Ignoring SC orders - A.M. No. MTJ-07-1667

A.M. No. MTJ-07-1667

"x x x.

Resolutions of this Court should not be treated lightly. As a judge, respondent must be the first to exhibit respect for authority.[20]  Gaspar v. Adaoag[21] teaches: 

          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.

The disrespect of respondent becomes more pronounced as the Court has noted that to date, he has not even complied with its latest Resolution of February 2, 2011 nor adequately complied with the Decision dated September 27, 2007.

In Guerrero v. Judge Deray,[22] the Court held that a judge “who deliberately and continuously fails and refuses to comply with the resolution of [the Supreme] Courtis guilty of gross misconduct and insubordination.”   This ruling was reiterated in Dela Cruz v. Vallarta[23] and Visbal v. Tormis.[24]  Also in Guerrero, this Court held that “indifference or defiance to the Court’s orders or resolutions may be punished with dismissal, suspension or fine as warranted by the circumstances.”[25]

          In the present case, we find that Judge Go failed to heed the above pronouncements. He did not file the required comment to our show cause resolutions despite several opportunities granted him by this Court. His willful disobedience and disregard to our show-cause resolutions constitutes grave and serious misconduct affecting his fitness and worthiness of the honor and integrity attached to his office.[26] It is noteworthy that Judge Go was afforded several opportunities to explain his failure to decide the subject cases long pending before his court and to comply with the directives of this Court, but he has failed, and continuously refuses to heed the same. This continued refusal to abide by lawful directives issued by this Court is glaring proof that he has become disinterested to remain with the judicial system to which he purports to belong.[27]

In view of the foregoing, we find that the dismissal of the respondent judge from service is indeed warranted.  This Court has long maintained the policy of upholding competence and integrity in the administration of justice.  Incompetence and inefficiency have no place in the judiciary.  Respondent’s indifference to the charges against him only proves his lack of commitment to the duties of his office, making him unfit to continue in public service.

WHEREFORE, respondent Judge James V. Go, presiding judge of theMunicipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Butuan City is 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.

This Decision is immediately EXECUTORY.

          SO ORDERED.

x x x."