G.R. No.: A.M. No. RTJ-91-666. March 12, 1993.
Case Parties: SPOUSES ANTONIO AND DONATA F. SABADO, petitioners, vs. JUDGE NOVATO T. CAJIGAL, respondent.

FACTS

The complainants, spouses Antonio and Donata Sabado, filed a letter-complaint charging respondent Judge Novato T. Cajigal (formerly of RTC, Branch 27, Nueva Vizcaya, later assigned to RTC, Bacoor, Cavite) with gross neglect of duty for failing to decide Civil Case No. 2229 (“Quieting of Title or Recovery of Possession with Damages”) since 1984, the trial of which concluded in August 1984. On August 30, 1984, respondent Judge issued an order requiring simultaneous memoranda, after which the case would be deemed submitted for decision. Memoranda were filed, but no decision was rendered. Complainants made repeated inquiries and requests for a decision through personal visits and letters to respondent Judge (June 1, 1989, July 20, 1989), a motion filed in court (August 16, 1989), and letters to the new presiding judge and court administrators (February 7, 1990, subsequent requests). Respondent Judge, in a September 11, 1990 letter to a Deputy Court Administrator, claimed he was waiting for a stenographer to complete transcriptions. However, a certification from the OIC Clerk of Court dated July 16, 1990, stated the complete records, including transcripts, were forwarded to respondent Judge on August 20, 1988. The Supreme Court ordered respondent Judge to comment on the complaint on December 5, 1991, but he neglected to do so. He was subsequently fined for non-compliance with Court resolutions and failed to appear at scheduled investigations despite due notice.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Novato T. Cajigal is administratively liable for gross neglect of duty and inefficiency for failing to decide a case within the required period and for ignoring the Supreme Court’s orders and investigation proceedings.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge is guilty of gross inefficiency and neglect of duty. The Court, adopting the findings of the investigating Justice, held that the failure to decide a case within the required period constitutes gross inefficiency and is not excusable. Respondent Judge violated Rule 3.01 (maintaining professional competence) and Rule 3.05 (disposing court business promptly) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. His failure to decide the case since 1984, his refusal to comment on the complaint despite Court orders, and his failure to appear at the investigation to explain his side demonstrated a clear lack of desire to exculpate himself and a serious dereliction of duty. Accordingly, respondent Judge Novato T. Cajigal is DISMISSED from the service, with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits), and with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency. He is also ordered to deliver the complete records of Civil Case No. 2229 to the Court Administrator for transmittal to the proper court for immediate decision.