AM 03 1515 MTJ; (November, 2004) (Digest)
A.M. No. 03-1515-MTJ. November 19, 2004. DOLORES IMBANG, complainant, vs. JUDGE DEOGRACIAS K. DEL ROSARIO, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Patnongon, Antique, respondent.
FACTS
Dolores Imbang filed an administrative complaint against Judge Deogracias K. del Rosario for alleged failure to decide a civil case. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) repeatedly directed the respondent judge to file his comment on the complaint. Despite several directives and a final warning, the judge failed to comply, prompting the Court to initially fine him P10,000 and order him to show cause why he should not be dismissed. The judge eventually complied, paid the fine, and submitted a Manifestation.
In his explanation, Judge Del Rosario cited poor time management and serious health conditions—including diabetes, coronary artery disease, and hypertension—as reasons for his non-compliance. He attached medical certificates and stated that his ailments, combined with the difficulty of traveling to his regular station and a designated court, greatly affected his efficiency. He humbly pleaded to be allowed to retire from the service.
ISSUE
Whether Judge Deogracias K. Del Rosario is administratively liable for his repeated failure to comply with the Court’s directives to comment on the administrative complaint against him.
RULING
Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable. The Court found his explanations of poor health and poor time management unacceptable and insufficient to justify his failure to obey lawful directives for over five years. A judge’s office demands obedience to all lawful orders from superiors. The failure to comment on an administrative complaint constitutes a dereliction of the duty to defend oneself and shows disrespect for the Court and its processes. Such contumacious conduct amounts to gross misconduct and insubordination.
While the respondent’s serious health conditions do not exculpate him from liability, the Court considered them as a mitigating circumstance. Consequently, applying Section 11(A) of Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, which governs serious charges, the Court imposed a fine of Twenty-One Thousand Pesos (P21,000.00). The fine is within the prescribed range for such offenses and balances the need for accountability with the recognition of his mitigating circumstances.