G.R. No.: A.M. No. MTJ-94-1017 July 7, 1997
Case Parties: MAYOR OSCAR B. LAMBINO, complainant, vs. JUDGE AMANDO A. DE VERA, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Judge Amado A. de Vera of the Municipal Trial Court, Malasiqui, Pangasinan, was charged in two administrative complaints with various corrupt practices prejudicial to the administration of justice. An anonymous letter complaint dated June 6, 1994, accused him of gross inefficiency, delay in resolving pending cases, and allowing lawyers to prepare his decisions. Judge de Vera denied these charges. A second letter-complaint dated October 17, 1994, from Mayor Oscar B. Lambino reiterated the allegations and added that Judge de Vera fraternized with known criminals. The case was referred for investigation to Executive Judge Victor Llamas, Jr., who recommended Judge de Vera’s dismissal. The Office of the Court Administrator adopted this recommendation. The investigation revealed that from 1993-1994, twenty-six criminal cases were filed in Judge de Vera’s court, none of which were resolved, not even for probable cause determination, and decisions in cases where probable cause was found were delayed for approximately five years. Four civil cases submitted for decision in 1989, 1991, 1992, and 1993 also remained unresolved. Furthermore, Judge de Vera submitted fake certifications of service. The charges regarding allowing lawyers to prepare decisions and fraternizing with criminals were found to be based on mere suspicion and speculation.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Amado A. de Vera should be dismissed from the service for gross inefficiency and fraudulent practice in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and constitutional mandates.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court DISMISSED respondent Judge Amando A. de Vera from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations. The Court found that Judge de Vera’s failure to decide cases within the constitutionally mandated 90-day period constituted gross inefficiency. His inaction on twenty-six criminal cases and four unresolved civil cases, coupled with his submission of fake certifications of service, were serious violations that impeded the administration of justice and betrayed a failure to meet judicial standards. The charges of allowing lawyers to prepare decisions and fraternizing with criminals were not given credence for lack of evidence. Considering the gravity of his acts and omissions, the penalty of dismissal was deemed proper.