Supreme Court Fines Judge for Undue Delay in Unlawful Detainer Case

The Supreme Court has long reminded judges that delay in the administration of justice erodes public faith in the judicial system. In a 2012 ruling, the Court held a Metropolitan Trial Court judge administratively liable for undue delay in setting a case for preliminary conference, imposing a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00). The case of Chu v. Capellan (A.M. No. MTJ-11-1779, July 16, 2012) clarifies the distinction between procedural errors that do not merit administrative sanction and the failure to expedite proceedings that does.

The Case

The complainants were defendants in an unlawful detainer case filed before the MeTC, Branch 40, Quezon City. The complaint was filed on March 22, 2007, and the answer was filed on March 30, 2007. Under the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, a preliminary conference should be held not later than thirty (30) days after the last answer is filed.

The respondent judge, however, set the case for preliminary conference only on June 24, 2008—more than a year after the answer was filed. The conference was then reset several times for various reasons, and was finally conducted on February 3, 2009, or almost two years after the answer was filed.

The complainants filed an administrative complaint against the judge, alleging gross ignorance of the law, partiality, and grave abuse of discretion. They claimed, among others, that the judge erred in not issuing a notice of preliminary conference, in entertaining an oral motion to declare them in default, and in failing to dismiss the complaint for the plaintiffs' non-appearance at mediation.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court, through the Second Division, found no merit in most of the complainants' allegations. The Court ruled that the judge's order dated October 7, 2008, which set the case for preliminary conference on November 25, 2008, already constituted sufficient notice to the parties. The complainants could not claim denial of due process since they received copies of the order and were present during the times the conference was reset.

The Court also clarified that the judge did not entertain the prohibited oral motion to declare the defendants in default. Instead, the judge's assailed order was based on the complainants' failure to file their pre-trial brief, which under Section 6, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court has the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial. The Court likewise rejected the complainants' reliance on Supreme Court A.M. No. 01-2-04, which applies only to intra-corporate controversies under R.A. No. 8799, not to ejectment cases.

However, the Court found the judge administratively liable for undue delay. The Court noted that the preliminary conference was set way beyond the required thirty-day period and was reset multiple times, resulting in the case being conducted almost two years after the answer was filed. This violated Section 7 of the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure and Rule 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates that judges administer justice without delay.

Undue Delay as a Less Serious Charge

Under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering a decision or order is a less serious charge. The penalties are either suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three months, or a fine of more than Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) but not exceeding Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00).

Since the judge had been previously adjudged guilty of the same offense, the Court imposed the maximum fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) and warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense would warrant a more severe penalty.

Practical takeaways

• Judges must hold preliminary conferences within the period prescribed by the Rules on Summary Procedure—not later than thirty (30) days after the last answer is filed.
• An order setting a case for preliminary conference can serve as sufficient notice to the parties, even without a separate notice of preliminary conference.
• The failure to file a pre-trial brief has the same effect as failure to appear at the pre-trial, which can result in judgment based on the facts alleged in the complaint.
• Administrative remedies are not available to correct errors in the exercise of adjudicative functions where judicial remedies exist, unless the error is manifest or impelled by ill motive.
• Undue delay in the disposition of cases is a less serious charge that can result in suspension or a fine of up to Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00).

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.