In Bernaldez v. Avelino, the Supreme Court held that judges and court personnel must ensure the speedy disposition of cases. Prolonged delays undermine public trust in the judiciary. This decision underscores the importance of judicial efficiency and the responsibilities of court staff in upholding the constitutional right to a timely resolution of legal disputes, emphasizing accountability at all levels of the judicial process.

When Delays Deny Justice: Examining Accountability in a Stalled Unlawful Detainer Case

This case arose from an administrative complaint filed by Capt. Salvador Bernaldez (Ret.) against Judge Henry B. Avelino and Clerk of Court Guillermo E. Acolola of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Panay-Pontevedra, Pontevedra, Capiz (MCTC-Pontevedra). The core issue was the inordinate delay in resolving Civil Case No. 371, an unlawful detainer case filed in 1997. Despite the case falling under the Rule on Summary Procedure, designed for swift resolution, it remained unresolved for nearly a decade. Bernaldez alleged that the respondents abused their authority, causing significant prejudice.

The Supreme Court’s analysis centered on the duties of both the judge and the clerk of court in ensuring the prompt resolution of cases. The Court highlighted Article III, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution, which guarantees all persons the right to a speedy disposition of their cases. This constitutional mandate is reinforced by Section 5, Canon 6 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which instructs judges to perform all judicial duties efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable promptness. The Code of Judicial Ethics also emphasizes that a judge should be prompt in disposing of all matters, recognizing that justice delayed is often justice denied.

The Court acknowledged that Bernaldez contributed to the delay by repeatedly seeking postponements. However, it emphasized that Judge Avelino could have exercised greater control over the proceedings. He could have denied the motions for postponement or even dismissed the action for failure to prosecute. The Court cited the case of Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Generoso, underscoring that delay in the disposition of cases erodes public confidence in the judiciary. The Court noted:

Delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it into disrepute.

Moreover, the Court dismissed Judge Avelino’s defense that additional assignments justified the delay. It cited a prior case, *Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Henry B. Avelino*, stating that the designation of a judge to preside over another sala is an insufficient reason to justify delay in deciding a case. Given that Judge Avelino had previously been sanctioned for gross inefficiency in 2005, the Court deemed a more severe sanction necessary.

Turning to the liability of the Clerk of Court, Guillermo E. Acolola, the Court emphasized the crucial role of clerks of court in managing court dockets and records. While clerks of court are not guardians of a judge’s responsibility, they are expected to assist in the speedy disposition of justice. The Court noted that Acolola should have reminded Judge Avelino about the prolonged pendency of Civil Case No. 371 and adopted a system to prioritize long-standing cases. The 2002 Manual for Clerks of Court provides:

1. CLERK OF COURT
1.1. Office of the Clerk of Court
xxx
1.1.1. Adjudicative Functions
xxx
c. Prepares and signs monthly report of cases.
1.1.2. Non-Adjudicative Functions
xxx
i. Studies and recommends to the Executive Judge ways and means to improve both adjudicative and administrative support;

The Court ruled that Acolola’s failure to perform these duties constituted simple neglect of duty. A summary of the Court’s findings is highlighted in the table below.

Respondent	Violation	Sanction
Judge Henry B. Avelino	Violation of Section 9(1), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, Section 5, Canon 6 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the provision on promptness (no. 6) of the Code of Judicial Ethics	Suspension from office without salary and benefits for three months and a fine of P20,000.00
Clerk of Court Guillermo E. Acolola	Simple Neglect of Duty	Suspension from office without salary and benefits for three months

In its resolution, the Supreme Court found Judge Avelino guilty of violating Section 9(1), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, Section 5, Canon 6 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the provision on promptness of the Code of Judicial Ethics. He was suspended from office without salary and benefits for three months and ordered to pay a fine of P20,000.00. Clerk of Court Acolola was found guilty of simple neglect of duty and also suspended from office without salary and benefits for three months.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was the inordinate delay in resolving an unlawful detainer case, Civil Case No. 371, which remained pending for almost 10 years despite being governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure.
Who were the respondents in the administrative complaint?	The respondents were Judge Henry B. Avelino and Clerk of Court Guillermo E. Acolola of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Panay-Pontevedra, Pontevedra, Capiz.
What was the basis of the complaint against the respondents?	The complaint alleged abuse of authority and inordinate delay in the resolution of Civil Case No. 371, causing prejudice to the complainant.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding Judge Avelino?	The Supreme Court found Judge Avelino guilty of violating the Rules of Court, the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the Code of Judicial Ethics, and imposed a penalty of suspension and a fine.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding Clerk of Court Acolola?	The Supreme Court found Clerk of Court Acolola guilty of simple neglect of duty and imposed a penalty of suspension.
What is the significance of the Rule on Summary Procedure?	The Rule on Summary Procedure is designed to expedite the resolution of certain cases, such as unlawful detainer, to ensure the speedy disposition of justice.
What constitutional provision is relevant to this case?	Article III, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution, which guarantees all persons the right to a speedy disposition of their cases.
Why was the judge penalized despite the complainant contributing to the delays?	The judge was penalized because, despite the complainant’s actions, the judge had the authority to control the proceedings, deny postponements, or dismiss the case for failure to prosecute, but failed to do so.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Bernaldez v. Avelino reinforces the critical importance of judicial and clerical accountability in ensuring the timely resolution of cases. This case serves as a reminder to all court personnel of their duty to uphold the constitutional right to a speedy trial. By penalizing both the judge and the clerk of court, the Court sent a clear message that delays will not be tolerated and that all members of the judiciary must actively work to expedite the legal process.

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: CAPT. SALVADOR BERNALDEZ (RET.) VS. JUDGE HENRY B. AVELINO, A.M. NO. MTJ-07-1672, July 09, 2007