AM MTJ 01 1366; (February, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. MTJ-01-1366. February 7, 2003
Atty. Maria Elissa F. Velez vs. Judge Rodrigo R. Flores, MTC-Branch 2, San Fernando, Pampanga
FACTS
Complainant Atty. Maria Elissa F. Velez filed an ejectment case before respondent Judge Rodrigo R. Flores. After the parties submitted their position papers on December 9, 1999, the case was deemed submitted for resolution. Complainant filed two ex-parte motions for early resolution due to inaction. On May 23, 2000, respondent Judge summoned her and, in a low tone, asked if she could instead give to him the financial assistance her clients had offered to the defendants. On May 31, 2000, he again asked her to repeat the offer of P5,000 per defendant, totaling P20,000, within his staff’s hearing, with complainant inferring he expected the money be given to him. The decision was rendered only on June 13, 2000, beyond the 30-day reglementary period for ejectment under the Rules on Summary Procedure.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge is administratively liable for gross misconduct and gross ignorance of the law.
RULING
Yes, respondent Judge is guilty of gross misconduct constituting gross ignorance of the law. The legal logic is twofold. First, his failure to decide the ejectment case within the mandatory 30-day period under Section 10 of the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure is indefensible. The Court rejected his excuse of a clogged docket and research needs, emphasizing that summary procedure rules are designed for expeditious resolution, and any delay is a violation of the parties’ constitutional right to a speedy disposition. This failure constitutes gross ignorance of the law, a serious charge under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.
Second, his solicitation of money from the complainant, whether directly or by implication, constitutes gross misconduct and gross dishonesty. The Court found complainant’s detailed account credible, especially as it was corroborated by the judge’s own staff confirming the delayed draft decision. Such conduct erodes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity. The act of solicitation, coupled with the undue delay, demonstrates a pattern of conduct unbecoming a magistrate. Consequently, the Court imposed the penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of all benefits and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in government, as the offenses strike at the very heart of judicial integrity and competence.