A.M. No. MTJ-07-1672; July 9, 2007
CAPT. SALVADOR BERNALDEZ (ret.), Complainant, vs. Judge HENRY B. AVELINO and Clerk of Court GUILLERMO E. ACOLOLA, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Capt. Salvador Bernaldez filed an unlawful detainer case (Civil Case No. 371) in 1997 before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Panay-Pontevedra, presided by respondent Judge Henry B. Avelino. The case, governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure, was delayed for nearly a decade. Initial delays involved a referral to the Department of Agrarian Reform to determine jurisdiction. Subsequently, the complainant himself filed multiple motions for postponement of the mandatory preliminary conferences from 1998 to 2001, all of which were granted by the respondent judge.
After the last postponement in 2001, the case lay dormant. In 2003, the complainant moved to set the case for conference, which was scheduled but postponed by the judge due to illness. No further action was taken. By 2004, with the case still unresolved, the complainant filed this administrative complaint, alleging abuse of authority and inordinate delay against both the judge and the clerk of court, Guillermo E. Acolola. Respondents countered that the delays were primarily due to the complainant’s own motions and the judge’s heavy workload from additional court assignments.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Judge Henry B. Avelino and Clerk of Court Guillermo E. Acolola are administratively liable for the undue delay in the disposition of the summary ejectment case.

RULING

The Court found Judge Avelino administratively liable for undue delay, a less serious charge, but modified the recommended sanction. The legal logic is anchored on the constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases and the judicial mandate for efficiency. While the initial postponements were attributable to the complainant, the judge possessed and failed to exercise control over the proceedings after the motions were resolved. The Rule on Summary Procedure is designed for expeditious resolution, yet the case remained pending for almost ten years. The judge’s duty to manage his docket actively includes the power to deny dilatory motions and to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute after an unreasonable period of inactivity, which he neglected to do. His prior administrative sanction for similar inefficiency warranted a sterner penalty. Thus, he was fined Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00).
Clerk of Court Acolola was exonerated. His role is primarily administrative; he scheduled the conferences as directed. The duty to monitor the case’s status and initiate actions to expedite its disposition ultimately rests with the presiding judge, not the clerk of court. There was no evidence that Acolola contributed to the delay through malfeasance or neglect of his specific ministerial duties.