ORBE v.

JUDGE GUMARANG
J. Peralta | September 26, 2011
Topic 1: Jurisdiction – Laws – Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases
Nature: Administrative complaint

PARTIES:
 Complainant: Ernesto Z. Orbe
 Respondent: Judge Manolito Y. Gumarang, Pairing Judge, Municipal Trial Court,
Imus, Cavite

DISPUTED MATTER: W/N respondent judge is guilty of violating the Rule of Procedure for
Small Claims Cases

SYNOPSIS: Orbe had a small claims case filed before the MTC which was reassigned to
Judge Gumarang for trial after the parties in the small claims case failed to reach an amicable
settlement. However, Judge Gumarang failed to render a decision within the period mandated
in the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases due to a series of postponements, some of
which were initiated by respondent judge (took him 2 months instead of 5 days). Orbe filed a
complaint against Judge Gumarang for failing to timely render a decision for his case. Judge
Gumarang argued that the 5 days in the Rule, as applied in his case, should refer to 5
calendared trial dates falling on Thursdays as he only try and hear small claims cases on
Thursdays.

The Court was unconvinced by Judge Gumarang's explanation and found him guilty of
violating the Rule. Following his interpretation would defeat what the Court sought to
accomplish in creating the Rule which is to enhance access to justice, especially by those who
cannot afford the high costs of litigation even in cases of relatively small value. Further, the
Rule is clear and unambiguous, therefore, the judge simply has to apply it.

FACTS:
 Complainant Orbe is the plaintiff of a small claims case filed before the MTC of Imus,
Cavite, presided by Judge Geluz.
 The case was heard on February 9, 2010 but the parties failed to reach an amicable
settlement. On the same day, the case was (re)assigned to respondent Judge
Gumarang for the continuation of the trial.
 The hearing was set on March 4, however, respondent judge postponed the same
3 times, resulting in him failing to decide the case within 5 days from receipt of the
order of reassignment as required by the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims
Cases (Rule).
o The hearing was scheduled on March 4 but it was postponed to March 11 by
respondent due to power interruption. However, on March 11, respondent judge
again reset the hearing to March 25 as he was due for medical check-up. On
March 25, he conducted another Judicial Dispute Resolution and reset the
hearing to April 15 when the parties failed to reach an amicable agreement.
 For allegedly violating the Rule, Orbe filed a complaint against Judge Gumarang.
 The OCA directed the judge to comment on the complaint. Judge Gumarang explained:
 o As assisting Judge in the MTC (Bacoor), he tried small claims cases only on
Thursdays. While it is true that he failed to decide within 5 working days from
receipt of the order as mandated by the Rule, he argued that the Rule needed
clarification.
 Judge Gumarang insists that for his case, 5 working days should be
construed to refer to 5 calendared trial dates falling on Thursdays only, as
he only allotted Thursdays for trial and hearing of small claims cases.
 The OCA found Judge Gumarang guilty of gross ignorance of the law and recommended
that he be fined in the amount of P 5,000.

ISSUES/HELD:

W/N Judge Gumarang is guilty of violating the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases
– YES
 Sec. 22 of the Rule1 provides that "[t]he new judge shall hear and decide the case
within five (5) days from the receipt of the order of reassignment".
 Sec. 19 of the Rule further provides: "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."
o In this case, it took Judge Gumarang more than 2 months to render a decision on
the subject case because of several postponements.
o 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.
 On Judge Gumarang's argument regarding the application of "5 working days" to
his case:
o The Court was unconvinced with Judge Gumarang's argument. To follow Judge
Gumarang's interpretation of the rule would defeat what the Court sought to
accomplish in creating the Rule which is to enhance access to justice,
especially by those who cannot afford the high costs of litigation even in
cases of relatively small value.

o The theory behind the small claims system is that ordinary litigation fails to bring
practical justice to the parties when the disputed claim is small, because the time
and expense required by the ordinary litigation process is so disproportionate to
the amount involved that it discourages a just resolution of the dispute. 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.

 Secs. 19 and 22 emphasizes the need for prompt resolution of small claims cases. The
exigency of prompt rendition of judgment in small claims cases is a matter of public

1
Section 22. Failure of Settlement – If efforts at settlement fail, the hearing shall proceed in an informal and expeditious manner and
be terminated within one (1) day. Either party may move in writing to have another judge hear and decide the case. The
reassignment of the case shall be done in accordance with existing issuances.
The referral by the original judge to the Executive Judge shall be made within the same day the motion is filed and
granted, and by the Executive Judge to the designated judge within the same day of the referral. The new judge shall hear and
decide the case within five (5) days from the receipt of the order of reassignment.
 policy. There is no room for further interpretation; it does not require respondent's
exercise of discretion. The judge is duty-bound to adhere to the rules and decide small
claims cases without undue delay.

o When the rules of procedure are clear and unambiguous, leaving no room for
interpretation, all that is needed to do is to simply apply it. Failure to apply
elementary rules of procedure constitutes gross ignorance of the law and
procedure. In the instant case, neither good faith nor lack of malice will exonerate
respondent, as the rules violated were basic procedural rules.
o Undue delay in rendering a decision or order is punishable by suspension or a
fine of more than P10k up to P20k, but since the Rule involved is new and this is
respondent judge's first violation of the rule, the Court only imposed a fine of P5k.

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the Court finds Judge Manolito Y. Gumarang, Municipal Trial Court, Imus,
Cavite, 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 (₱5,000.00) and WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with
more severely.

OPINIONS: N/A
____________________________________________________________________________

HELPFUL INFORMATION

DOCTRINE: The intent of the law in providing the period to hear and decide cases falling
under the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases, which is within five (5) days from the
receipt of the order of assignment, is very clear. The exigency of prompt rendition of judgment
in small claims cases is a matter of public policy. There is no room for further interpretation.

ANNEX:

Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases

 SEC. 19. Postponement When Allowed. — 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.

 Section 22. Failure of Settlement – If efforts at settlement fail, the hearing shall
proceed in an informal and expeditious manner and be terminated within one (1) day.
Either party may move in writing to have another judge hear and decide the case. The
reassignment of the case shall be done in accordance with existing issuances.

The referral by the original judge to the Executive Judge shall be made within the
same day the motion is filed and granted, and by the Executive Judge to the designated
judge within the same day of the referral. The new judge shall hear and decide the
case within five (5) days from the receipt of the order of reassignment.