Case Digest: DR. JOSE S. LUNA v. JUDGE EDUARDO H. MIRAFUENTE

DR. JOSE S. LUNA v. JUDGE EDUARDO H. MIRAFUENT

A.M. No. MTJ-05-1610 (2005)

In the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are generally not subject to disciplinary action, even though such acts are erroneous.

Dr. Luna filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Florencio Sadiwa and Alex Sadiwa. The Sadiwas filed an unverified answer to the complaint, seven (7) days beyond the reglementary period. Dr. Luna’s counsel filed a Motion for Judgment, invoking Section 6 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, to which motion the Sadiwas did not file any opposition. However, Judge Mirafuente denied the motion. Dr. Luna later filed an Urgent Manifestation relative to the said order of Judge Mirafuente which the latter treated as a motion for reconsideration and which he denied.

Judge Mirafuente was charged with Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, Violation of the Rules on Summary Procedure in Special Cases and Gross Ignorance of the Law for giving due course to the belatedly filed and unverified answer of the Sadiwas.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Judge Mirafuente shall be held liable for considering the belatedly filed unverified answer of the Sadiwas

HELD:

As provided in Section 6 of the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, failure of the defendant to answer the complaint within the period provided, the court, motu proprio, or on mmotion of the plaintiff, shall render judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what is prayed for therein.

The word “shall” in the above-quoted sections of the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure underscores their mandatory character. In the present case, Judge Mirafuente gave a liberal interpretation of the above-said Rule. While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities, it is equally true that every case must be prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice.

Judge Mirafuente’s act, albeit a disregard of procedural rules, does not, however, constitute grave misconduct. Neither does it constitute gross ignorance of the law. In the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are generally not subject to disciplinary action, even though such acts are erroneous.

After considering the appreciation by Judge Mirafuenta of the fact that the defendants filed a belated and unverified answer without the assistance of counsel, and the lack of showing of malice, corrupt motives or the like on his part, the Supreme Court finds that the penalty may be as it is hereby mitigated to severe reprimand.