“In complaints for forcible entry and unlawful detainer as in this case, Section 10 of the Rules on Summary Procedure specifically requires that the complaint be resolved within thirty (30) days from receipt of the last affidavits and position papers. Without any order of extension granted by this Court, failure to decide even a single case within the required period constitutes gross inefficiency.”

A neophyte MCTC Judge was fined by the Supreme Court for his unjustifiable delay in rendering his decision on one ejectment case.

An administrative complaint was filed by Trinidad Gamboa-Roces charging Judge Ranhel A. Perez, Presiding Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, E.B. Magalona Manapla, Negros Occidental, with gross ignorance of the law for his failure to render judgment on the consolidated ejectment case within the reglementary period as prescribed by law.

Based on the complaint, despite the lapse of more than ten (10) months, Judge Perez failed to decide the case in violation of the 30-day reglementary period within which to decide an ejectment case.

When required to comment, Judge Perez admitted the delay. However, he offered his deepest apology and explaining that the delay was inadvertent and not intended to prejudice the plaintiffs.

The Highest Court of the Land, however, find the Judge’s explanation too flimsy.

“The Court has always reminded the judges to attend promptly to the business of the court and to decide cases within the required periods for the honor and integrity of the Judiciary is measured not only by the fairness and correctness of the decisions rendered, but also by the efficiency with which disputes are resolved.”

, the Court said in its Decision.

>> See Case BrieF 2017-0001: Trinidad Gamboa-Roces vs. Judge Ranhel A. Perez, Presiding Judge, MCTC, Enrique Magalona-Manapla, Negros Occidental [A.M. No. MTJ-16-1887]

Advertisements