In the case of DANILO DAVID S. MARIANO vs. JUDGE JOSE P. NACIONAL, EN BANC, A.M. No. MTJ-07-1688, February 10, 2009, the respondent Jose P. Nacional was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedure for which he was fined P40,000. He was also found guilty of violation of Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary for which he was fined P20,000. Respondent was furthermore found guilty of violation of Canons 1 and 12 as well as Rules 1.03, 10.03 and 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for which he was fined P10,000. Respondent was sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall warrant an even more severe penalty.
The concerned an administrative complaint stemming from an action for ejectment docketed as Civil Case No. 12334. In the course of the ejectment proceedings, respondent Judge Jose P. Nacional issued a pre-trial order dated September 3, 2004 requiring the parties to file their respective position papers and affidavits of witnesses on September 30, 2004. The parties complied with the September 3, 2004 order.
In resolving the administrative complaint, the Supreme Court pronounced the following doctrines:
1. Without doubt, Civil Case No. 12334 was a case of unlawful detainer covered by the Revised Rules of Summary Procedure (RRSP). Section 5 of the RRSP explicitly provides that only complaints, compulsory counterclaims and cross-claims pleaded in the answer, as well as the answers to these pleadings, are allowed. The RRSP also expressly prohibits the filing of a memorandum. The same prohibition is contained in Section 13, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court (ROC).
2. The necessity of promptly resolving unlawful detainer and forcible entry cases was made more imperative by the express legal provisions on periods of rendition of judgments. Specifically, Section 11, Rule 70 of the ROC provides that the court shall render judgment within 30 days after receipt of the affidavits and position papers, or expiration of the period for filing the same. The RRSP provides for the same period.
3. Corollarily, Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct admonishes all judges to dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the period specified in Section 15 (1) and (2), Article VIII of the Constitution. This was supplemented by Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary requiring judges to perform all judicial duties efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.
4. A judge (by himself) cannot choose to prolong the period for deciding cases beyond that authorized by law. If a judge needed more time to decide a case, he should formally request this Court for an extension of the deadline.
5. The rules of procedure were clear and unambiguous, leaving no room for interpretation. We have held in numerous cases that the failure to apply elementary rules of procedure constitutes gross ignorance of the law and procedure. Neither good faith nor lack of malice would exonerate respondent because, as previously noted, the rules violated were basic procedural rules. All that was needed for respondent to do was to apply them. Unfortunately, he chose not to.
6. Length of service, as a factor in determining the imposable penalty in administrative cases, was a double-edged sword, it said. While it can sometimes help mitigate the penalty, it can also justify a more serious sanction. Whatever it is, a judge’s long years of service on the bench are no excuse for ignorance of procedural rules, it added.
