G.R. No.: A.M. No. MTJ-11-1782; March 23, 2011 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-1807-MTJ)
Case Title: Josefina Naguiat, Complainant, vs. Judge Mario B. Capellan, Presiding Judge, MTCC, Br. 1, Malolos City, Bulacan, Respondent.

FACTS

The administrative case originated from a verified letter-complaint dated August 2, 2005, filed by Josefina Naguiat, then president and general manager of Sta. Monica Industrial and Development Corporation. She charged Judge Mario B. Capellan with undue delay in rendering judgment in Civil Case No. 98-84, an ejectment case filed on August 12, 1998, and governed by the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. The case involved multiple defendants who filed their answers and pre-trial briefs between September 1998 and January 1999. The plaintiff submitted its position paper on January 29, 2001, while the defendants filed theirs on January 17, 2001, and March 26, 2003. Respondent Judge dismissed the case only on December 3, 2003—over seven months after the last position paper was filed—on the ground that the plaintiff’s representative lacked the personality to file the suit, an issue apparent from the complaint’s filing. The complainant alleged it took six years to resolve the case on a technicality. In his Comment, the respondent judge admitted most pleadings but attributed the delay to numerous filings, postponements, and the plaintiff’s purported failure to submit a position paper, claiming he could have decided sooner but for a new counsel’s appearance necessitating multiple resets.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Mario B. Capellan is administratively liable for undue delay in rendering a decision in an ejectment case covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge is administratively liable for undue delay. The Supreme Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator’s (OCA) findings that respondent committed at least four procedural lapses causing unnecessary delay:
1. Failure to Dismiss Outright: Under Section 4 of the Rule on Summary Procedure, the judge must examine the complaint and attached evidence to dismiss outright on apparent grounds. The ground for dismissal (lack of personality of the plaintiff’s representative) was evident upon the complaint’s filing on August 12, 1998, yet the judge allowed the case to proceed for over five years.
2. Waiver of Defense: Under Section 5 of the same Rule, affirmative and negative defenses not pleaded in the answer are deemed waived, except lack of jurisdiction. None of the defendants’ answers raised the issue of lack of personality; thus, it was waived, making the dismissal on that ground improper.
3. Improvident Postponements: Respondent granted fourteen (14) postponements during the preliminary conference stage (September 15, 1999, to October 23, 2000), contrary to the summary nature of ejectment proceedings designed to avoid dilatory practices. Judges must control proceedings and adopt a firm policy against unnecessary continuances.
4. Violation of Reglementary Period: Section 10 of the Rule requires judgment within thirty (30) days after receipt of the last position papers or expiration of the filing period. Reckoning from the last position paper filed on March 26, 2003, the decision was due by April 26, 2003. The order was issued on December 3, 2003, a delay of seven months.
The Court emphasized that undue delay erodes public faith in the judiciary and that judges must perform their duties promptly. Under Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering a decision is a less serious offense. Accordingly, respondent Judge Mario B. Capellan was found GUILTY and FINED Ten Thousand One Hundred Pesos (PhP 10,100), with a stern warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.