AM MTJ 08 1697; (February, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. MTJ-P-08-1697. February 29, 2008
Estanislao V. Alviola, complainant, vs. Judge Henry B. Avelino, MCTC, Pontevedra-Panay, Capiz, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Estanislao Alviola filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Henry Avelino for gross neglect of duty concerning Civil Case No. 405, an unlawful detainer case. The pre-trial conference was terminated on August 26, 2004. However, respondent judge failed to issue the mandatory pre-trial order within the prescribed period. Complainant filed a manifestation regarding this omission, but the order remained unissued for over a year.
Subsequently, complainant received a copy of the defendants’ motion for correction of a pre-trial order dated February 6, 2006. He discovered that respondent judge had already issued an Amended Pre-trial Order dated January 2, 2006, granting the motion without prior notice to complainant and without affording him an opportunity to comment, in violation of procedural rules.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Henry Avelino is administratively liable for undue delay in issuing a pre-trial order and for issuing an amended order without due notice.
RULING
Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable. The Court found a clear violation of Paragraph 8, Title I(A) of A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, which mandates judges to issue the pre-trial order within ten days after the pre-trial’s termination. Respondent judge issued the order only on January 2, 2006, over four months after the pre-trial ended on August 26, 2004. This constitutes undue delay.
The legal logic is grounded on the imperative for prompt disposition of cases, especially in unlawful detainer suits governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure, which are designed to prevent delays. The judge’s inaction contravened this very objective. Furthermore, issuing the amended order without notifying the complainant violated Section 4, Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure on motions.
Under Section 9(1), Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering an order is a less serious charge. Considering respondent judge’s previous administrative penalties for gross inefficiency in two other cases, a sterner penalty was warranted. The Court suspended him from office without salary and benefits for two months, with a stern warning against repetition.