G.R. No. RTJ-15-2408. March 2, 2016.
FLORANTE A. MIANO, complainant, vs. MA. ELLEN M. AGUILAR, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Florante A. Miano filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Ma. Ellen M. Aguilar, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Burgos, Pangasinan, Branch 70, for ignorance of the rules on inhibition and gross inefficiency. The complaint stemmed from several cases, notably Civil Case No. 173-B (Migano case) and Criminal Case No. B-685 (Madarang case), where complainant filed motions for inhibition which respondent granted. In the Migano case, complainant alleged grounds for inhibition including being a personal friend of respondent. After granting the inhibition, respondent issued an Order dated October 11, 2007, directing that proceedings be held in abeyance “until such time that a new Presiding Judge will be appointed by the Court Administrator.” Complainant asserted this violated A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, which provides that in a single-branch RTC, the Order of Inhibition shall be transmitted to the pairing judge who shall then hear and decide the case. Due to this order, the proceedings did not move from 2007 until the filing of the complaint. Complainant also accused respondent of gross inefficiency for failing to resolve motions for inhibition within the 90-day period and alleged bias for denying his motions in cases where the opposing counsel was Atty. Sancho Abasta, Jr., who hails from the same province as respondent.
In her comment, respondent countered that she was aware of the rules on inhibition and the October 11, 2007 Order was only intended to inform the OCA of her inhibition. She attributed the delay in transmitting the records to her Branch Clerk of Court’s failure to do so. She explained her failure to resolve motions within the period was due to heavy workload, as she was also acting presiding judge in RTC-Alaminos City, Branch 54. She denied the motions in cases handled by Atty. Abasta as pro forma, stating that hailing from the same province was insufficient ground for inhibition.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that respondent be found guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law/Procedure, Undue Delay in Issuing Orders in Several Cases, and Undue Delay in Transmitting the Records of a Case, and be dismissed from service.

ISSUE

Whether grounds exist to dismiss respondent from service, as recommended by the OCA.

RULING

The Court concurred with the OCA in finding respondent guilty of Undue Delay in Issuing Orders in Several Cases and Undue Delay in Transmitting the Records of a Case, but differed in finding her guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law/Procedure.
Regarding Gross Ignorance of the Law/Procedure: The Court found that while respondent was remiss in her duty to familiarize herself with the rules on inhibition under A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, specifically Section 8, Chapter V, and erroneously issued the October 11, 2007 Order holding the case in abeyance instead of transmitting it to the pairing judge, such error did not constitute gross ignorance of the law. Gross ignorance requires proof of bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, corruption, or an egregious error amounting to bad faith. The records were devoid of evidence showing respondent was motivated by bad faith. She clarified the order was to inform the OCA, and the delay in transmittal was due to inadvertence and negligence (her Branch Clerk’s failure to properly attach the transmittal letter), not deliberate malice. Bad faith cannot be presumed.
Regarding Undue Delay: The Court found respondent guilty of undue delay in resolving motions for inhibition and in transmitting the records of the Migano case. Despite her heavy workload, she failed to request an extension of time to resolve the motions, which the Court could have granted. The transmittal of the Migano case records occurred only on July 25, 2013, six years after her inhibition in 2007, causing the case to remain pending.
The Court imposed the penalty of suspension for six (6) months without pay for the two less serious charges of undue delay. The OCA’s recommended penalty of dismissal was not adopted.