Alcaraz v. Gonzales
A.M. No. RTJ-11-2272 (February 16, 2011)
Facts:
The case revolves around Civil Case No. 32771, an ejectment case filed by Emelita L. Mariano against Alfredo M. Dualan in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City. On September 28, 2004, the MeTC ruled in favor of Emelita, ordering Alfredo to vacate the premises located at 340 Roosevelt Ave., Quezon City, and to pay her Php 76,000.00 per month for reasonable use and occupation from September 2000 until he vacated the premises, along with attorney's fees and costs of suit.
Following the judgment, Emelita filed a Motion for Execution on November 23, 2004. Alfredo subsequently filed a Notice of Appeal on January 3, 2005. The MeTC granted Emelita's Motion for Execution while also allowing Alfredo's appeal in an order dated January 19, 2005. A writ of execution was issued on February 17, 2005. However, on February 14, 2005, Alfredo filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, requesting the suspension of the execution due to a supersedeas bond he posted. Emelita's counsel indicated no objection to this motion, leading the MeTC to grant Alfredo's request on July 29, 2005, and to withdraw the writ of execution.
The case was then forwarded to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, where it was re-docketed as Civil Case No. Q-05-56029 and assigned to Judge Fatima Gonzales-Asdala. On November 12, 2005, Emelita filed a Motion for Execution Pending Appeal, arguing that Alfredo had not made the required rental deposits during the appeal process. After several months of inaction from the RTC, Emelita filed an Urgent Motion on February 8, 2006, which was eventually scheduled for hearing. However, Alfredo failed to appear, prompting the judge to require him to file a comment on the Urgent Motion.
On April 25, 2006, the respondent judge finally resolved the Urgent Motion and ordered the issuance of a writ of execution in favor of Emelita. Subsequently, Marciano Alcaraz, representing Emelita, filed a complaint against Judge Gonzales-Asdala with the Office of the Ombudsman, alleging neglect of duty due to her failure to act promptly on the motions.
Legal Issues:
- Whether Judge Gonzales-Asdala was administratively liable for neglect of duty due to her inaction on Emelita's motions for execution pending appeal.
- The validity of the notice of hearing attached to Emelita's motion for execution pending appeal and its implications on the court's duty to act.
Arguments:
Complainant's Argument: Marciano Alcaraz contended that Judge Gonzales-Asdala's failure to act on Emelita's motions constituted neglect of duty, violating Section 3(f) of Republic Act No. 3019. He emphasized the unreasonable delay in resolving the motions, which adversely affected Emelita's rights.
Respondent's Argument: Judge Gonzales-Asdala defended her actions by asserting that the motions filed by Emelita were defective due to improper notices of hearing. She argued that the notice did not comply with the requirements set forth in the Rules of Court, rendering the motions non-actionable and thus absolving her of administrative liability.
Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:
The court dismissed the complaint against Judge Gonzales-Asdala, finding her free from administrative liability. The court noted that while there was an apparent delay in resolving Emelita's motion for execution pending appeal, the delay was not attributable to the judge's inaction but rather to the defective notice of hearing provided by Emelita.
The court highlighted that the notice of hearing did not comply with the requirements of the Rules of Court, as it was improperly addressed and failed to specify a date and time for the hearing. The court reiterated that a motion lacking a valid notice of hearing is treated as a "mere scrap of paper," which does not impose any duty on the court to act. The court emphasized that the responsibility to ensure compliance with procedural rules lies with the movant, not the court.
The ruling established that judges cannot be held administratively liable for failing to act on motions that do not meet the necessary procedural requirements, thereby reinforcing the importance of adherence to procedural rules in judicial proceedings.