G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-93-799. May 18, 1994.
RURAL BANK OF MALALAG, INC., complainant, vs. JUDGE SEGUNDINO D. MANIWANG, respondent.

FACTS

The Rural Bank of Malalag, Inc., through its manager Antonio P. Dulanas, filed a letter-complaint charging Judge Segundino D. Maniwang of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Malalag-Sulop, Davao del Sur, with undue delay in the disposition of six collection cases (Civil Cases Nos. 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, and 231). Civil Cases Nos. 226, 227, and 228 were filed on September 10, 1991, with no action taken except a pre-trial conference on March 12, 1992. Respondent admitted inaction but claimed two cases were not triable under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure due to the amounts involved. Civil Cases Nos. 229, 230, and 231 were filed on November 15, 1991. Defendants failed to file answers by December 12, 1991. Complainant filed a motion for resolution on May 7, 1992. On June 2, 1992, defendants filed a motion to admit their answers, which respondent granted on June 10, 1992, denying the motion for resolution on grounds that answers raised factual matters needing clarification in a formal hearing. Complainant filed a second motion for resolution on June 26, 1992. In an Order dated July 10, 1992, respondent denied complainant’s motion to declare defendants in default, stating it was a prohibited pleading under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, answers raised a meritorious defense, and factual matters required a formal hearing. After a preliminary conference on August 20, 1992, respondent issued pre-trial orders identifying factual issues: whether defendants fully paid their indebtedness and whether they signed a Special Power of Attorney authorizing Mrs. Dulanas to withdraw checks due to them as teachers. Complainant filed its position paper as required, but defendants did not. On September 15, 1992, complainant filed another motion to resolve, arguing defendants waived their right to present evidence by failing to submit position papers. In an Order dated October 27, 1992, respondent denied the motion, stating a hearing was needed to resolve factual issues, requiring subpoena duces tecum for DECS records, and to give defendants opportunity to establish their defense. Complainant alleged respondent failed to resolve cases under Sections 6 and 10 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure after defendants failed to file answers and position papers, and deviated from the Rule by conducting regular trials under the guise of “clarificatory hearings.” Respondent, in his comment, cited multifarious duties as acting judge in other circuits, limiting hearings in Malalag-Sulop to once a week with preference to criminal cases involving detained prisoners. He denied deviation from the Rule, asserting his actions were consistent with due process to allow defendants to prove payment, and that “clarificatory hearings” were only to allow DECS representatives to bring payrolls.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Segundino D. Maniwang is administratively liable for undue delay in the disposition of the collection cases and for deviating from the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court found respondent’s explanations unsatisfactory. For Civil Cases Nos. 226 and 227, which involved amounts exceeding P10,000.00 (P19,890.91 with attorney’s fees of P5,000.00 and P19,666.07 with attorney’s fees of P5,000.00, respectively), the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure did not apply. However, respondent failed to explain why he did not set these cases for trial under the regular procedure from the pre-trial date (March 12, 1992) until the filing of the administrative complaint (March 22, 1993). For Civil Case No. 228, involving only P7,390.95, respondent did not explain why it was not heard under the summary procedure. While respondent’s multifarious duties slightly diminished his culpability, he did not show his case load in the relevant MCTCs. For Civil Cases Nos. 229, 230, and 231, respondent failed to explain why he did not follow Section 6 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, which mandates judgment when defendants fail to answer. He also did not justify admitting answers filed over five months late. Further, after defendants failed to submit affidavits and position papers as required under Section 9, respondent did not decide the cases as mandated by Section 10. The Court clarified that under Section 10, a court may only resort to “clarificatory procedure” after evaluating submitted affidavits and position papers, not when parties fail to submit them. Respondent’s conduct of “clarificatory hearings” based solely on answers, without prior submission of required evidence, derailed the summary procedure. The Court IMPOSED on respondent a FINE of P5,000.00, with a warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.