JUDGE SIMBULAN v.

JUDGE BARTOLOME

The Court held that, although the clerk of court is primarily responsible for the
implementation of respondent judges orders, the fact remains that respondent
judge is tasked with administrative supervision over his or her personnel. It is the
responsibility of the judge to always see to it that his/her orders are properly and
promptly enforced, and that case records are properly stored and kept. Thus, in
the present case, respondent Judge himself should have verified that the
documents for bail were complete and correct instead of relying on the
representations of his clerk of court.

A.M. NO. MTJ-05-1588 – JUNE 5, 2009

PERALTA, J.

FACTS:

Complainant judge charged respondent judge and his acting and retired clerks of court with grave errors
and discrepancies for processing surety bond for a certain accused Mercado.

Respondent judge’s RTC branch received an indorsement for warrant of arrest for the accused. Accused
then posted bail.

Investigations were duly had, and it was discovered that respondent judge issued an order of release
without a certificate of detention and warrant of arrest attached to the records.

Judge blamed his clerk of court. This was not appreciated by the investigating public prosecutor.

It was found that it was the clerk of court’s negligence that caused the issue.

ISSUE:

WoN judge is liable for his clerk of court’s negligence

YES. The Revised Administrative Code provides that the negligence of the subordinate is the negligence
of the superior.
Neglect of duty is failure of an employee to give one’s attention to a task expected of him. Gross when
gravity or frequency threatens public welfare.

RE: ORDER DATED 21 DECEMBER 2006 ISSUED BY JUDGE BONIFIACIO SANZ MACEDA, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, LAS PINAS CITY, BRANCH 275, SUSPENDING LOIDA M. GENABE, LEGAL RESEARCHER, SAME
COURT.

In A.M. No. P-07-2320, we find Genabe guilty for simple neglect of duty. Simple
neglect of duty has been defined as the failure of an employee to give attention to a
task expected of him and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness
or indifference.[4]

A.M. NO. 07-2-93-RTC – OCTOBER 29, 2009

CARPIO, J.

FACTS:

Respondent Genabe is a legal researcher in the RTC of Las Pinas City.

She was given the task to finish summary of a criminal case, but left the task unattended before going to
a seminar in Baguio.

Subsequently, Judge issued a suspension order against her for 30 days.

After the suspension, respondent made a counter-charge against the judge. A fact-finding committee
was organized for the matter.

ISSUE:

WoN respondent is guilty of gross neglect of duty.

WoN judge’s order of suspension was valid.

RULING:

NO. It was found that respondent had 3 days to finish the task but did not do it. However, the same is
not gross.
NO. Pertinent SC memorandum provides that the executive judge can only make an investigation but
not dish out penalties; only the OCA can do so.

SANTIAGO III v. JUSTICE ENRIQUEZ, JR.

The remedy of the aggrieved party is not to file an administrative

complaint against the judge, but to elevate the assailed decision or order
to the higher court for review and correction. An administrative complaint
is not an appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is still available, such
as a motion for reconsideration, an appeal, or a petition
for certiorari, unless the assailed order or decision is tainted with fraud,
malice, or dishonesty

A.M. NO. CA-09-47-J – FEBRUARY 13, 2009

CARPIO-MORALES, J.

FACTS:

Complainant charged CA Justice Enriquez for gross ignorance of the law and gross incompetence in
connection with alleged unjust enrichment in one case regarding complainant.

Said case was about a petition for reconstitution of los/destroyed land certificates. RTC granted the
petition but CA denied the same upon appeal to it.

It was alleged by the complainant that the CA division which handled her case deliberately twisted facts
and laws, which lead to the unfavorable judgment.

ISSUE:
WoN CA justice is guilty of gross ignorance of law

RULING:

NO. Complainant should have appealed or petitioned for certiorari. Administrative complaint is not
remedy unless tainted with malice. Judicial immunity lies when erroneous decision is rendered in good
faith.
3D-INDUSTRIES v. JUSTICE ROXAS

That is why administrative complaints against judges must always be

examined with a discriminating eye for its consequential effects are, by their nature,
highly penal, such that they stand to face the sanction of dismissal and/or
disbarment.[22] In order for this administrative offense to prosper, the subject order
or actuation of the judge in the performance of his official duties must not only be
contrary to existing law and jurisprudence but, more importantly, must be attended
by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption.[23]

not every error or mistake that a judge commits in the performance of his duties
renders him liable, unless he is shown to have acted in bad faith or with
deliberate intent to do an injustice,

A.M. NO. CA-10-50-J – OCTOBER 5, 2010

CARPIO-MORALES, J.

CA justices were charged with violations of anti-graft.

Complainant avers that CA justices are a “judicial vending machine” for regularly dispensing TROs and
injunction orders.

Complainant was a “victim” of such unjust acts, hence the complaint.

ISSUE:

WoN justices were guilty of the charge.

RULING:

NO. Records are bereft of evidence of malice. Not every bad judgment will render them liable. Bad faith
connotes not only bad judgment but a dishonest purpose. Gross negligence is complete want of care,
act or omission where one should act, willfully, without regard for others. None were substantiated in
the case at bar.
OCAMPO v. JUDGE ARCAYA-CHUA

All those who don the judicial robe must always instill in their minds the
exhortation that the administration of justice is a mission. Judges, from the lowest
to the highest levels, are the gems in the vast government bureaucracy, beacon
lights looked upon as the embodiments of all what is right, just and proper, the
ultimate weapons against injustice and oppression.

Those who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and
integrity have no place in the judiciary. xxx This Court will not withhold penalty
when called for to uphold the peoples faith in the judiciary.[64]

A.M. NO. RTJ-07-2049

PER CURIAM

FACTS:

A judicial audit investigation on the sala of respondent judge was conducted by the SC.

Substantial evidence was gathered showing respondent judge did not report in her monthly reports
regarding the actual number of marriages she had solemnized.

It was also shown that the solemnization fees paid did not correspond to her provided number of actual
marriages solemnized.

From the report of Nov. 2005 – Mar. 2007, her monthly reports indicated she did not solemnize any
marriage. Court records reveal, however, that there were 1,068 marriage certificates issued by her.

It was also shown that Jamora, a court stenographer, affixed her signatures on the certificates, knowing
the act was wrong.

ISSUE:

WoN judge and court stenographer are guilty.

RULING:
YES. Both were guilty of gross misconduct. Both were likewise dismissed, with all retirement benefits
forfeited. Also with prejudice to any re-employment in any government agency.
ATTY. DESCALLAR v. JUDGE RAMAS

Indeed, there may be threats to his life as alleged and indicated in his Order, and which claim was
not refuted by the complainant. But such threats do not justify his cessation from performing judicial
functions. Threats are concomitant peril in public office especially in the judiciary, where magistrates
decide and determine sensitive issues that normally generate or provoke reprisals from losing
litigants. This is a consequence that judges should be prepared of. Their exalted position entails a
great responsibility unyielding to one’s personal convenience.

A.M. NO. RTJ-06-2015 – DECEMBER 15, 2010

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

FACTS:

Lawyer complainant charged respondent with 7 administrative complaints for gross ignorance of the
law, gross negligence, and violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

It was alleged that the judge committed an error by granting a motion for execution whereby the judge
miscounted the day of reckoning from which the execution be done.

It was also alleged that respondent granted an improper plea bargain and probation motion.

ISSUE:

WoN administrative charges will lie against judge.

NO. Judicial remedies must first be EXHAUSTED. Then, ADMINISTRATIVE. And only after then will civil
and criminal options be open.

TIERRA FIRMA ESTATE v. JUDGE QUINTIN

Indeed, this Court has constantly impressed upon the judges may it not be
said without success the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously, for
it cannot be gainsaid that justice delayed is justice denied. Delay in the
disposition of cases undermines the peoples faith and confidence in the
judiciary. Hence, judges are enjoined to decide cases with dispatch. Their
failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of
administrative sanctions on them. [6]

A.M. NO. MTJ-02-1434 – JULY 2, 2002

MENDOZA, J.

FACTS:

Complainant charged respondent judge for failure to decide a civil action for unlawful detainer.

Complainant was a plaintiff in said civil action, which, according to the Rules of Court, should have been
decided within 30 days.

However, respondent judge decided only after 210 days.

Respondent judge avers that the heavy caseload caused the inordinate delay.

ISSUE:

WoN judge is guilty of gross inefficiency.

RULING:

NO. Judge was guilty of inefficiency, but not gross. Expanded caseload was mitigating.

Forcible entry and unlawful detainer are summary in nature; designed to ensure speedy disposition of
cases. Justice delayed is justice denied. Undermines people’s faith and confidence in the judiciary.

ATTY. RICON v. JUDGE MARQUEZ

We agree with Justice Carandang that it was Judge Marquezs prerogative, given a
pre-determined set of standards, to give his staff ratings which, in his honest
assessment, are commensurate to their performance in the office, ratings which were
subsequently upheld by the OCA PERC. Also, we cannot fault Judge Marquez in
devising ways to straighten out the file of case records in the court, even through the
mundane task of changing the colors of case folders. For his resolve to put in order
the courts record keeping and case management, he should be commended, not
criticized.
A.M. NO. RTJ-10-2253 – DECEMBER 8, 2010

BRION, J.

This is a consolidated case, where complaints and counter-complaints were launched by two parties
herein.

Atty. Ricon charged Judge Marquez with grave abuse of authority and grave misconduct. The latter
charged the former with gross mismanagement and neglect, and falsification.

Atty. Ricon alleged that during a meeting, Judge Marquez insinuated that complainant, among others,
were “corrupt, gago, tamad, at makakapal ang mukha.”

It was also alleged that the Judge called complainant as “basurero” because of the disorganized court
records.

Judge denied allegations of calling them basurero. Judge also excused his temperament due to heavy
caseload.

ISSUE:

WoN parties are guilty of the charges.

NO. However, the judge was held to be unprofessional and unethical in using insulting words against
complainant.

Complainant was also held not guilty for gross mismanagement of records. The Court attributed the
disorganized state to the limited space and facilities. Both were respectively fined therefor.