A.M. No. MTJ-06-1631 September 30, 2008
Fenina R. Santos vs. Judge Erasto D. Tanciongco

FACTS

Complainant Fenina R. Santos filed a verified letter-complaint against Judge Erasto D. Tanciongco of the First Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Dinalupihan-Hermosa, Bataan, for manifest bias, partiality, and neglect of duty in relation to Civil Case No. 1334, an action for forcible entry with a temporary restraining order and injunction filed by Santos and her husband on December 16, 2003. Santos alleged that Judge Tanciongco exhibited uncalled-for liberality by accepting the defendants’ Answer filed beyond the ten-day reglementary period under the Rule on Summary Procedure, reset the case multiple times from February 5 to December 7, 2004, despite defendants’ non-appearance, and failed to act on her motion to render judgment. She also claimed that on February 1, 2005, Judge Tanciongco ordered the start of a preliminary hearing instead of addressing her motion. Judge Tanciongco denied the allegations, asserting he conducted hearings in accordance with law, observed due process, and attributed delays to the non-appearance of parties and counsel. He explained he did not act on the motion to render judgment due to efforts to settle the case amicably and later voluntarily inhibited himself. The case was investigated by Executive Judge Jose Ener S. Fernando, who found Judge Tanciongco guilty of gross ignorance of the law and inefficiency tantamount to neglect of duty, recommending a two-month suspension and a P20,000 fine. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) concurred but recommended increasing the fine to P30,000.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Erasto D. Tanciongco is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and inefficiency tantamount to neglect of duty in handling Civil Case No. 1334.

RULING

The Supreme Court found Judge Tanciongco guilty of gross ignorance of the law and inefficiency tantamount to neglect of duty. The Court accepted the investigating judge’s findings that Judge Tanciongco violated the Rule on Summary Procedure by giving defendants fifteen days instead of ten days to file an Answer, failing to act on the complainant’s motion to strike out the Answer and motion to render judgment, and causing undue delay in the disposition of the case. The Court noted that while the error was a lapse in procedure without bad faith or corrupt motive, it constituted gross ignorance of the law. However, the Court considered Judge Tanciongco’s retirement on June 22, 2007, making suspension impractical. Instead, the Court imposed a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), to be deducted from his retirement benefits, deeming this penalty more reasonable and appropriate than the OCA’s recommended increase. The charges of bias and partiality were dismissed for lack of substantial evidence.