G.R. No. MTJ-89-315. April 7, 1993.
GODOFREDO DELA CRUZ, complainant, vs. JUDGE BONIFACIO V. CURSO, Municipal Trial Court, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Godofredo dela Cruz charged respondent Judge Bonifacio V. Curso of the Municipal Trial Court of Kawayan, Leyte, with delay in the administration of justice for failing to decide Criminal Case No. 717 for violation of P.D. No. 772. The case was submitted for decision on April 29, 1981. Respondent Judge admitted he did not decide the case because its records were lost, and he did not know how or when they were lost, speculating they could have been lost during typhoons as the court was in a dilapidated building. Complainant later executed an affidavit of desistance, stating he was no longer interested in pursuing the complaint due to poor health, advanced age, and because he was already in possession of the disputed property.

ISSUE

Whether the administrative complaint against respondent Judge should be dismissed based on the complainant’s affidavit of desistance.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court ruled that the affidavit of desistance does not warrant the outright dismissal of the administrative complaint, especially where the respondent Judge admits the material allegations and reveals his failure to safeguard court records. The Court, agreeing with the Court Administrator, emphasized that a judge’s responsibility includes proper and efficient court management, and the loss of records without knowing how or when it happened indicates negligence. The Court cited precedents (Bais vs. Tugaoen, Jr. and Longboan vs. Polig) that disfavor dismissal based merely on desistance where evidence warrants disciplinary action. Respondent Judge Bonifacio V. Curso was REPRIMANDED with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense would be dealt with more severely.