A.M. No. MTJ-00-1264 - RAMIR MINA, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE RODOLFO GATDULA.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Wherefore, judgement is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff as against the dependants [sic] by ordering the dependants [sic] and all persons claiming right under them to surrender peacefully Lot 774 to the plaintiff by demolishing their house thereon and vacating the said land. . . [] It is our firm belief that the above decision was not supported by law and evidence. We have sufficient and ample proof that will support a dismissal of the case but Judge Gatdula intentionally refuse to appreciate/accept our evidences. Is that not clear partially [sic]? [2] Respondent in his Letter-Comment, denied complainants allegations. He claimed that during the pre-trial of the case, complainant Mina asked for the deferment of said pre-trial to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement. Proof of such request to postpone the pre-trial was supported by an affidavit of the Chico spouses counsel, Atty. Zuniga. However, and on several occasions, complainant failed to indicate the price he was willing to offer to the Spouses Chico. It was only when respondent ordered complainant to finally state his offer when complainant declared that the highest price he could offer was the price of the property at the time they first occupied the same several years ago. Such offer was rejected outright by the Spouses Chico. The parties having failed to settle the case amicably, respondent decided the case in favor of the Spouses Chico based on the evidence presented by both parties. Complainant filed a timely appeal with the Regional Trial Court, which appeal was denied. The motion for reconsideration was also denied. Respondent theorized that the complaint against him was initiated by one Dolores Gomez, who has an axe to grind against him, having lost a case in his sala. Gomez has allegedly been spreading rumors that respondent will soon be dismissed from the service because of her complaint, and that she will stop at nothing until that happens. In his Reply, complainant refuted respondents reasons for the delay. According to complainant, the efforts at reaching an amicable settlement failed as early as 1996. He cited the transcript of stenographic notes of the hearing on January 24, 1996 to prove that the preliminary conference was terminated on that date. Complainant further pointed out that the records show that complainants offer of settlement was taken into consideration in the three (3) hearings of pre-trial from December 20, 1995 to January 24, 1996, or a period of thirty-five (35) days, not the two (2) years alluded to by respondent. The Court finds undue delay in the disposition of Civil Case No. 1752. Section 10 of the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure mandates that in civil cases covered by said rule the Municipal Trial Court shall render judgment within thirty (30) days after receipt of the last affidavits and position papers, or the expiration of the period for filing the same. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) noted that respondent