A.M. No. RTJ-16-2482. August 15, 2018. ATTY. CARLOS D. CINCO, COMPLAINANT, VS. PRESIDING JUDGE ALFONSO C. RUIZ II, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 216, QUEZON CITY, RESPONDENT.
FACTS

Complainant Atty. Carlos D. Cinco, counsel for the plaintiff in a civil case, filed an administrative complaint against Presiding Judge Alfonso C. Ruiz II for Gross Ignorance of the Law, Gross Inefficiency, and Gross Misconduct. The charges stemmed from two primary acts: first, the alleged undue delay of over nine months in resolving complainant’s “Additional Formal Offer of Evidence (Rebuttal)” filed in August 2014; and second, the denial of the admission of several exhibits attached to complainant’s Amended Judicial Affidavit for Rebuttal. Complainant argued that since the opposing parties waived cross-examination on his judicial affidavit, they were deemed to have admitted its contents and attached exhibits. He further contended that a prayer within the affidavit for the marking of said exhibits should have sufficed, making the judge’s subsequent denial of their admission erroneous.
The procedural history reveals that after the formal offer was filed, the defendants filed an opposition, prompting respondent judge to set a clarificatory hearing. Complainant failed to attend this hearing. The judge then ordered complainant to file a rejoinder, which he did, reiterating his position instead of moving for formal marking. After complainant filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Resolve the pending formal offer, respondent judge issued an Order in May 2015 denying the admission of the subject exhibits because they were not duly marked during the presentation of rebuttal evidence. The judge maintained that approval of a judicial affidavit in lieu of direct testimony does not automatically constitute the marking of attached documents.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Alfonso C. Ruiz II is administratively liable for undue delay in resolving the formal offer of evidence and for his handling of the evidentiary matters.

RULING

Yes, but only for undue delay. The Supreme Court found respondent judge guilty of undue delay in rendering an order, which is a less serious charge under Section 9(1), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. The Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator’s (OCA) finding that the period from the filing of the last pleading (complainant’s rejoinder in February 2015) to the resolution of the formal offer (the Order dated May 19, 2015) constituted an unreasonable delay of three months for a simple incident. The 90-day reglementary period for deciding cases does not apply to interlocutory matters, but judges must still resolve them within a reasonable time to avoid accusations of inefficiency. The delay here was unjustified.
However, the Court absolved respondent judge of the charges of gross ignorance of the law and gross misconduct regarding the denial of the exhibits. The ruling on the evidentiary issue was a proper exercise of judicial discretion. The Court explained that the waiver of cross-examination on a judicial affidavit does not equate to an admission of the exhibits attached thereto. Marking of exhibits is a distinct procedural step required for their formal offer and admission into evidence. It is the duty of the proponent to have exhibits marked at the appropriate time, typically during the testimony, and a mere prayer in a judicial affidavit is insufficient. The judge’s actions to afford complainant an opportunity to cure the defect through a clarificatory hearing and a rejoinder were correct and demonstrated an effort to be fair, not ignorance of the law. Considering the circumstances and that this was respondent’s first infraction, the Court deemed an admonition sufficient, with a stern warning against repetition.