A.M. No. MTJ-03-1504, August 26, 2003
FELICITAS M. HIMALIN, Complainant, vs. JUDGE ISAURO M. BALDERIAN, Municipal Trial Court, Bacoor, Cavite, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Felicitas M. Himalin, as attorney-in-fact for the plaintiffs in an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 2127), charged respondent Judge Isauro M. Balderian with Serious or Deliberate Neglect of Duty. The complaint alleged that after a pre-trial order directing the submission of position papers, the defendants filed theirs four days late. Plaintiffs filed a “Motion to Strike Out Defendants’ Position Paper,” but the judge failed to act on this motion for almost two months and subsequently failed to resolve the ejectment case itself within the 30-day period mandated by the Rules on Summary Procedure. A motion for early resolution was also ignored, prompting the filing of this administrative case.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) required respondent Judge to comment. He repeatedly failed to comply despite several directives, tracers, a show-cause order, and the imposition of fines. The Court eventually found him guilty of contempt, ordered his arrest and detention until compliance, and directed the NBI to implement the order. The NBI reported unsuccessful attempts to locate and arrest the respondent at his court station and residence.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Isauro M. Balderian is administratively liable for gross inefficiency and for defying the lawful orders of the Supreme Court.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge is administratively liable. The Court found him guilty of gross inefficiency for his failure to resolve the pending motion and the ejectment case within the reglementary period. The Constitution and the Code of Judicial Conduct mandate judges to dispose of court business promptly and decide cases within prescribed periods. Undue delay constitutes a denial of justice and erodes public confidence in the judiciary. His inaction on the motion and the case for an unreasonable time, without any justification, violated these clear mandates.
More egregiously, his repeated and willful disobedience of the Supreme Court’s directives to file his comment demonstrated gross misconduct and contemptuous behavior. His failure to comply with multiple orders, pay fines only under duress, and evade arrest showed a blatant disregard for judicial authority and the administrative supervision of the Supreme Court. Such conduct is prejudicial to the proper administration of justice. Considering the gravity of the offenses, which combined gross inefficiency with outright defiance, the Court imposed the supreme penalty of dismissal from service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in any government branch or instrumentality.