A.M. No. RTJ-16-2467. October 18, 2017. ATTY. EDDIE U. TAMONDONG, Petitioner, vs. JUDGE EMMANUEL P. PASAL, Presiding Judge, Branch 38, Regional Trial Court, Cagayan De Oro City, Respondent.
FACTS:

Atty. Eddie U. Tamondong filed an administrative complaint against Judge Emmanuel P. Pasal for gross ignorance of the law and gross incompetence. The complaint stemmed from the Judge’s Resolution dated December 23, 2013, which dismissed a Petition for Certiorari filed by Atty. Tamondong’s client, Henmar Development Property, Inc. (Henmar). Henmar had sought to nullify orders from a Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) that denied its motion to dismiss a quieting of title case. Atty. Tamondong argued the Resolution was legally erroneous on three points: improper service of summons on Henmar, the MTCC’s lack of territorial jurisdiction over the subject property, and the action’s prescription.
Subsequently, Henmar filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the dismissal. Judge Pasal deemed the motion submitted for resolution on February 24, 2014. However, he failed to resolve it for over six months, prompting Atty. Tamondong to amplify his administrative complaint to include charges of gross inefficiency and neglect of duty for this undue delay.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Emmanuel P. Pasal should be held administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and/or gross incompetence based on his legal rulings, and for undue delay in resolving a pending motion.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the complaint for gross ignorance of the law and/or gross incompetence but found Judge Pasal GUILTY of undue delay and imposed a fine of Two Thousand Pesos (₱2,000.00).
On the charge of gross ignorance, the Court ruled that an administrative complaint is not the proper remedy to correct a judge’s alleged legal errors. Such errors, assuming they exist, are judicial in nature and should be addressed through the appropriate judicial appeals, not an administrative proceeding. The Court emphasized that for a judge to be held administratively liable for gross ignorance, the error must be so gross and patent as to imply bad faith or a deliberate intent to perpetrate an injustice. Judge Pasal’s Resolution, which discussed conflicting jurisprudence on corporate summons and analyzed issues of jurisdiction and prescription, demonstrated an exercise of judicial discretion, not utter disregard of settled law. Thus, the complaint on this ground was judicial in nature and dismissed.
However, the Court sustained the charge of undue delay in resolving the Motion for Reconsideration. Judges are mandated to resolve cases and motions promptly and within prescribed periods. Judge Pasal’s failure to act on the motion for more than six months constituted a violation of this duty, amounting to inefficiency. The Court noted that while Judge Pasal eventually resolved the motion, the delay remained inexcusable. Considering his seven years of service and the eventual resolution, the Court deemed a fine of ₱2,000.00 as sufficient penalty for this less serious charge of undue delay.