A.M. No. MTJ-11-1781. April 25, 2012.
Dr. Ramie G. Hipe, Complainant, vs. Judge Rolando T. Literato, Municipal Trial Court, Mainit, Surigao del Norte, Respondent.

FACTS

The Municipality of Mainit filed an unlawful detainer case against spouses Dr. Hector and Dr. Ramie Hipe before respondent Judge Rolando T. Literato’s court. The spouses, having previously occupied a municipal-owned doctor’s quarter, refused to vacate after Dr. Hector Hipe’s resignation. Complainant Dr. Ramie Hipe filed her Answer, raising affirmative defenses including her alleged right to housing under the Magna Carta for Public Health Workers. She later filed a motion to resolve these affirmative defenses. The case, governed by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, underwent several postponements of the preliminary conference.
Judge Literato rendered a decision in favor of the municipality over a year after the motion to resolve affirmative defenses was submitted for resolution. The complainant subsequently filed this administrative case, accusing the judge of gross ignorance of the law, gross incompetence, and gross dereliction of duty for undue delay in resolving the case and for mishandling the summary procedure.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Rolando T. Literato is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and undue delay in rendering judgment in an ejectment case governed by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Judge Literato administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and undue delay. The legal logic is clear and twofold. First, the judge exhibited gross ignorance of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. In ejectment cases under this rule, the court is mandated to render judgment within thirty (30) days after the receipt of the last affidavits and position papers or the expiration of the period for filing them. The rule expressly prohibits the use of preliminary conferences or hearings on affirmative defenses, as these are not authorized and defeat the summary nature of the proceeding. By conducting a hearing on the motion to resolve affirmative defenses and repeatedly resetting the preliminary conference, Judge Literato disregarded these explicit procedural commands, which constitutes gross ignorance of basic, elementary, and well-known rules.
Second, the judge incurred undue delay. The motion to resolve affirmative defenses was submitted for resolution on June 10, 2008. The decision was promulgated only on April 28, 2009, a delay of over ten months. This period far exceeds not only the 30-day period prescribed by the Summary Procedure but also the 90-day constitutional period for deciding cases. The judge’s heavy workload, while considered in mitigation, does not absolve him from the duty to decide cases promptly and efficiently. The failure to do so within the required periods, without any sufficient justification, constitutes undue delay, which is a less serious charge. Consequently, the Court imposed a fine of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) and issued a stern warning.