G.R. No. A.M. No. 222-J. June 20, 1977.
THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, complainant, vs. JUDGE JOSE C. BORROMEO OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CEBU, respondent.

FACTS

The Secretary of Justice filed an administrative complaint against Judge Jose C. Borromeo for serious misconduct and gross inefficiency. The charges primarily involved his failure to decide several criminal and civil cases within the 90-day reglementary period and his submission of false certifications of service for multiple months in 1970 and 1971, stating he had no cases pending decision beyond ninety days when, in fact, he did. The complaint also detailed numerous instances of unreasonable delay in acting upon pending cases, with some cases remaining inactive for several years, leading to a heavy accumulation in his docket. Specific examples included a forcible entry case where action was taken only after over five years and other cases where delays ranged from several months to over four years before reactivation.
In his defense, Judge Borromeo explained that decisions in certain appealed criminal cases were prepared but their promulgation was held in abeyance pending a Supreme Court resolution on a material legal question in a related case. He attributed delays in other cases to lack of calendaring by the clerk of court and inaction by the parties. He also highlighted his court’s limited personnel and noted that, despite the allegations, his branch had the least number of pending cases among the six branches in Cebu City. The complainant initially moved to hold proceedings in abeyance, acknowledging the respondent’s good faith, but later moved to resume proceedings after finding his explanations unsatisfactory.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Jose C. Borromeo should be held administratively liable for serious misconduct and gross inefficiency based on the charges.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. The Court, upon detailed study of the records, found that punitive action beyond an admonition was unwarranted. It accepted the Judicial Consultant’s memorandum, which concluded that the decisions in the key criminal cases cited in the complaint were in fact rendered within the 90-day period from submission. The delays in other cases were viewed in the context of the overall performance of the court, considering the respondent’s explanation regarding pending legal issues and administrative constraints. The Court noted that Judge Borromeo had substantially relieved his docket during his tenure. Furthermore, since the respondent had already reached the compulsory age of retirement at the time of the resolution, any admonition would be academic. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed, and the payment of his retirement benefits was allowed. The concurring opinion emphasized that a false certification is a serious offense but concurred in the result based on the finding of substantial docket relief, while also clarifying that reaching retirement age does not automatically moot an administrative case.