A.M. No. MTJ-93-881 August 3, 1998
Jocelyn E. Grefaldeo, complainant, vs. Judge Rica H. Lacson, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court, Sorsogon, Sorsogon, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Jocelyn E. Grefaldeo, an accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 10015-10033 for estafa through falsification of commercial documents pending before respondent Judge Rica H. Lacson’s court, filed a sworn complaint charging the judge with grave misconduct, dishonesty, dereliction of duty, and gross ignorance of the law. The complainant alleged that she filed a motion to dismiss on September 20, 1991, which respondent judge failed to resolve for over two years, despite an “Urgent Motion to Resolve” filed on March 24, 1993. Furthermore, the complainant alleged that the respondent judge falsely attested in her certificates of service from January 1992 to March 1993 that she had resolved all motions within the mandatory 90-day period. The respondent judge repeatedly failed to file her comment on the complaint despite four resolutions from the Supreme Court and two letters from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) ordering her to do so. She also failed to comply with orders to show cause and paid a fine only after a significant delay. The OCA noted her defiance in another administrative matter (A.M. No. 98-5-58-MTC) and referenced two other pending cases against her. It was also mentioned that in a separate case, she was found administratively liable for engaging in notarial services unrelated to her official functions and was fined.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Rica H. Lacson should be held administratively liable for the charges against her, considering her failure to resolve a motion for over two years, her alleged false certifications in her certificates of service, and, most significantly, her repeated defiance of the Supreme Court’s lawful directives to comment on the complaint.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court DISMISSED respondent Judge Rica H. Lacson from the service with forfeiture of all accrued retirement benefits and other privileges, with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch, agency, or instrumentality. The Court ruled that her contumacious conduct and persistent failure to comply with its resolutions constituted an implied admission of the charges (qui tacet consentire videtur). Her failure to resolve the motion to dismiss for over two years amounted to gross inefficiency and a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Making false statements in her certificates of service constituted falsification of an official document. However, what ultimately sealed her fate was her continued defiance of the Supreme Court’s orders, which demonstrated a lack of interest in remaining in the judiciary and contempt for the judicial system. The penalty of dismissal was immediately executory.