G.R. No. RTJ-23-037, April 16, 2024
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. HON. LORENZO F. BALO, FORMER PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 44, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, SURALLAH, SOUTH COTABATO, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Respondent Judge Lorenzo F. Balo was the Presiding Judge of Branch 44, RTC, Surallah, South Cotabato, and was later designated as full-time Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 19, RTC, Isulan, Sultan Kudarat on February 14, 2020. He optionally retired on October 3, 2020. In preparation for his retirement, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) directed him to submit a verified report on pending cases in his official station, Branch 44, RTC Surallah. After extensions, the report was submitted on October 29, 2020, almost a month after his retirement. The OCA also directed him to explain his failure to decide/resolve specific cases and incidents. In his response, Judge Balo admitted to delays in disposing of two criminal cases and resolving pending incidents in several cases, citing heavy workload and the COVID-19 pandemic. The OCA found his explanations without merit, noting he failed to request extensions and that some delays occurred before the pandemic. The OCA also found he acted without authority and with Gross Ignorance of the Law by continuing to issue orders and resolve incidents in Branch 44, RTC Surallah after his full-time designation to Branch 19, RTC Isulan. The OCA filed a Memorandum with the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) on May 25, 2021, recommending an inquiry. The JIB agreed with the OCA’s findings and recommended finding Judge Balo guilty of Undue Delay in Rendering Decisions or Orders and Gross Ignorance of the Law, suggesting fines equivalent to six months’ salary for the first offense and three months’ salary for the second, deductible from retirement benefits.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court continues to exercise jurisdiction over the administrative disciplinary proceedings notwithstanding Judge Balo’s optional retirement on October 3, 2020.
2. Whether there are grounds to hold Judge Balo administratively liable.

RULING

1. Yes, the Court retains administrative jurisdiction over Judge Balo despite his optional retirement. The Court clarified that the proceedings were instituted not when the OCA filed its Memorandum with the JIB in May 2021, but earlier, when the OCA issued its memorandum directing Judge Balo to explain on September 30, 2020, which he received on October 2, 2020, a day before his retirement. Since the proceedings were initiated prior to his retirement, the Court retains jurisdiction to resolve the administrative case.
2. Yes, Judge Balo is administratively liable. However, the Court modified the characterization of the offenses. The Court found Judge Balo guilty of three counts of Gross Neglect of Duty under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended, for: (a) failing to decide two criminal cases within the reglementary period; (b) failing to resolve pending incidents in multiple criminal and civil cases on time; and (c) acting on cases and incidents in Branch 44, RTC Surallah without authority after his designation as full-time Acting Presiding Judge of another court. His excuses of heavy workload and the pandemic were insufficient, as he should have requested extensions. The Court imposed a fine of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) for each count of Gross Neglect of Duty, for a total of One Hundred Twenty Thousand Pesos (P120,000.00), to be deducted from any retirement benefits due to him.