A.M. No. RTJ-03-1812. November 19, 2003. Pablito R. Soria and Teodulo R. Soria, complainants, vs. Judge Franklyn A. Villegas, Regional Trial Court of Pagadian City, Branch 19, respondent.
FACTS

Complainants Pablito and Teodulo Soria, officers of Soria and Sons, Inc., filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Franklyn A. Villegas. They alleged that in a special civil action they filed before his court, the judge deliberately delayed resolving an application for a preliminary injunction. They claimed this was because his son was a candidate for city councilor under the same political party as a mayoralty candidate affiliated with one of the opposing parties in the case.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) required Judge Villegas to comment on the complaint. Despite a series of directives—including a formal order from the Supreme Court on July 29, 2002, directing him to comment and explain why he should not be disciplined for insubordination—he repeatedly failed to comply. He was granted one extension of time but still did not file his comment. Subsequent show-cause orders and resolutions from the Court were likewise ignored.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Villegas is administratively liable for his repeated failure to comply with the lawful directives and orders of the Supreme Court and the Office of the Court Administrator.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court emphasized that a judge’s failure to comply with its show-cause orders constitutes grave and serious misconduct affecting his fitness for office. The Court’s resolutions are not mere requests but lawful mandates that must be obeyed fully and promptly. Judge Villegas’s contumacious conduct, demonstrated by his continuous disregard of multiple directives over an extended period, showed gross disrespect for lawful authority, willful insubordination, and a defiance of the very law and order he is sworn to uphold.
This behavior is anathema to the judiciary, where obedience to the law and respect for higher tribunals are fundamental. Such actions tarnish the integrity of the judicial office and impair public confidence in the entire judiciary. Under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended, gross misconduct is a serious charge. Given the gravity of his offense, which showed an utter lack of interest in remaining in the service and contempt for the judicial system, the penalty of one-year suspension recommended by the OCA was deemed insufficient. The Court imposed the ultimate penalty of dismissal from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency.