Office of the Court Administrator vs. Go

A judge who deliberately and continuously fails to comply with the resolutions and directives of the Supreme Court, even after having been previously sanctioned for the same infractions, is guilty of gross misconduct and insubordination warranting dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in any government branch or instrumentality.

The case arose from a judicial audit conducted by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) from September 25 to October 2, 2006 in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 2, Butuan City, which revealed massive case backlogs and systemic inefficiency. This decision addressed Judge Go's subsequent violations committed after he was found administratively liable by the Supreme Court on September 27, 2007, where he was suspended for three months and fined for undue delay in rendering decisions and failure to observe office hours. The present case concerns his failure to comply with the directives issued in that prior decision and subsequent resolutions.

• From September 25 to October 2, 2006, the Office of the Court Administrator conducted a judicial audit in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Butuan City, presided by respondent Judge James V. Go.
• The audit revealed that Judge Go failed to immediately arraign the accused in 632 criminal cases, failed to archive 140 criminal cases, failed to act on subpoenas in 477 criminal cases, failed to act on 13 cases for a considerable length of time, failed to resolve pending incidents or motions in 15 criminal cases and 88 civil cases, failed to act on 17 civil cases from the time of filing, and failed to take further action on 32 civil cases.
• Court personnel reported that Judge Go would leave the court in the morning after finishing scheduled hearings and return only the following day. When confronted, Judge Go claimed he leaves early to rest due to a previous stroke and asserted that as a judge, he is not required to render eight hours of service daily.
• On October 4, 2006, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Butuan City and Agusan del Norte Chapter, issued Resolution No. 2, Series of 2006, expressing disappointment over Judge Go's inefficiency and incompetence causing undue delay in case disposition.
• On September 27, 2007, the Supreme Court found Judge Go guilty of undue delay in rendering decisions or orders, suspended him for three months without salary or benefits, fined him P10,000.00, reprimanded him for failure to observe office hours, and directed him to comply with the OCA's December 29, 2006 Memorandum within 60 days.
• Judge Go served the suspension from October 22, 2007 to January 22, 2008 and paid the fine, but failed to fully comply with the directives regarding pending cases.
• Instead of submitting the required orders, resolutions, and decisions, Judge Go merely transmitted matrices of actions taken on three occasions (May 20, 2009, August 24, 2009, and September 1, 2009) without attaching copies of the actual notices of hearing, orders, resolutions, or decisions.
• On March 9, 2009, the Court directed Judge Go to fully comply with the directives regarding remaining cases, resolve pending incidents, decide civil cases submitted for decision, observe eight-hour working days, conduct regular raffling of cases, and explain why he should not be charged anew for contumacious disregard of directives.
• On April 28, 2010, the Court issued another Resolution received on June 15, 2010, reiterating the directives and requiring submission of copies of orders, resolutions, decisions, subpoenas, and warrants within 30 days.
• Judge Go again failed to comply with the Resolutions dated March 9, 2009 and April 28, 2010.
• On February 2, 2011, the Court directed Judge Go to show cause why he should not be administratively dealt with for noncompliance, but he failed to file the required comment despite several opportunities.

• The Office of the Court Administrator recommended dismissal from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in any government branch or instrumentality.
• The OCA argued that under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars, and gross inefficiency are categorized as less serious charges warranting suspension or fine, but considering that Judge Go had previously been suspended and fined, and considering his repeated failure to abide by the Court's directives, dismissal is warranted.
• The OCA emphasized that Judge Go's display of manifest indifference to the Resolutions of the Court, evidenced by his submission of matrices without actual supporting documents and his continued refusal to comply, demonstrates his unfitness to remain in the judiciary.

• Instead of filing a comment to the administrative complaint, Judge Go submitted a letter dated March 12, 2007 addressed to the Court Administrator denying all allegations in the judicial audit report and electing formal hearing.
• Judge Go transmitted copies of constancia, orders, and decisions but did not act on the remaining cases subject of the audit, neither did he respond to the issue of rendering eight hours of service daily.
• Judge Go failed to file comments to the show cause resolutions issued on February 2, 2011 and failed to fully comply with the directives in the Resolutions dated March 9, 2009 and April 28, 2010, despite being afforded several opportunities to explain his failure to decide pending cases.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the Court may impose the penalty of dismissal on Judge Go despite having previously suspended him for three months and fined him P10,000.00 for the same administrative charges of inefficiency and neglect of duty.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether Judge Go's repeated failure to comply with the Supreme Court's directives, after having been previously sanctioned, constitutes gross misconduct and insubordination warranting dismissal from the judicial service.

• Procedural:
  • N/A
• Substantive:
  • The Court found Judge Go guilty of gross misconduct and insubordination, warranting dismissal from the service. It held that resolutions of the Supreme Court should not be treated lightly, and as a judge, respondent must be the first to exhibit respect for authority.
  • The Court ruled that Judge Go's willful disobedience and disregard of the show-cause resolutions constitute grave and serious misconduct affecting his fitness and worthiness of the honor and integrity attached to his office.
  • The Court noted that Judge Go was afforded several opportunities to explain his failure to decide the subject cases and to comply with directives, but he continuously refused to heed the same, proving his lack of commitment to the duties of his office.
  • While violation of Supreme Court rules and gross inefficiency are categorized as less serious charges under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, the aggravating circumstances of previous sanctions and repeated violations justify the supreme penalty of dismissal.
  • The Court ordered Judge Go dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch, agency, or instrumentality of the government including government-owned or controlled corporations. The decision was declared immediately executory.

• Contumacious Disregard of Judicial Orders — Deliberate and continuous failure to comply with the resolutions and directives of the Supreme Court constitutes gross misconduct and insubordination. A judge who exhibits manifest indifference to the Court's orders demonstrates unfitness for judicial office and may be punished with dismissal as warranted by the circumstances.
• Respect for Authority by Judges — Judges should respect the orders and decisions of higher tribunals, especially the Supreme Court from which all other courts take their bearings. A resolution of the Supreme Court should not be construed as a mere request and should not be complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively.
• Progressive Discipline in Administrative Cases — While initial violations of Supreme Court rules and gross inefficiency may warrant suspension or fines under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, repeated violations committed after previous sanctions constitute aggravating circumstances that justify dismissal from the service.

• "Resolutions of this Court should not be treated lightly. As a judge, respondent must be the first to exhibit respect for authority."
• "Judges should respect the orders and decisions of higher tribunals much more so this Court from which all other courts should take their bearings. A resolution of the Supreme Court should not be construed as a mere request and should not be complied with partially, inadequately or selectively."
• "A judge 'who deliberately and continuously fails and refuses to comply with the resolution of [the Supreme] Court is guilty of gross misconduct and insubordination.'"
• "Indifference or defiance to the Court's orders or resolutions may be punished with dismissal, suspension or fine as warranted by the circumstances."
• "Incompetence and inefficiency have no place in the judiciary."

• Gaspar v. Adaoag, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1565, August 16, 2006, 499 SCRA 1 — Cited for the principle that Supreme Court resolutions should not be construed as mere requests and should not be complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively.
• Guerrero v. Judge Deray, 442 Phil. 85 (2002) — Cited for the ruling that a judge who deliberately and continuously fails to comply with Supreme Court resolutions is guilty of gross misconduct and insubordination, and that indifference or defiance may be punished with dismissal.
• Dela Cruz v. Vallarta, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1531, March 6, 2007, 517 SCRA 465 — Cited to reiterate the principle that deliberate non-compliance with Court resolutions constitutes gross misconduct.
• Visbal v. Tormis, A.M. No. MTJ-07-1692, November 28, 2007, 539 SCRA 9 — Cited to reaffirm that continuous refusal to comply with Court orders constitutes gross misconduct.
• Office of the Court Administrator v. Legaspi, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-06-1661, January 25, 2007, 512 SCRA 570 — Cited for the principle that judges must be the first to exhibit respect for authority.
• Longboan v. Polig, A.M. No. R-704-RTJ, June 14, 1990, 186 SCRA 557 — Cited in relation to willful disobedience constituting grave and serious misconduct affecting fitness for office.
• Parane v. Reloza, A.M. No. MTJ-92-718, November 7, 1994, 238 SCRA 1 — Cited for the proposition that continued refusal to abide by lawful directives proves disinterest in remaining with the judicial system.

• Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC — Provides the classification of charges and corresponding sanctions for judges; violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars, and gross inefficiency are categorized as less serious charges warranting suspension for one to three months or a fine of more than P10,000 but not exceeding P20,000, but may warrant dismissal for repeated violations.
• Circular No. 13-87 (July 1, 1987), Circular No. 1 (January 28, 1988), Circular No. 2-99 (January 15, 1999), Circular No. 63-2001 (October 3, 2001), and Circular No. 87-2001 (November 29, 2001) — Mandate the rendition of eight hours of service every working day by judges.
• A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC (Guidelines on the Selection and Appointment of Executive Judges and Defining their Powers, Prerogatives and Duties) — Mandates the regular raffling of cases at two o'clock in the afternoon every Mondays and/or Thursdays.
• Section 2 of the Rule on Summary Procedure — Mandates judges to immediately issue orders on newly filed cases indicating whether they are being tried under the regular procedure or under the summary procedure.