trial Court, Buenavista, Marinduque, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Dr. Jose S. Luna filed an unlawful detainer case against defendants Florencio and Alex Sadiwa before respondent Judge Eduardo H. Mirafuente’s court. The defendants filed an answer that was both unverified and submitted seven days beyond the ten-day reglementary period prescribed under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. Dr. Luna’s counsel consequently filed a Motion for Judgment, invoking Section 6 of said Rule, which mandates that judgment be rendered if an answer is not filed within the period. Respondent Judge denied the motion, admitting the belated and unverified answer. He justified his action based on the “spirit of justice and fair play,” noting the defendants acted without counsel, the delay was minimal considering holidays, and they might have been confused about the filing period. This denial prompted Dr. Luna to file the present administrative complaint for Grave Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Service, Violation of the Rules on Summary Procedure, and Gross Ignorance of the Law.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge is administratively liable for admitting the belated and unverified answer in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.

RULING

Yes, but the penalty is mitigated to a severe reprimand. The Supreme Court found respondent Judge violated Section 6 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. The Rule uses the mandatory term “shall,” requiring the court to render judgment if an answer is not filed within ten days. The objective is to ensure the speedy disposition of ejectment cases, which involve disturbance of social order. Liberal interpretation cannot be invoked to subvert this clear mandate, as admitting a late answer defeats the purpose of expediency and puts a premium on dilatory tactics. However, the Court distinguished between an error in judgment and an administrative offense. The act did not constitute grave misconduct or gross ignorance of the law, which requires a showing of bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or a conscious disregard of simple and settled law. The Court considered mitigating circumstances: the defendants were without counsel, there was no showing of malice or corrupt motive on the judge’s part, and the lack of verification is a formal, not jurisdictional, defect. Following precedent, the penalty was reduced from the recommended fine to a severe reprimand with a warning.