A.M. No. 1644-MJ. February 22, 1978.
Erlinda Maderable and Jocelyn Maderable-Abello, complainants, vs. Hon. Salvador Castellano, Judge of the Municipal Court of Maasin, Iloilo, respondent.

FACTS

Complainants Erlinda Maderable and her daughter Jocelyn implored the Supreme Court to compel respondent Judge Salvador Castellano to locate the records and decide Criminal Case No. 25 for the murder of Salvador Maderable, the complainants’ husband and father, respectively. The victim, a Barrio Captain, was shot and killed on November 24, 1969. A criminal complaint for murder was filed against Roberta Maghonoy and Celiong Mates on February 19, 1970. The respondent judge commenced a preliminary investigation, but after Jocelyn testified, all proceedings ceased. The court records were reported missing, and no further action was taken for years, allowing the accused to remain at large, allegedly under the protection of influential persons.
The case was referred to Judge Castellano for comment. He explained that after filing the complaint and issuing a warrant of arrest, the case was “unnoticed” because the warrant was not formally returned to court. Subsequently, he informed the Court that the records had been found inside a steel cabinet in his court, the accused Edilberto Maghonoy (not Roberta) had been arrested, and the preliminary investigation had been scheduled for hearing by his successor, as Judge Castellano had already retired from the judiciary.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Salvador Castellano is administratively liable for gross neglect of duty in failing to act on a murder case for several years.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge was administratively liable for gross neglect of duty. The Supreme Court found him remiss in his judicial functions for neglecting Criminal Case No. 25 from February 19, 1970, when he issued the arrest warrant. His justifications—the alleged loss of the records and the non-return of the warrant—were untenable, as the records were later discovered inside his own court’s cabinet. This demonstrated a lack of diligence. A judge has a sworn duty to administer justice promptly and must exercise due diligence in monitoring the progress of cases and ensuring court records are properly maintained. His inaction for over seven years constituted gross negligence, undermining public confidence in the judicial system.
However, the Court dismissed the administrative case. Mitigating factors warranted this disposition: Judge Castellano had already retired after over 30 years of government service; the missing records were recovered and the accused arrested, addressing the complainants’ core grievances; and the negligence stemmed from carelessness, not malice or bad faith. The dismissal served as a censure and a reminder to the judiciary of the imperative for vigilance, while recognizing the corrective actions taken and the respondent’s prior long service.