G.R. No. RTJ-08-2102. October 14, 2015.
Sugni Realty Holdings and Development Corporation, represented by its Chairman/President, Cynthia Cruz Khemani, Complainant vs. Judge Bernadette S. Paredes-Encinareal, [then in her capacity as Acting Presiding Judge, Branch 10, Regional Trial Court, in Dipolog City], Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, Oroquieta City, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Sugni Realty filed an unlawful detainer case against Spouses Rally and Noemi Falame in the MTCC of Dipolog City, which ruled in Sugni Realty’s favor on January 15, 2005. The Falames appealed to the RTC, where the case was assigned to Branch 10, presided over by respondent Judge Bernadette S. Paredes-Encinareal in an acting capacity. On August 19, 2005, complainant filed an Urgent Motion to Dismiss Appeal due to the Falames’ failure to post a supersedeas bond and deposit monthly rentals. Instead of resolving this motion, respondent Judge issued an order dated September 26, 2005, directing the defendants-appellants to post a supersedeas bond within 20 days and to deposit the monthly rentals periodically to stay execution. On October 6, 2005, respondent Judge received notice that her designation as Acting Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 10, Dipolog City, had been revoked. Despite this, she issued another order dated November 8, 2005, denying complainant’s Urgent Motion to Dismiss Appeal. Complainant charged respondent Judge with gross ignorance of the law or procedure, bias, prejudice, and bribery for allegedly receiving money from one Peter Tan prior to issuing the orders.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge is administratively liable for: (1) gross ignorance of the law or procedure for issuing the orders dated September 26, 2005, and November 8, 2005; (2) unreasonable delay in resolving a motion; and (3) corruption, bias, and partiality.

RULING

The Supreme Court found respondent Judge GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law or procedure for issuing the order dated September 26, 2005. The Court held that under Section 19, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, the duty of the RTC in an appealed ejectment case is to order the execution of the judgment unless the appellant deposits the accrued rentals and files a supersedeas bond. The RTC has no discretion to extend the period for compliance; its only options are to order execution or to allow the appeal to proceed upon proper compliance. By granting the defendants-appellants a 20-day extension to post the bond and deposit rentals, respondent Judge disregarded this mandatory rule. The Court imposed a fine of ₱21,000.00 with a warning.
Regarding the order dated November 8, 2005, the Court ABSOLVED respondent Judge. While she issued it after being relieved of her designation, the Court accepted her explanation that she acted under Item 2 of A.M. No. 04-5-19-SC, which allows a judge to resolve cases submitted for decision or past the trial stage prior to transfer. The Court characterized this as an error of judgment, not warranting administrative sanction.
The charge of unreasonable delay in resolving the complainant’s Motion for Execution Pending Appeal was DISMISSED for lack of merit.
The charges of corruption, bias, and partiality were DISMISSED for lack of evidence, as the complainant failed to substantiate them despite opportunities to present its witness.