A.M. No. MTJ-08-1700; July 23, 2008
Rolando V. Blanco, Petitioner, vs. Judge Teresito A. Andoy, Municipal Trial Court, Cainta, Rizal, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Rolando V. Blanco filed an administrative complaint against Judge Teresito A. Andoy for gross incompetence, gross misconduct, and violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. Blanco alleged that an affidavit-complaint for estafa and violations of B.P. 22 was filed against him and subscribed before the respondent judge, leading him to believe the judge had improperly influenced the filing. Blanco further claimed that his “Ex Parte Very Urgent Motion to Resolve and to Grant Motion for Admission…” filed in October 2006 was only resolved by the judge in an order dated October 1, 2007, after more than five months from the date the last related pleading was filed. Blanco also asserted that no preliminary investigation was conducted for the estafa cases.
In his defense, Judge Andoy denied any connivance and insisted due process was followed. He admitted the delay in resolving the motion but claimed it was finally acted upon. He further admitted that, due to inadvertence, the court proceeded with the estafa cases—specifically three where the penalties exceeded four years, two months, and one day—up to arraignment without conducting the required preliminary investigation, later endorsing them to the prosecutor only in October 2007.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Teresito A. Andoy is administratively liable for undue delay in resolving a pending motion and for gross ignorance of the law or procedure.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Judge Andoy guilty of both charges. On the first charge, the Court held that the judge violated the constitutional mandate and Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requiring prompt disposition of court business. Blanco’s motion was deemed submitted for resolution on January 16, 2007, but was only resolved on October 1, 2007, a delay exceeding the mandated three-month period. This constitutes undue delay in rendering an order, a less serious offense.
More significantly, the Court found the judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law or procedure. Under Section 1, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, a preliminary investigation is required for offenses where the penalty exceeds four years, two months, and one day. Judge Andoy’s admission that he inadvertently failed to conduct this mandatory proceeding for three estafa charges demonstrated an utter unfamiliarity with basic legal procedure. The Court emphasized that when the law is elementary, not to know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law, which is a serious charge that erodes public confidence in the judiciary. While noting the judge’s lack of malicious intent and his impending retirement, the Court imposed an aggregate fine of Twenty-Five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00) for both offenses, with a stern warning.