A.M. No. MTJ-86-27 and A.M. No. 87-1-2705-TEL. April 10, 1987. GEORGE M. MINOR, et al., complainants, vs. JUDGE DELFIN E. AGBU and JUDGE LORETO M. QUINTO, respondents.
FACTS

The complainants, members of the Board of Directors of the Zamboanga del Sur Electric Cooperative (ZAMSURECO), filed an administrative case against Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judges Delfin E. Agbu and Loreto M. Quinto. The judges were elective members of the ZAMSURECO Board, with Judge Agbu serving since 1980 and Judge Quinto since 1986. The complaint invoked a Supreme Court en banc resolution dated May 29, 1980, which enjoined judges from acting as directors of electric cooperatives on the ground that such duties would prejudice and interfere with the expeditious and proper administration of justice. The respondents were charged with dishonesty, breach of trust, and gross misconduct.
In their separate Answers, the respondent judges asserted their right to hold the positions under Section 21 of P.D. No. 269 (The National Electrification Decree). They argued that board meetings held only twice a month on Saturdays did not interfere with their judicial functions. Judge Agbu specifically questioned the propriety of the Court’s 1980 policy, suggesting it was not properly circulated. Subsequently, the Court received a telegram informing it that both judges continued to sit as directors despite a prior letter-directive from the Court Administrator to resign. The Court then issued a resolution on January 8, 1987, directing them to tender their resignations immediately or suffer consequences.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judges Agbu and Quinto should be held administratively liable for their refusal to immediately resign from their positions as directors of ZAMSURECO, in defiance of the Supreme Court’s established policy and subsequent direct orders.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judges are administratively liable. The Supreme Court emphasized its unwavering policy, established in a 1980 en banc resolution, that prohibits judges from sitting on the boards of electric cooperatives. The legal logic is rooted in the imperative of preserving judicial independence, integrity, and the efficient administration of justice. The Court held that such external engagements inherently risk conflicts of interest, could undermine public confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality, and may divert time and attention from judicial duties, regardless of the meeting schedule.
The respondents’ defense, relying on a statute (P.D. 269) purportedly granting them a right to the position, is untenable. The Court’s constitutional power of supervision over the judiciary and its duty to ensure the ethical conduct of judges supersedes any general statutory provision. Judges, as officers of the court, are held to a higher standard and must avoid any activity that could cast doubt on their neutrality or capacity to perform their primary functions promptly. Their continued defiance of the Court’s direct orders, after being given ample opportunity to comply, constituted insubordination and disrespect for judicial authority.
Accordingly, the Court imposed disciplinary sanctions. Judge Quinto, who filed only a conditional resignation, was reprimanded for his failure to comply immediately. Judge Agbu, who obdurately refused to resign, was suspended from office for six months. Both judges were also ordered to make restitution of all per diems and allowances received from ZAMSURECO from the date they received the Court’s initial directive, as they were no longer entitled to such benefits after being clearly instructed to desist.