The Supreme Court slapped a P21,000 fine on a Cebu judge for failing to resolve a case on time.
In a separate decision, the high court reduced the penalty of a Cebu City clerk of court but it came too late as he already served a 6-month suspension for gross ignorance of the rules and dereliction of duty.
Judge Gerardo Gestopa Jr. of the Muncipal Trial Court of Cities in Naga, Cebu, was fined for referring a case to barangay conciliation instead of deciding it.
He was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law.
The SC warned the judge that a repetition of the offense would be dealt with more severely.
It was the third time Gestopa was fined for not being able to resolve cases within the reglementary period.
“We cannot accept the justifications made by respondent judge, considering that this is not the first time that he seemed to be at a loss as to how to correctly interpret the Rules on Summary Procedure,” said Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta in a decision promulgated last June 22.
Meanwhile, the high court reduced a six-month suspension of Cebu City clerk of court Jeoffrey Joaquino to a fine of P10,000 in the “spirit of compassion.”
But Joaquino had already served his suspension when the Supreme Court decided to lower his penalty, granting his motion for reconsideration.
Joaquino was earlier found guilty of “gross ignorance of the rules and dereliction of duty” when he tried to auction off the propriety shares of the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) in the Cebu Country Club, which was being contested in court.
Joaquino already served out his suspension Oct. 1, 2010, to March 2011. The Supreme Court ruled to lower his penalty on June 8, 2011, or about two months after he finished serving his suspension.
The SC said that Joaquino would have to pay the P10,000 despite having already served his suspension.
“Clerks of court occupy a sensitive position in the judicial system. Clerks of court play a key role in the complement of the court and, thus, cannot be permitted to slacken on their jobs under one pretext or another,” the high court said.
The SC said clerks of court are required to “safeguard the integrity of the court and its proceedings, earn and preserve respect therefore, maintain loyalty therefore and to the judge as superior officer, to maintain the authenticity and correctness of court records, and to uphold the confidence of the public in the administration of justice.”
In Judge Gestopa’s case, the Office of the Court Administrator found Gestopa guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedure.
The Supreme Court ruled on Felicisima Diaz’s complaint against Gestopa for delaying the resolution of an unlawful detainer case Diaz filed against a couple.
She failed to attend the pretrial conference of the case because of a heart ailment. She instead sent her nephew.
During the conference, the judge recommended the case for barangay conciliation.
Diaz asked the the judge to reconsider his decision but this was denied.
The high court said the case of unlawful detainer should be resolved immediately or within 30 days after receipt of the last affidavits and position papers.
The high court said the judge should have resolved the case when the complainant failed to appear during the preliminary conference.