G.R. No. A.M. No. 129-J & A.M. No. 243-J July 30, 1976
CASTRO RAVAL and RUFINO S. CORTES, complainants, vs. HON. GUILLERMO ROMERO, respondent.

FACTS

Two consolidated administrative complaints were filed against Judge Guillermo Romero of the Court of First Instance of Isabela. In A.M. No. 129-J, complainant Castro Raval charged the respondent with ignorance of the law, partiality, and oppression. The complaint stemmed from Civil Case No. 1543, where the respondent judge rendered a summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Subsequently, he issued a writ of execution based on a previously issued preliminary injunction, ordering the plaintiff to vacate land in favor of a defendant, Demetrio Castro. When the plaintiff re-entered the land, the judge cited him for contempt and ordered arrests unless bail bonds were posted.
In A.M. No. 243-J, complainant Rufino S. Cortes charged the respondent with falsification of certificate of service, dishonesty, bribery, serious misconduct, gross partiality, abuse of authority, and falsification. After investigation, Justice Cecilia Muñoz-Palma recommended exoneration on all charges except one: the respondent’s failure to decide Civil Case No. IV-46 within the statutory 90-day period while continuing to collect his salary based on certifications that he had no pending matters to resolve.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) Whether the respondent judge committed actionable administrative offenses in his handling of Civil Case No. 1543; and (2) Whether the respondent judge is administratively liable for the delay in deciding a case and for the corresponding inaccurate certifications of service.

RULING

The Court dismissed the complaint in A.M. No. 129-J but noted a procedural error in the record. The Court found that while the respondent judge committed a procedural lapse by not explicitly making the preliminary injunction final in the dispositive portion of his decision, his actions were substantially correct. The complainant had violated a valid writ, and the judge’s duty to impose sanctions for contempt was justified. No injury to the complainant’s rights was caused, and the error was not grave enough to warrant administrative sanction, especially since the respondent had applied for retirement.
In A.M. No. 243-J, the Court found the respondent administratively liable only for the undue delay in deciding Civil Case No. IV-46. The evidence was insufficient to sustain the other serious charges. The Court agreed with the investigator that the respondent’s failure to decide the case within the 90-day period, and his subsequent collection of salary based on inaccurate certifications, demonstrated a lack of due diligence. Although no bad faith or malevolent design was proven, such negligence in the performance of judicial functions, resulting in delayed justice, merits sanction. The Court distinguished this from the case of In re Flordeliza, where a mere admonition was given, noting that the legal requirement for timely decision-making was by then unequivocal.
Considering the respondent’s pending retirement application under Republic Act No. 910 , the Court ordered the forfeiture of three months’ salary from his retirement benefits in favor of the government as a penalty for the delay. The complaint in A.M. No. 129-J was dismissed with a notation of the procedural error.