G.R. No. A.M. No. 1059-MJ. April 12, 1982.
DEMETRIO YU, complainant, vs. JUDGE JOSE CONSOLACION-SERRANO, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Demetrio Yu charged respondent Municipal Judge Jose Consolacion-Serrano with malicious and gross delay in the administration of justice concerning two criminal cases. In Criminal Case No. 5015 for Qualified Theft, filed in September 1973 with Yu as the complaining witness, respondent judge failed to hold a single hearing for almost two years. The case was set for arraignment twice but did not proceed due to alleged lack of notice and absence of counsel de oficio, despite available lawyers in the community. When Yu inquired, the judge retorted, “Marunong ka pa sa akin” and “Pilosopo ka. Pahihirapan kita sa kaso.” Hearings only commenced after Yu filed this administrative complaint and the judge inhibited himself.
In Criminal Case No. 3994, where Yu himself was the accused for Serious Oral Defamation, respondent judge had inhibited himself, and the case was tried by Judge Procopio Morales, who rendered a decision of acquittal on May 6, 1974. The records were transmitted to respondent’s court for promulgation. However, respondent judge deliberately never promulgated the decision. Yu only learned of his acquittal in 1978 during the investigation of this administrative case. The original decision and case records were also missing from respondent’s court.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Jose Consolacion-Serrrano is administratively liable for gross delay in the administration of justice.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is guilty of malicious and gross delay, warranting dismissal. The Court found the delays in both cases were not mere negligence but deliberate and malicious. For Criminal Case No. 5015, the nearly two-year inactivity without a valid excuse, coupled with his derogatory remarks to the complainant, constituted a blatant disregard for the speedy disposition of cases. His excuses for not proceeding—lack of notice and counsel—were untenable given the circumstances.
Regarding Criminal Case No. 3994, the failure to promulgate a decision already rendered for years and the loss of the case records demonstrated gross incompetence and possible infidelity in the custody of public documents. This act deprived the complainant of the finality of his acquittal and undermined public confidence in the judiciary. The Investigating Judge’s report confirmed these findings of delinquency. The Court noted that respondent had been previously admonished and warned in separate administrative matters for similar deficiencies in prudence, judgment, and delay. Despite these prior warnings, he persisted in conduct unbecoming of a judge. Such repeated remissness showed he was not a fitting example of integrity, responsibility, and efficiency required of a magistrate. Consequently, the Court dismissed him from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and with prejudice to reinstatement in any government branch.