G.R. No. A.M. No. RTJ-19-2567 August 14, 2019
Office of the Court Administrator, Complainant vs. Hon. Danilo P. Galvez (Ret.), Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Iloilo City, Respondent

FACTS

A judicial audit in July 2001 of RTC Branch 25, Iloilo City, following the compulsory retirement of its presiding judge, revealed 44 cases (8 criminal, 36 civil) submitted for decision but left undecided. In a Resolution dated January 28, 2002, the Supreme Court directed respondent Judge Danilo P. Galvez, the Pairing Judge of Branch 25, to decide or resolve these inherited cases. The Court also designated two other judges to assist him, with the cases to be raffled among them, and required them to submit reports. Judge Galvez failed to comply. On August 19, 2002, the Court issued a show-cause order against him and the two other judges for non-compliance. The other judges subsequently explained their actions and were deemed to have satisfactorily complied. Judge Galvez, however, did not comply. Telegrams were sent as reminders. Only in 2018, after his compulsory retirement, did Judge Galvez file a motion, claiming he was unaware of the Court’s Resolutions and that he misunderstood the directive. He stated the inherited cases were separated from his regular docket and had been abandoned by the parties, except for one he decided. He accepted a recommended fine of ₱20,000. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found his explanation dishonest, noting his grave disregard for the Court’s directives and citing his previous administrative cases. The OCA recommended finding him guilty of gross misconduct and imposing a ₱40,000 fine deductible from his retirement gratuity.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Danilo P. Galvez is administratively liable for his failure to comply with the Supreme Court’s Resolutions directing him to decide or resolve the inherited cases from RTC Branch 25.

RULING

Yes, Judge Danilo P. Galvez is administratively liable for Gross Misconduct. The Court found that his unjustified refusal and repeated failure to comply with the lawful directives of the Supreme Court and the OCA constituted gross misconduct, insubordination, and disrespect for the Court. The Court rejected his claim of ignorance, finding it highly incredulous and noting his admission of being aware of the directive to raffle the cases. His indifference and contumacious conduct resulted in a delay of at least 17 years in the disposition of the cases, prejudicing the parties’ right to a speedy disposition. Gross misconduct is a serious charge under the Rules of Court. Considering his retirement, the penalty of suspension could no longer be imposed. Instead, the Court imposed a fine equivalent to six (6) months’ salary, to be deducted from his retirement gratuity.