A.M. No. 280 MJ. June 28, 1974.
Lucito Macabasa, complainant, vs. Tomas P. Banaag, Municipal Judge of Jasa-an, Misamis Oriental, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Lucito Macabasa, the offended party in a criminal case for grave oral defamation, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Municipal Judge Tomas P. Banaag for negligence and dereliction of duty. The complaint alleged that on August 29, 1970, at a scheduled 8:30 AM continuation hearing, the respondent judge failed to appear until noon, as he was planting mango seedlings in his garden. This caused the parties, their witnesses, the assistant provincial fiscal, and defense counsel to wait. The hearing was reset to September 14, 1970, at the same time, upon a joint manifestation of the parties.
On the reset date, respondent judge again failed to appear until noon, allegedly because he was at his farm. This resulted in the same court attendees losing another half-day. When required by the Department of Justice to comment, the respondent judge claimed his absence on both occasions was due to a severe, excruciating headache. The case was referred to Judge Benjamin K. Gorospe of the Court of First Instance for investigation.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Tomas P. Banaag is administratively liable for negligence and dereliction of duty for his repeated failure to appear at scheduled hearings.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable. The investigating judge, Judge Gorospe, found the respondent’s explanations hollow and unconvincing. For the August 29 absence, the judge noted that if the respondent was physically able to plant seedlings at 6:30 AM, he should have been able to attend court by 8:30 AM, indicating the scheduled trial likely slipped his mind. For the September 14 absence, the claim that his wife did not know his whereabouts in their own house was implausible.
The legal logic centers on the judge’s gross disregard for his official duties and the rights of the litigants. Even assuming he was ill, he displayed a lack of diligence by failing to send a timely and responsible messenger to inform the court and the parties, instead using an unidentified schoolboy who delivered a postponement note only after noon when the parties had already left. This conduct demonstrates a scant regard for the orderly administration of justice and a preference for personal activities over court duties. The Supreme Court emphasized that a public office is a public trust, and judges must uphold this to ensure the speedy disposition of cases, a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Such negligence congests dockets, causes loss of evidence, and brings the judiciary into disrepute. Accordingly, the Court imposed a fine equivalent to two months’ salary on respondent Judge Banaag.