G.R. No. A.C. No. 122-J July 31, 1968
NICOLAS A. SUPERABLE, JR., complainant, vs. HON. GODOFREDO ESCALONA, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Nicolas A. Superable, Jr., City Judge of Tacloban City, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Godofredo Escalona of the Court of First Instance of Leyte. The first charge alleged inefficiency, incompetency, and falsification of public documents, citing that respondent held court sessions for only about one hour daily, causing slow justice, and failed to decide Civil Case No. 3636 within the 90-day reglementary period, thereby falsifying his certificate of service when collecting his salary for subsequent months. The second charge alleged serious misconduct due to violation of oath of office and/or incompetency, claiming respondent allowed himself to be influenced by Congressman Marcelino R. Veloso in Administrative Case No. 26 involving complainant, making unsupported findings and recommending a severe reprimand instead of dropping the case. Respondent Judge, in his answer, argued the complaint was moot due to his automatic retirement on January 12, 1968. He denied holding only one-hour sessions, supported by an affidavit from the Leyte Bar Association president. He denied inefficiency, submitting a certificate from the Clerk of Court on his case disposals and explaining the delay in Civil Case No. 3636 was due to deducted sick and vacation leaves and lack of clerical personnel. He also denied being influenced by Congressman Veloso, supported by affidavits including one from the Congressman himself.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Godofredo Escalona should be held administratively liable for the charges of inefficiency, incompetency, falsification of public documents, and serious misconduct.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. On the first charge, the Court found the charge of inefficiency unsustainable, as respondent’s case disposal output from 1964-65 to his retirement compared favorably with other judges in Leyte, and the lower output in one fiscal year was due to a month of sick leave. The charge of falsification was deemed a mere presumption, and respondent’s explanation for the delay in deciding Civil Case No. 3636 was satisfactory. On the second charge, the Court found the charge of serious misconduct unmeritorious, as the alleged conversation with Congressman Veloso was vehemently denied by the parties involved, and even if it occurred, there was no clear showing it influenced respondent’s recommendation. Any alleged error in judgment in the administrative report, without proof of intentional law violation or disregard of rules, did not constitute serious misconduct.