A.M. No. RTJ-08-2144. November 3, 2008.
ATTY. RAUL H. SESBREÑO, complainant, vs. JUDGE IRENEO L. GAKO, JR., Judge, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 5, Cebu City, and MANUEL G. NOLLORA, Clerk of Court, RTC, Br. 5, Cebu City, respondents.

FACTS

1. Atty. Raul H. Sesbreño filed an administrative complaint against Judge Ireneo L. Gako, Jr. and Clerk of Court Manuel G. Nollora of the RTC, Branch 5, Cebu City.
2. The charges against Judge Gako were: (a) violation of Rule 3.05, Canon 3, in relation to Rule 1.02, Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct for undue delay in resolving a Motion for Reconsideration filed in Special Proceedings No. 916-R (Intestate Estate of Vito Borromeo); (b) violation of Canon 2 for acting on the case after he had issued an Order inhibiting himself; and (c) incompetence, together with Clerk of Court Nollora, for failure to keep the case records intact and for proceeding with incomplete records.
3. The complainant alleged that the Motion for Reconsideration, submitted for resolution on July 4, 2003, was not resolved within the 90-day constitutional period. Judge Gako issued an Order on April 26, 2004, inhibiting himself from the case, but almost five months later, on September 3, 2004, he issued another Order granting a Motion for Clarification/Reconsideration filed by other heirs.
4. Regarding incompetence, when the case records were turned over to RTC Branch 9, only 16 out of 72 volumes were accounted for.
5. Judge Gako initially failed to comply with two directives from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to file his comment. He finally complied after the Supreme Court issued a show-cause resolution, explaining his compulsory retirement on September 20, 2006, a subsequent mild stroke, and his belief that the motion for reconsideration was filed by an improper party. He also stated that his voluntary inhibition was discretionary.
6. Clerk of Court Nollora admitted in his comment that only 16 volumes were turned over but claimed they only received that many from the Office of the Clerk of Court and did not request the others as there was no court order and the motions could be resolved without them.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Judge Ireneo L. Gako, Jr. and Clerk of Court Manuel G. Nollora are administratively liable for the charges against them.

RULING

The Supreme Court found both respondents administratively liable.
1. As to Judge Ireneo L. Gako, Jr.:
* He is GUILTY of two less serious offenses:
a. Undue delay in rendering a decision/order for failing to resolve the Motion for Reconsideration within the prescribed three-month period, in violation of the Constitution, the Code of Judicial Conduct, and Supreme Court Administrative Circulars. His claim that the motion was filed by an improper party was not a valid excuse for inaction.
b. Violation of Supreme Court directives for his contumacious refusal to submit his comment to the OCA despite two directives and a show-cause resolution from the Court. His explanation of suffering a mild stroke was insufficient to exonerate him, though it may mitigate liability.
* PENALTY: A FINE in the total amount of P30,000.00, to be deducted from the amount withheld from his retirement benefits.
2. As to Clerk of Court Manuel G. Nollora:
* He is GUILTY of simple neglect of duty. As custodian of court records, he failed to ensure all records of the case were complete and intact. His justification for not securing the remaining volumes was unacceptable.
* PENALTY: A FINE equivalent to one (1) month salary and a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely. The Court converted the penalty of suspension to a fine to prevent disruption of public service.
The Court emphasized that judges must dispose of court business promptly and decide cases within required periods, and that all court personnel must maintain the integrity of court records to preserve public faith in the judiciary.