In Dr. Conrado T. Montemayor v. Judge Juan O. Bermejo, Jr., the Supreme Court of the Philippines addressed judicial accountability concerning delays and improprieties in handling an unlawful detainer case. The Court found Judge Bermejo guilty of delaying the rendition of judgment and of impropriety, imposing fines for violating the Code of Judicial Conduct. This decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that judges adhere to prescribed timelines and maintain impartiality, reinforcing public trust in the legal system and protecting the rights of litigants to a timely and fair resolution of their disputes. This ruling serves as a crucial reminder of the standards expected of those entrusted with administering justice.

When Delays and Doubts Cloud the Courtroom: Examining Judicial Impartiality

This case began with an unlawful detainer suit filed by Benjamin and Desmond T. Montemayor against Lolita Marco, presided over by Judge Juan O. Bermejo, Jr. The complainant, Dr. Conrado T. Montemayor, attorney-in-fact for the plaintiffs, alleged that Judge Bermejo demonstrated gross incompetence, inefficiency, negligence, ignorance of the law, misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The core of the complaint centered on the judge’s handling of timelines, motions, and overall impartiality throughout the proceedings.

The legal framework governing the resolution of unlawful detainer cases is explicitly outlined in Section 11, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that judgment be rendered within 30 days from the receipt of affidavits and position papers, or from the expiration of the period for filing them. This provision is echoed in Section 10 of the Rule on Summary Procedure, further emphasizing the urgency and expediency required in such cases. The Supreme Court has consistently held that failing to decide a case within the mandated period constitutes gross inefficiency, making the judge liable for administrative sanctions.

In this case, the Court found that Judge Bermejo failed to comply with the prescribed timelines. Even if the defendant’s position paper was received on August 14, 2002, as the judge claimed, the judgment should have been rendered by September 13, 2002. The judgment, however, was dated October 10, 2002, almost a month after the deadline. This delay was a clear violation of Rule 70 and the Rule on Summary Procedure.

Building on this, the Court also scrutinized Judge Bermejo’s handling of the plaintiffs’ Motions for Execution. Under Section 19, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, execution of a judgment against the defendant in an unlawful detainer case “shall issue immediately upon motion.” This provision is designed to prevent further damage to the plaintiff due to continued loss of possession. However, the respondent Judge offered weak excuses for not acting on these motions.

The judge claimed he did not act on the first Motion for Execution because the hearing was set on a non-motion day. While the Rules generally require motions to be heard on Fridays, an exception exists for motions requiring immediate action. Given the immediately executory nature of judgments in unlawful detainer cases, the plaintiffs believed their motion qualified for this exception. The Court noted that even if Judge Bermejo disagreed, he should have simply set the motion for the next motion day, instead of ignoring it entirely.

Further complicating matters, Dr. Montemayor alleged that the registry return card indicating when the defense counsel received the notice of judgment was missing from the records. Judge Bermejo denied this, which placed him in a precarious position. If the registry receipts were indeed missing, it would suggest a disregard for proper record-keeping. As the Supreme Court stated in Beso v. Judge Daguman:

A judge is charged with exercising extra care in ensuring that the records of the cases and official documents in his custody are intact. There is no justification for missing records save fortuitous events… This Court reiterates that judges must adopt a system of record management and organize their dockets in order to bolster the prompt and efficient dispatch of business. It is, in fact, incumbent upon him to devise an efficient recording and filing system in his court because he is after all the one directly responsible for the proper discharge of his official functions.

Conversely, if Judge Bermejo was suppressing proof of the registry return receipts, he would be guilty of both delaying the resolution of the motions and showing bias towards the defendant. On those receipts hinged the answer to whether the defendant’s Notice of Appeal was filed on time.

Supporting the theory of bias, Judge Bermejo’s justification for not acting on Dr. Montemayor’s Second Motion for Execution, citing the court’s semestral inventory, was deemed inadequate by the Court. Even if the inventory justified the initial delay, the judge should have set the motion for hearing on the next available motion day.

Moreover, the Court emphasized that under Section 19, Rule 70, if the defendant fails to file a supersedeas bond or make monthly deposits, the plaintiff is entitled to immediate execution of the judgment. As the Court held in Fernandez v. Español:

. . . . Considering these principles, respondent judge should simply have ascertained from the records the allegations in complainant’s motion for execution and, on that basis, resolved the motion. Had she done this, she could not have failed to notice that the defendant had not given a supersedeas bond to stay immediate execution of the judgment and had not paid the current rents as they fell due. The defendant’s failure to comply with these requisites entitled the complainant to the immediate execution of the judgment. The court’s duty was simply to order such execution.

In this case, Judge Bermejo did not order immediate execution; instead, he directed the defendant to file a supersedeas bond, which should have been posted within the appeal period. The Court also highlighted the delay in granting the defendant’s Urgent Motion for Extension to post the supersedeas bond. Judge Bermejo granted an additional 15 days, exceeding the requested 10 days and violating the rule that motions for extension must be filed before the expiration of the original period, as established in Chua v. Court of Appeals.

As a general rule, a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an ejectment suit is immediately executory, in order to prevent further damage to him arising from the loss of possession of the property in question. To stay the immediate execution of the said judgment while the appeal is pending, the foregoing provision requires that the following requisites must concur: (1) the defendant perfects his appeal; (2) he files a supersedeas bond; and (3) he periodically deposits the rentals which become due during the pendency of the appeal. The failure of the defendant to comply with any of these conditions is a ground for the outright execution of the judgment, the duty of the court in this respect being “ministerial and imperative.” Hence, if the defendant-appellant perfected the appeal but failed to file a supersedeas bond, the immediate execution of the judgment would automatically follow. Conversely, the filing of a supersedeas bond will not stay the execution of the judgment if the appeal is not perfected. Necessarily then, the supersedeas bond should be filed within the period for the perfection of the appeal.

The Court concluded that Judge Bermejo, by causing numerous delays in disregard of the Rules of Court and the Rule on Summary Procedure, had cast doubt on his impartiality. Even the appearance of bias is detrimental to public confidence in the judiciary, as stated under Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct: a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.

FAQs

What was the central issue in this case?	The central issue was whether Judge Bermejo was administratively liable for delays and improprieties in handling an unlawful detainer case, particularly concerning the timely rendition of judgment and the execution of orders.
What is the prescribed period for rendering judgment in unlawful detainer cases?	Section 11, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides a period of 30 days for the court to render judgment in forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases, counted from the receipt of the last affidavits and position papers or the expiration of the period for filing the same.
What actions of Judge Bermejo were questioned in the complaint?	The complaint questioned Judge Bermejo’s failure to decide the case within the prescribed period, his inaction on the Motions for Execution, and his granting of the defendant’s Urgent Motion for Extension to post a supersedeas bond.
What is a supersedeas bond, and what purpose does it serve?	A supersedeas bond is a bond filed by the defendant in an ejectment case to stay the execution of a judgment while an appeal is pending. It ensures that the plaintiff can recover rents, damages, and costs if the appeal fails.
What was the Court’s finding regarding Judge Bermejo’s delay in rendering judgment?	The Court found that Judge Bermejo was guilty of delay in rendering judgment, as he issued the decision nearly a month after the mandatory period had lapsed.
How did the Court view Judge Bermejo’s handling of the Motions for Execution?	The Court found Judge Bermejo’s excuses for not acting on the Motions for Execution to be weak and indicative of either incompetence or bias.
What was the significance of the missing registry return card?	The missing registry return card was significant because it would have established the date when the defense counsel received the notice of judgment, which was crucial in determining the timeliness of the defendant’s Notice of Appeal.
What ethical standards did the Court say Judge Bermejo violated?	The Court found Judge Bermejo in violation of Rules 1.02 and 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which require judges to administer justice without delay. He was also found guilty of impropriety in violation of Canon 2 of said Code, as his actions created an appearance of bias.
What penalties were imposed on Judge Bermejo?	The Court fined Judge Bermejo P5,000.00 for the delay in rendering judgment and P10,000.00 for impropriety, underscoring the importance of judicial accountability and adherence to ethical standards.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Dr. Conrado T. Montemayor v. Judge Juan O. Bermejo, Jr. serves as a crucial reminder of the ethical and procedural obligations of judges in the Philippines, especially in cases involving unlawful detainer. The ruling emphasizes the need for timely decisions, impartial conduct, and diligent adherence to the Rules of Court to maintain public trust in the judicial system.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: DR. CONRADO T. MONTEMAYOR vs. JUDGE JUAN O. BERMEJO, JR., A.M. No. MTJ-04-1535, March 12, 2004