EN BANC
DOLORES IMBANG,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
MTJ-03-1515
February 3, 2004 -versus-
JUDGE DEOGRACIAS
K. DEL ROSARIO,
MCTC, BRANCH 3,
PATNONGON, ANTIQUE,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:
The instant administrative
case arose when Dolores Imbang filed a sworn Letter-Complaint dated
July
31, 1998[1]
charging Judge Deogracias K. Del Rosario, Municipal Circuit Trial
Court,
Patnongan-Bugasong-Valderama, Patnongan, Antique with failure to decide
a case within the 90-day reglementary period relative to Civil Case No.
318 entitled Dolores Imbang v. Alice Guerra for collection of sum of
money
with damages.
The complainant alleged
that she is the Plaintiff in Civil Case No. 318 pending before the sala
of the Respondent Judge. During the hearing of September 22,
1997,
the complainant, through counsel, presented her evidence ex-parte and
the
case was submitted for decision. According to the complainant:
My counsel
filed several motions for the court to resolve the case on the
following
dates: December 1, 1997; January 19, 1998; March 19, 1998, and
lastly
on April 13, 1998. A copy of the last Motion is hereto attached.chanrobles virtual law library
However, until
this
date or after a lapse of ten (10) months from the date the case was
submitted
for decision, the trial judge failed to resolve the case.[2]
The Complaint was
docketed
as OCA IPI NO. 98-591-MTJ. In a 1st Indorsement[3]
dated February 9, 1991, the Office of the Court Administrator referred
the matter to the respondent and required the latter to comment within
ten days from receipt thereof. The OCA thereafter issued a 1st
Tracer
on February 3, 2000 reiterating its order requiring the respondent to
submit
his comment. The respondent failed to comply. In a Letter[4]
dated August 10, 2001, then Acting Court Administrator Zenaida N.
Elepaño
reiterated the previous orders, otherwise, the OCA would recommend to
the
Court that the respondent judge be cited for contempt.
In a Letter[5]
dated September 6, 2001, the respondent judge requested that he be
given
an extension of ten days within which to file his comment. The
OCA
granted the request, and advised the respondent that no further
extension
would be given.[6]
The respondent judge failed to file his comment within the period given.cralaw:red
In a Report dated May
9, 2003, the OCA opined that the respondent judge has clearly chosen to
disregard the directives of the office. The OCA made the
following
recommendations:
RECOMMENDATION:
Respectfully recommended that the above entitled case be REDOCKETED as
a regular administrative matter and that:
1.
Respondent
be FINED in the amount of P5,000.00 for his obdurate defiance of the
several
directives of the Office of the Court Administrator;
2.
Respondent
be considered as having waived his right to defend himself in the said
administrative case; and
3.
Respondent
be FINED P2,000.00 for delaying the administration of justice by
failing
to decide Civil Case No. 318 entitled “Dolores Imbang v. Alice Guerra.”[7]chanrobles virtual law library The Respondent’s
Failure To Comply With The Lawful Directives
Of The Court
Constitutes Gross Misconduct And Insubordination
The respondent’s failure
to comply with the Court’s directive to file his comment to the
letter-complaint
against him constitutes a blatant display of his indifference to the
lawful
directives of the Court. As we held in Martinez v. Zoleta:[8]
x x x The
resolution of the Supreme Court requiring comment on an administrative
complaint against officials and employees of the judiciary should not
be
construed as a mere request from the Court. Nor should it be
complied
with partially, inadequately or selectively. Respondents in
administrative
complaints should comment on all accusations or allegations against
them
in the administrative complaints because it is their duty to preserve
the
integrity of the judiciary. Moreover, the Court should not and
will
not tolerate future indifference of respondents to administrative
complaints
and to resolutions requiring comment on such administrative complaints.[9]
Five years has passed
since the respondent was first directed to file his comment on the
Complaint
against him. He has, thus, waived his right to defend himself
against
the complainant’s accusations. Furthermore, his repeated failure
to comply with the Court’s directives constitutes gross misconduct and
insubordination.[10]
This, the Court cannot countenance. As a magistrate, the
respondent
should have known that he is the visible representation of the law, and
more importantly, of justice. It is from him that the people draw
their will and awareness to obey the law. For the judge to return
that regard, he must be the first to abide by the law and weave an
example
for others to follow.[11]
Consequently, the last person to refuse to adhere to the directives of
the Court, or, in its stead, the Office of the Court Administrator, is
the judge himself. No position is more demanding as regards moral
righteousness and uprightness of any individual than a seat on the
bench.[12]
By his actuations, the
respondent violated Rule 1.01[13]
of Canon 1,[14]
as well as Rule 2.01[15]
of Canon 2[16]
of the Code
of Judicial Conduct. The respondent also violated Canon 11 of
the Code
of Professional Responsibility, which requires a member of the bar
to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial
officers
and insist on similar conduct by others.chanrobles virtual law library
The Failure Of
A Judge To Immediately Resolve Pending
Motions and to
Decide Cases Within the 90-Day
Reglementary
Period Constitutes Gross Inefficiency
Rule 3.05 of the Code
of Judicial Conduct requires judges to dispose of the court’s
business
promptly and to act, one way or the other, on cases pending before him
within the prescribed period therefore.[17]
Civil Case No. 318 had already been submitted for decision. Even
as the complainant’s counsel filed four different motions to resolve
the
case, the respondent consistently failed to act on them. Undue
delay
in resolving a pending motion constitutes gross inefficiency.[18]
Delay results in undermining the people’s faith in the judiciary and
from
whom the prompt hearing of their supplications is anticipated and
expected,
and reinforces in the mind of the litigants the impression that the
wheels
of justice grind ever so slowly.[19]
Certainly, undue delay cannot be countenanced at a time when the
clogging
of the court dockets is still the bane of the judiciary. Judges
are
expected to observe utmost diligence and dedication in the performance
of their judicial functions and the discharge of their duties.[20]chanrobles virtual law library
The Court notes that
this is not the first time that a case was filed against the respondent
judge. He was found guilty of negligence and misconduct for acts
done while he was a clerk of court, and was ordered to pay a fine of
P5,000.00.[21]
In another case,[22]
the respondent was directed to show cause why he should not be
disciplinarily
dealt with for gross ignorance of the law. When the respondent
finally
submitted his comment, the Court found his explanations unsatisfactory
and found him guilty of ignorance of procedural laws resulting in abuse
of authority and oppression, for which he was also fined P5,000.00.[23]
In a recent case[24]
strikingly similar to the case at bar, we dismissed an executive judge
who failed to file his comment and repeatedly ignored Court resolutions
requiring him to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt
with
or held in contempt for failure to comply with other previous
resolutions.
In that case, we declared that the failure of a judge to comply with
such
show-cause orders issued by the Court constitutes grave and serious
misconduct
affecting his fitness and worthiness of the honor and integrity
attached
to his office.[25]
Respondent’s continued
refusal to comply with the lawful orders underscores his lack of
respect
for authority and a defiance for law and order which is at the very
core
of his position. This is anathema to those who seek a career in
the
judiciary because obedience to the dictates of the law and justice is
demanded
of every judge. How else would respondent judge endeavor to serve
justice and uphold the law, let alone lead his peers, when he disdains
to follow even simple directives?
In the Judiciary, moral
integrity
is more than a cardinal virtue, it is a necessity. The exacting
standards
of conduct demanded from judges are designed to promote public
confidence
in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. When the
judge
himself becomes the transgressor of the law which he is sworn to apply,
he places his office in disrepute, encourages disrespect for the law
and
impairs public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary itself.[26]chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREFORE, for failing
to file his Comment on a complaint against him despite the Court’s
directives,
respondent JUDGE DEOGRACIAS K. DEL ROSARIO is meted a FINE in the
amount
of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00).chanrobles virtual law library
The respondent is further
DIRECTED to SHOW CAUSE within ten (10) days from receipt hereof why he
should not be dismissed from the service for his refusal to file his
Comment
as directed by the Court.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno,
Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio,
Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio Morales, and Tinga, JJ., concur.
Azcuna, J., on official
leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 1.
[2]
Id.
[3]
Id. at 4.
[4]
Id. at 6.
[5]
Rollo, p. 7.chanrobles virtual law library
[6]
Letter dated October 8, 2001, Rollo, p. 8.
[7]
Rollo, p. 10.chanrobles virtual law library
[8]
315 SCRA 438 (1999).
[9]
Id. at 448-449.chanrobles virtual law library
[10]
Martinez v. Zoleta, supra; Tabao v. Espina, 257 SCRA 298 (1996); Pasane
v. Reloza, 235 SCRA 1 (1994).
[11]
Impao v. Makilala, 178 SCRA 541 (1989).chanrobles virtual law library
[12]
Santos v. Buenaventura, 367 SCRA 83 (2001).chanrobles virtual law library
[13]
Rule 1.01. – A judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity
and independence.
[14]
CANON 1- A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the
Judiciary.chanrobles virtual law library
[15]
Rule 2.01. – A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
[16]
CANON 2 – A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and Appearance of
Impropriety
in All Activities.chanrobles virtual law library
[17]
Edgardo D. Balsamo v. Judge Pedro L. Suan, A.M. No. RTJ-016156,
September
17, 2003, citing Millare v. Valera, 325 SCRA 434 (2000).
[18]
Macachor v. Beldia, Jr., A. M. No. RTJ-02-1724, June 12, 2003.chanrobles virtual law library
[19]
Casia v. Gestopa, Jr., 312 SCRA 204 (1999).chanrobles virtual law library
[20]
Saylo v. Rojo, 330 SCRA 243 (2000).chanrobles virtual law library
[21]
Office of the Court Administrator v. Del Rosario, 239 SCRA 135 (1994).
[22]
Bayog v. Natino, 258 SCRA 378 (1996).chanrobles virtual law library
[23]
Bayog v. Natino, 271 SCRA 268 (1997).chanrobles virtual law library
[24]
Pablito R. Soria and Teodulo R. Soria vs. Judge Franklyn A. Villegas,
A.M.
No. RTJ-03-1812, November 19, 2003.
[25]
Citing Davila v. Generoso, 336 SCRA 576 (2000).chanrobles virtual law library
[26]
Supra, p. 5. |
