A.M. No. MTJ-06-1642. June 15, 2007. MANUEL B. ARCENAS, complainant, vs. JUDGE HENRY B. AVELINO, Presiding Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Pontevedra-Panay, Pontevedra, Capiz, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Manuel B. Arcenas, as attorney-in-fact for the plaintiffs, charged respondent Judge Henry B. Avelino with Gross Inefficiency and Gross Neglect of Duty. The case stemmed from Civil Case No. 391 for Unlawful Detainer. Respondent judge initially dismissed the case. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed this dismissal and remanded the case to respondent’s court for further proceedings on September 24, 2004. However, respondent failed to act on the remanded case.
Respondent had previously been administratively sanctioned in A.M. No. MTJ-05-1583 for failing to decide the same case within the reglementary period and was fined. In his defense for the present complaint, respondent contended that after the RTC reversal and the prior administrative decision, complainant engaged in media hype to influence the case. Believing this, respondent inhibited himself from the case, which was subsequently decided by another judge on July 4, 2005. Complainant denied using media influence and averred that respondent’s inhibition came only in April 2005, over six months after the remand and after this complaint was filed.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Henry B. Avelino is administratively liable for gross inefficiency due to undue delay in acting upon the remanded unlawful detainer case.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of gross inefficiency. The Supreme Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator’s (OCA) findings and recommendation. Judges are mandated by Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct to perform duties with reasonable promptness. Delay in resolving incidents within the 90-day reglementary period constitutes inexcusable gross inefficiency.
The Court found respondent’s justification for the delay—his inhibition due to alleged media hype—untenable. The records showed he sat on the case for over five months before inhibiting himself. His duty to act on the remanded case was ministerial, as the RTC decision was immediately executory under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. Respondent’s inaction demonstrated a disregard for the rules designed to ensure expeditious proceedings, especially in summary cases like unlawful detainer. This was his third administrative offense for gross inefficiency. Considering the prior warnings and penalties, the Court imposed the maximum penalty for a less serious charge under Rule 140: a three-month suspension from office without salary and other benefits, with a stern warning against repetition.