G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-94-986, A.M. No. MTJ-95-1052, A.M. No. MTJ-95-1069. January 28, 1998.
MIGUEL ABARQUEZ, OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, and ANICETA TARLES, complainants, vs. JUDGE BIENVENIDO M. REBOSURA, respondent.

FACTS

Three administrative complaints were consolidated against respondent Judge Bienvenido M. Rebosura of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Calape, Bohol. Miguel Abarquez complained about the judge’s non-compliance with the 90-day mandatory period to resolve cases. Aniceta Tarles complained of ill-treatment and unreasonable delay in her criminal case pending for 10 years. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) formally charged the judge with gross inefficiency for failing to decide over 67 cases beyond the 90-day period and falsification of his Quarterly Report of Cases for the quarter ending June 30, 1994, by indicating he had no cases submitted for decision. Judicial audits confirmed that as of 1994-1995, respondent had 24 cases (23 criminal, 1 civil) submitted for decision but undecided beyond the reglementary period, with delays ranging from over one year to almost eleven years. Respondent admitted the delay in some cases, offering explanations such as a party’s verbal request to hold a case in abeyance, his designations as acting judge in another court, and his alleged tendency to forget “simple” cases. Regarding the falsified report, he blamed his clerk of court for an unintentional mistake in preparation. The OCA found that for many years, respondent made it appear in his monthly certificates of service that all cases had been decided within 90 days, thus enabling him to receive his salaries.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Bienvenido M. Rebosura is administratively liable for gross inefficiency and misconduct due to excessive delay in deciding cases and falsification of certificates of service.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of gross misconduct and inefficiency. The Court found that respondent’s failure to decide 24 cases within the mandatory 90-day period constituted gross inefficiency and violated the constitutional mandate for speedy case disposition. His explanations for the delays were deemed evasive, contrived, and unacceptable. Furthermore, by submitting falsified certificates of service and quarterly reports over several years, which concealed his backlog and allowed him to collect his salary, he committed dishonesty and gross misconduct. The defense of relying on his clerk of court for preparing the certificates was rejected, as a judge bears full responsibility for the accuracy of such documents. The offenses are grave and warrant severe penalty. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSED respondent Judge Bienvenido M. Rebosura from service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in any government branch or corporation. He was ordered to cease and desist from performing official functions immediately upon service of the decision.