G.R. No. 90388. June 19, 1990.
THE OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs. JUDGE VIRGILIO S. LANSANG, MTC, Clark Field, Angeles City, respondent.

FACTS

An administrative complaint was filed against Judge Virgilio S. Lansang based on an investigation revealing serious irregularities in his court. The findings showed that numerous cases submitted for decision, some dating back to 1979 and 1982, remained undecided as of January 1990, contrary to his monthly certifications that he had no cases pending beyond the 90-day period. His court calendar from June to December 1989 showed an extremely low number of hearings, with some months having only one or no hearings, and a significant backlog of 182 cases remained unresolved. Furthermore, while he had been solemnizing marriages and notarizing documents for a fee, these activities were not reflected in his mandatory monthly reports to the Supreme Court.
Earlier, on January 26, 1990, and aware of pending complaints, Judge Lansang submitted an irrevocable resignation effective January 31, 1990. In his Comment, he attributed his failures to the non-arrest of accused persons and an irreconcilable rift with his Clerk of Court, whose reports he claimed were inconsistent and inaccurate, leading him to desire resignation.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Virgilio S. Lansang is administratively liable for the charges of gross inefficiency, neglect of duty, and dishonesty in his official reports.

RULING

Yes, the Court found Judge Lansang guilty of all charges. The legal logic centers on the fundamental duty of judges to administer justice promptly and diligently, as delay is a denial of justice. His failure to decide cases for years, despite mandatory certifications to the contrary, constitutes gross inefficiency and neglect of duty. The minimal court activity and unaddressed backlog demonstrated a dereliction of his core judicial functions. His omission to report his extra-judicial activities, while profiting from them, amounted to dishonesty and a failure to be transparent with the Supreme Court, violating the required standards of judicial conduct.
The Court rejected his justifications. His grievances against his Clerk of Court were deemed insufficient, as he never formally reported these alleged irregularities to seek administrative remedies, thereby acquiescing to the status of his court. His resignation, submitted when administrative action was imminent, was not accepted. Instead, the Court considered him retired, but with the severe penalty of forfeiture of all retirement benefits and gratuities. This sanction underscores that resignation cannot absolve a judge of administrative liability for gross misconduct committed during tenure, serving as a deterrent and upholding the integrity of the judiciary.