G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-13-1838, March 12, 2014
Spouses Ricardo and Evelyn Marcelo, Complainants, vs. Judge Ramsey Domingo G. Pichay, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 78, Parañaque City, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainants Spouses Marcelo were plaintiffs in an unlawful detainer case (Civil Case No. 2004-286) against Spouses Magopoy. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Parañaque City, Branch 78, rendered a Joint Decision on September 5, 2005, ordering Spouses Magopoy to vacate the subject property. A writ of execution was issued on April 14, 2006, and implemented on July 27, 2006, resulting in Spouses Marcelo obtaining possession. However, on the same day, Spouses Magopoy re-entered and regained possession.
On August 3, 2007, Spouses Marcelo moved to cite Spouses Magopoy in contempt. The MeTC, in an Order dated February 25, 2009, found the re-entry a defiance of the writ but did not cite them in contempt, instead ordering them to surrender the property within ten days. On June 5, 2009, Spouses Marcelo filed an Ex-Parte Constancia due to Spouses Magopoy’s continued refusal. Judge Pichay issued an Order on August 7, 2009, directing the sheriff to effect eviction within three days. Spouses Magopoy filed a motion for reconsideration on August 26, 2009, opposed by Spouses Marcelo on September 8, 2009.
A hearing was held on September 11, 2009, and Spouses Magopoy filed a Supplemental Motion and Reply on September 24, 2009, alleging that Spouses Marcelo’s sales application over the property had been denied by the DENR. Spouses Marcelo filed a motion submitting all incidents for resolution on September 25, 2009. Instead of resolving the pending incidents, Judge Pichay issued an Order on October 1, 2009, directing Spouses Marcelo to file a comment/opposition to the supplemental motion within five days, after which the court would resolve the incidents. Spouses Marcelo failed to file the comment. Judge Pichay then set the motions for hearing on February 12, 2010, March 16, 2010, and June 15, 2010.
Spouses Marcelo filed an administrative complaint on March 10, 2010, charging Judge Pichay with inordinate delay in resolving the pending incidents. Judge Pichay attributed the delay to the new arguments in the supplemental motion, which he considered a supervening event that could render execution inequitable, and to hearing resets requested by Spouses Marcelo and his sick leave from June 8 to 29, 2010.

ISSUE

Whether or not Judge Pichay should be held administratively liable for undue delay in the resolution of the pending incidents in Civil Case No. 2004-286.

RULING

Yes, Judge Pichay is administratively liable for undue delay. The Constitution and judicial guidelines require lower courts to decide or resolve cases and matters within three months from submission. Judge Pichay failed to resolve the pending incidents—specifically, the motion for reconsideration and supplemental motion—within this period. The October 1, 2009 Order deemed the incidents submitted for resolution upon expiration of the five-day period for Spouses Marcelo’s comment, which they did not file. Despite this, Judge Pichay unnecessarily scheduled hearings in 2010, causing further delay. His explanation that the supplemental motion presented a supervening event requiring hearings was unjustified, as execution proceedings are ministerial once a judgment becomes final, and supervening events affecting execution should be addressed in a separate action. His sick leave also did not excuse the delay, as the incidents were already overdue for resolution before his hospitalization. The Court found Judge Pichay guilty of gross inefficiency for failing to decide the incidents within the reglementary period without seeking an extension. He was fined ₱10,000.00, considering his previous administrative sanction for a similar offense.