Manila
EN BANC
[ A.M. No. RTJ-23-039 (Formerly JIB FPI No. 21-075-RTJ), August 20, 2024 ]
ROLLY C. CASTILLO, COMPLAINANT, VS. HON. MIGUEL S. ASUNCION, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 99, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ANTIPOLO CITY, RIZAL, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
INTING, J.:
Before the Court is a Complaint1 filed by Rolly C. Castillo (Castillo) against Hon. Miguel S. Asuncion (Judge Asuncion), Presiding Judge of Branch 99, Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City, Rizal (RTC) for Dishonesty and Gross Inefficiency.
The Antecedents
Castillo and the other stall holders at the New Cubao Central Market in Cainta, Rizal (plaintiffs) filed a Complaint for Damages with Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction against Princeville Construction and Development Corporation and Engineer Alfred Figueras (defendants) before the RTC for forcibly driving them out of the market and taking possession and control over it. The case, docketed as Civil Case No. 15-10803, was raffled to the RTC presided by Judge Asuncion.2
On April 1, 2016, Judge Asuncion conducted a hearing on the plaintiffs' prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. He ordered the parties to file their respective memoranda within 15 days from receipt of the ruling of the court on the formal offer of evidence, after which, the matter shall be deemed submitted for resolution.3 Judge Asuncion issued separate Orders,4 dated February 12, 2016, and April 27, 2016, respectively admitting the exhibits formally offered by the plaintiffs and the defendants in relation to the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs submitted their Memorandum5 on July 14, 2016, while the defendants did not.6
On July 20, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Re-Open Hearing on Plaintiffs' Prayer for Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction7 (motion to re-open) praying for the reopening of the hearing on the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in view of the plaintiffs' newly discovered evidence. Judge Asuncion then required the parties to submit their pleadings. Despite compliance with this Order, the plaintiffs' motion was not resolved8 so they filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Resolve Prayer for Writ of Preliminary Injunction9 dated June 5, 2017, a Second Ex-Parte Motion to Resolve10 dated November 2, 2017, an Ex Parte Motion to Resolve11 dated April 23, 2018, and an Ex Parte Motion for Resolution of Prayer for Writ of Injunction12 dated December 7, 2018.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a Motion to Transfer Case to Another Sala13 (motion to transfer) dated February 19, 2020, and a Motion for Inhibition14 dated August 20, 2020.
Due to Judge Asuncion's continued failure to resolve their prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, Castillo filed the present Complaint against him. He argued that Judge Asuncion is guilty of Gross Inefficiency for his failure to resolve their prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, and Dishonesty for certifying, in relation to receiving his salary, that he has no pending matters to resolve.15
In its 1st Indorsement16 dated November 16, 2021, the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB), through the Office of its Acting Executive Director (OED), required Judge Asuncion to file a verified comment to the verified Complaint within 10 days from his receipt of the Indorsement. The JIB issued another Indorsement17 dated February 2, 2023, reiterating that Judge Asuncion should file his verified comment, as well as to show cause why he should not be disciplined as a member of the Bar for violation of Canon 12, Rule 12.0418 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).(awÞhi(
Judge Asuncion finally filed his Motion to Admit19 with Comment20 on April 17, 2023. He averred that he had to attend to an influx of equally important and pressing matters that demanded his immediate attention: (1) his designation as Executive Judge for the RTC Antipolo City from October 16, 2020, to November 3, 2022, or during the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) the conduct of hearings for applications of search warrants during said period; (3) pending applications for bail; (4) various meetings with local government offices; (5) his assignment as Assisting Judge21 in January 2021; (6) his additional designation as Special Commercial Court and Cybercrime Court; and (7) the issuance of various circulars directing judges to give preference to criminal cases. Judge Asuncion explained that the foregoing contributed to the lapse of time that it took to resolve Civil Case No. 15-10803.22
In addition, Judge Asuncion averred that Castillo filed several motions that prayed for different reliefs. In any event, Judge Asuncion issued an Order23 dated April 11, 2023, denying the plaintiffs' prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. Judge Asuncion pointed out that the present Complaint is not the proper remedy to assail his ruling in the civil case. Finally, he stated that he was adopting his Comment as to why he should not be penalized as a member of the Bar.24
The Recommendation of the OED
The OED made the following recommendation in its May 29, 2023 Report and Recommendation:25
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Board that the instant administrative matter be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter and DOCKETED as an administrative case and the following recommendations be made to the Supreme Court:
1) respondent Presiding Judge Miguel S. Asuncion, Branch 99, Regional Trial Court, Antipolo City, Rizal, be found GUILTY of gross neglect of duty and FINED in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos ([PHP] 250,000.00), payable within three (3) months from receipt of the decision or resolution;
2) respondent Judge Asuncion, as a member of the Philippine Bar, be found GUILTY of violation of Section 2, Canon III and Sections 3 and 4, Canon IV of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability and FINED in the amount of Eighteen Thousand Pesos ([PHP] 18,000.00), payable within three (3) months from the time of his receipt of the decision or resolution; and
3) respondent Judge Asuncion be STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely by the Supreme Court.26
The OED opined that pursuant to Article VIII, Section 15(1) of the Constitution, Judge Asuncion should have resolved the issue on the writ of preliminary injunction within three months from July 14, 2016, or when the plaintiffs submitted their memorandum. It noted that Judge Asuncion resolved it seven years later, or on April 11, 2023, and he similarly failed to act on the plaintiffs' ex parte motions or motion to reopen.27
Thus, the OED found that Judge Asuncion was clearly negligent in timely resolving the matter, in accordance with Canon 6, Section 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (New Code of Judicial Conduct) and Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Circular No. 243-2022.28
The OED did not find acceptable the reasons given by Judge Asuncion for the delay as the case was deemed submitted for resolution before the COVID-19 pandemic took place. It explained that the delay constitutes Gross Neglect of Duty because his failure to resolve the matter for seven years was simply inexcusable.29
The OED took into consideration the other administrative cases involving Judge Asuncion, some of which are still under evaluation, in determining the recommended penalty. In Pelaez v. Hon. Asuncion,30 Judge Asuncion was reprimanded for undue delay in rendering a decision/order.31
The OED recommended that Judge Asuncion be held liable as a member of the Bar in line with Rule 140, Section 4 of the Rules of Court. There being no corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules, the OED opined that Judge Asuncion committed Simple Misconduct under Canon VI, Section 34(a) of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability for failing to comply with Canon III, Section 232 and Canon IV, Sections 3 and 433 thereof. The OED considered the mitigating circumstance of the absence of bad faith or malice on the part of Judge Asuncion in recommending the penalty for this violation.34
The Recommendation of the JIB
The JIB recommended as follows in its June 8, 2023 Report:35
ACCORDINGLY, we respectfully RECOMMEND to the Honorable Supreme Court that:
1. The instant administrative matter be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter;
2. Respondent Presiding JUDGE MIGUEL S. ASUNCION, Branch 99, Regional Trial Court, Antipolo City, Rizal, be found GUILTY of gross neglect of duty and FINED in the amount of Four Hundred Thousand Pesos ([PHP] 400,000.00), payable within three (3) months from receipt of the decision or resolution; and
3. Respondent Judge Asuncion be STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely by the Supreme Court.36
According to the JIB, the plaintiffs' prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction was submitted for resolution on April 1, 2016, but it was only resolved on April 11, 2023. The JIB agreed with the OED's observation that the matter was submitted for resolution long before the COVID-19 pandemic took place. Canon 6, Section 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct and OCA Circular No. 243-2022 require the timely resolution of pending incidents. Hence, the JIB found Judge Asuncion guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty. The JIB took note of the other administrative cases involving Judge Asuncion in recommending a penalty of a fine of PHP 400,000.00.37
The Issue
The issue before the Court is whether Judge Asuncion is guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty in the Performance or Non-Performance of Official Functions under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC.
The Ruling of the Court
The Court agrees with the findings of the JIB but modifies the penalty imposed.
Preliminarily, the Court clarifies that the subject of the Complaint is the alleged delay of Judge Asuncion in resolving the plaintiffs' prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. Castillo does not assail the denial of their prayer in his Complaint before the Court. Accordingly, the principle that judicial remedies must first be exhausted before resorting to an administrative complaint,38 does not apply here.
The timely resolution of pending matters before the court is required by no less than Article VIII, Section 15 of the Constitution:
SECTION 15. (1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.
(2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pending, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself.
(3) Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice or the presiding judge shall forthwith be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case or matter, and served upon the parties. The certification shall state why a decision or resolution has not been rendered or issued within said period.
(4) Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period, the court, without prejudice to such responsibility as may have been incurred in consequence thereof, shall decide or resolve the case or matter submitted thereto for determination, without further delay.
Thus, Canon 6, Section 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins judges to promptly rule on cases pending before the court:
SECTION 5. Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable promptness.
In relation thereto, OCA Circular No. 243-2022 reminded judges to observe the following guidelines:
1. To strictly observe the reglementary or prescribed periods to decide pending cases and/or resolve incidents, and if in the mind of the Judge he or she could not comply with the aforementioned prescribed period/s, he or she may ask the Court, through the Office of the Court Administrator, for an extension of time to do so. Appended herein for your guidance is a list of reglementary periods to decide cases and/or resolve incidents (see Annex "A");
2. Except in certain situations under the Rules of Expedited Procedure in the First Level Courts in which memoranda are prohibited, cases are deemed submitted for decision upon admission of the evidence, unless the court directs the parties to argue or to submit their respective memoranda or any further pleadings; and
3. The "[f]ailure to decide cases within the reglementary period constitutes a ground for administrative liability except when there are valid reasons for the delay."
The plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 15-10803 filed their Complaint for Damages with Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction on November 11, 2015. Judge Asuncion issued an Order dated April 1, 2016, which required the parties to file their memoranda within 15 days from receipt of the ruling of the court on the formal offer of evidence, and declared the matter deemed submitted for resolution upon the lapse of such period. Judge Asuncion issued an Order dated February 12, 2016, and April 27, 2016, respectively, admitting the pieces of evidence of the plaintiffs and the defendants. Only the plaintiffs filed their memorandum on July 14, 2016. Nonetheless, Judge Asuncion only ruled on the plaintiffs' prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction on April 11, 2023, or almost seven years after it was submitted for resolution.
Judge Asuncion avers that the plaintiffs filed several motions which contributed to the delay in the resolution of their prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. However, the plaintiffs cannot be blamed for such delay as it was already existent even before they filed their various motions a year after they submitted their memorandum, or on July 20, 2017. Further, the motions filed by the plaintiffs were consistent with their previous prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. The various ex parte motions merely urged Judge Asuncion to finally rule on the matter, while the motion to reopen allegedly presented new evidence in support of their prayer. The motion to transfer and motion for inhibition were likewise filed for the purpose of securing the preliminary injunction, albeit through another court. Furthermore, Judge Asuncion still incurred delay even if the period is counted from the plaintiffs' motion to reopen, as it was filed in 2017, but he issued an order only in 2023.
Judge Asuncion also tries to excuse the delay on the ground that he had other pressing matters to deal with during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. But as duly observed by the JIB, the plaintiffs' prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction was submitted for resolution long before the COVID-19 pandemic began. While the COVID-19 pandemic was surely a challenging time for all members of the Judiciary, it cannot be used as a justification for wrongful acts or omissions that took place prior to or during this period.
Undue delay in rendering an order is now subsumed under neglect of duty in Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as further amended. On the one hand, it is considered Gross Neglect of Duty when it is "characterized by the want of even slight care, or by acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but [willfully] and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to the consequences, insofar as other persons may be affected."39 On the other hand, it is Simple Neglect of Duty when there is failure to give proper attention to a required task or a disregard of duty due to carelessness or indifference.40
Judge Asuncion's seven-year delay is inexcusable considering that the prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, by its nature, implies that it must be addressed urgently. Castillo explained in the pleadings that their very livelihood was at stake.41 Judge Asuncion did not offer any sufficient justification for his delay, such as the complexity of the case or the filing of dilatory motions by the parties. Taking these circumstances into consideration, Judge Asuncion is guilty of gross neglect of duty.
Gross Neglect of Duty in the Performance or Non-performance of Official Functions is a serious charge under Rule 140, Section 14(d) of the Rules of Court, as further amended, that is punishable by first, dismissal from the service together with its accessory penalties; second, suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than six months but not exceeding one year; or third, a fine of more than PHP 100,000.00 but not exceeding PHP 200,000.00.
Rule 140, Section 19(2)(a) of the Rules of Court, as further amended, considers the finding of previous administrative liability where a penalty is imposed, regardless of nature and/or gravity, as an aggravating circumstance that may increase the penalty of suspension or fine for a period or amount not exceeding double of the maximum prescribed under the Rules. To reiterate, Judge Asuncion was reprimanded by the Court in Pelaez for his undue delay in resolving a motion. The Court sternly warned Judge Asuncion that "a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely."42 As such, the Court finds that Judge Asuncion should be penalized with a fine of PHP 201,000.00 for his Gross Neglect of Duty in the case.
Notably, Castillo also accused Judge Asuncion of committing Dishonesty by certifying that he had no pending matters to resolve in order to receive his salary.43 Neither the OED nor the JIB addressed this issue. In any event, the Court cannot give credence to Castillo's allegation in the absence of any evidence to support it.
The Court further notes that the OED of the JIB recommended that Judge Asuncion likewise be penalized in his capacity as a member of the Bar. Considering that the JIB only acted on Judge Asuncion's violation under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended, the ruling in the present case shall not include Judge Asuncion's alleged violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability.
The speedy disposition of cases is a constitutionally-guaranteed right of all persons. It is a cornerstone of the Judiciary. While the Court is mindful of the challenges faced by our judges in performing their duties, it shall not hesitate to hold them accountable when they fail to do so without any acceptable reason. Thus, the Court cannot countenance Judge Asuncion's negligence in acting on the plaintiffs' prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. He must be held liable for his failure to comply with his duty as a judge.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court FINDS respondent Hon. Miguel S. Asuncion, Presiding Judge, Branch 99, Regional Trial Court, Antipolo, Rizal, GUILTY of Gross Neglect of Duty in the Performance or Non-Performance of Official Functions under Rule 140, Section 14(d) of the Rules of Court, as further amended by A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC, and hereby ORDERS him to pay a FINE of PHP 201,000.00. Respondent Hon. Miguel S. Asuncion is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Rosario, J. Lopez, Dimaampao, Marquez, Kho, Jr., and Singh, JJ., concur.
Caguioa, J., see concurring opinion.
Footnotes
1 Rollo, pp. 2-7, dated August 20, 2021.
2 Id. at 166-167.
3 Id. at 167.
4 Id. at 38 and 51, respectively.
5 Id. at 52-62.
6 Id. at 167.
7 Id. at 63-67.
8 Id. at 167.
9 Id. at 124-125.
10 Id. at 126-127.
11 Id. at 128-129.
12 Id. at 130-131.
13 Id. at 132-133.
14 Id. at 134-135.
15 Id. at 6, 168.
16 Id. at 136.
17 Id. at 137-138.
18 CODE OF PROF. RESPONSIBILITY, Canon 12 states:
CANON 12 — A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
RULE 12.04 A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a Judgment or misuse Court processes.
19 Rollo, pp. 141-143.
20 Id. at 144-147.
21 Id. at 144. Judge Asuncion did not identify which branch he was assigned to as Assisting Judge.
22 Id. at 144-145.
23 Id. at 148-155.
24 Id. at 145-146.
25 Id. at 158-165. Penned by Deputy Clerk of Court at-Large, OCA and Acting Executive Director, JIB James D.V. Navarrete.
26 Id. at 164-165.
27 Id. at 161.
28 Reiteration on the Directive to Comply with the Reglementary Periods to Decide Cases and/or Resolve Incidents, OCA Circular No. 243-2022. Approved on September 19, 2022.
29 Rollo, p. 162.
30 A.M. No. RTJ-20-2592 [Formerly OCA IPI-4957-RTJ], July 6, 2021 [Notice, First Division].
31 Rollo, p. 163.
32 CODE OF PROF. RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY, Canon III, sec. 2 states:
SECTION 2. The responsible and accountable lawyer. — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land, promote respect for laws and legal processes, safeguard human rights, and at all times advance the honor and integrity of the legal profession.
As an officer of the court, a lawyer shall uphold the rule of law and conscientiously assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.
As an advocate, a lawyer shall represent the client with fidelity and zeal within the bounds of the law and the CPRA.
33 CODE OF PROF. RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY, Canon IV, secs. 3 and 4 state:
SECTION 3. Diligence and punctuality. — A lawyer shall diligently and seasonably act on any legal matter entrusted by a client.
A lawyer shall be punctual in all appearances, submissions of pleadings and documents before any court, tribunal or other government agency, and all matters professionally referred by the client, including meetings and other commitments.
SECTION 4. Diligence in all undertakings. — A lawyer shall observe diligence in all professional undertakings, and shall not cause or occasion delay in any legal matter before any court, tribunal, or other agency.
A lawyer shall appear for trial adequately familiar with the law, the facts of the case, and the evidence to be presented. A lawyer shall also be ready with the object and documentary evidence, as well as the judicial affidavits of the witnesses, when required by the rules or the court.
34 Rollo, pp. 163-164.
35 Id. at 166-175. Penned by Vice Chairperson Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez (Ret.) and concurred in by Chairperson Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. (Ret.), First Regular Member Justice Sesinando E. Villon (Ret.), Second Regular Member Justice Rodolfo A. Ponferrada (Ret.), and Third Regular Member Justice Cielito N. Mindaro-Grulla (Ret.).
36 Id. at 174.
37 Id. at 170-174.
38 Tallado v. Racoma, A.M. No. RTJ-22-022, August 23, 2022 at 8-10. This pinpoint citation refers to the copy of the Resolution uploaded to the Supreme Court website.
39 Re: Darwin A. Reci, 805 Phil. 290, 292 (2017).
40 Office of the Court Administrator v. Montero, A.M. No. RTJ-20-2582 [Formerly A.M. No. 20-06-74-RTC], August 16, 2022 [Per Curiam, En Banc] at 9. This pinpoint citation refers to the copy of the Resolution uploaded to the Supreme Court website.
41 Rollo, p. 6.
42 Pelaez v. Asuncion, A.M. No. RTJ-20-2592 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-4957-RTJ], July 6, 2021 [Notice, First Division].
43 Rollo, p. 6.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
