A.M. No. Mtj-11-1792 by Tamparia

TAMPARIA, CELVER JOY G.
LAW 2-E
A.M. No. MTJ-11-1792

September 26, 2011
ERNESTO Z. ORBE, complainant
vs
JUDGE MANOLITO Y. GUMARANG, respondent
FACTS:
Orbe is the plaintiff of a small claims case filed before the MTC of Imus, Cavite, presided by
Judge Emily A. Geluz. During the hearing of the case on February 9, 2010, the parties failed to reach an
amicable settlement. Hence, the case was assigned to respondent Judge Manolito Y. Gumarang,
Assisting Judge of the MTC of Imus, Cavite, for the continuation of the trial.
According to Orbe, the case was scheduled for hearing on March 4, 2010, but was postponed by
respondent to March 11, 2010 because of power interruption. On March 11, 2010, the hearing was reset
by Judge Gumarang to March 25, 2010 as he was due for medical check-up. On March 25, 2010,
respondent conducted another Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR), and again reset the hearing to April 15,
2010 when the parties failed to reach an amicable agreement.
Orbe argued that Judge Gumarang violated the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases for
failure to decide the civil case within five days from receipt of the order of reassignment. The Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA) then directed Judge Gumarang to submit his comment on the complaint
against him.
In his Comment, Judge Gumarang insisted that he tried small claims cases only on
Thursdays. He pointed out that the Rule needed clarification since, as in his case, the five (5) working
days should be construed to refer to five (5) calendared trial dates falling on Thursdays only, considering
that he allotted only one day, that is Thursday, to hear and try small claims cases.
In its Memorandum, the OCA found Judge Gumarang guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law and
recommended that he be fined in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5, 000.00) only for violating the
Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases. Hence, this administrative complaint.
ISSUE:
WON respondent judge is guilty of Violation of the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases.
HELD:
Yes. Section 22 of the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases clearly provided for the period
within which judgment should be rendered, The new judge shall hear and decide the case within
five (5) days from the receipt of the order of reassignment. In this case, it is undisputed that it took
more than two (2) months for respondent to render a decision. The Court is unconvinced in his argument
that he hears small claims cases on Thursdays only; hence, he claimed that, the period of five (5) working
days being referred to by Section 22 of the Rule should pertain only to Thursdays.
TAMPARIA, CELVER JOY G. LAW 2-E
Judge Gumarang missed the very purpose and essence of the creation of the Rule, which is to,
adopt a special rule of procedure to govern small claims cases and select pilot courts that would
empower the people to bring suits before them pro se to resolve legal disputes involving simple issues of
law and procedure without the need for legal representation and extensive judicial intervention. This
system will enhance access to justice, especially by those who cannot afford the high costs of
litigation even in cases of relatively small value. The small claims process is designed to function
quickly and informally. There are no lawyers, no formal pleadings and no strict legal rules of evidence.
The exigency of prompt rendition of judgment in small claims cases is a matter of public policy. There is
no room for further interpretation; it does not require respondent's exercise of discretion. He is duty-bound
to adhere to the rules and decide small claims cases without undue delay.
The need for prompt resolution of small claims cases is further emphasized by Section 19, A
request for postponement of a hearing may be granted only upon proof of the physical inability of the
party to appear before the court on the scheduled date and time. A party may avail of only one (1)
postponement. In this case, the numerous postponements, which in some instances were upon
respondent's initiative, were uncalled for and unjustified, considering that it was already established that
all efforts for amicable settlement were futile. Thus, the postponements were clear violation of the Rule
and defeat the very essence of the Rule. Furthermore, the requirement that cases be decided within the
reglementary period is designed to prevent delay in the administration of justice. For obviously, justice
delayed is justice denied.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Judge Gumarang, GUILTY of Undue Delay in Rendering a
Decision and Violation of the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases, and is
hereby ORDERED to pay a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) and WARNED that a repetition of
the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

A.M. No. Mtj-11-1792 by Tamparia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.M. No. Mtj-11-1792 by Tamparia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.M. No. Mtj-11-1792 by Tamparia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TAMPARIA, CELVER JOY G.

A.M. No. MTJ-11-1792

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.