A.M. No. RTJ-15-2408 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4134-RTJ) - FLORANTE A. MIANO, COMPLAINANT, VS. MA. ELLEN M. AGUILAR.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the OCA recommended that she be meted the penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of all benefits and privileges, except accrued leave credits, if any, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations. [17] The OCA found that respondent was indeed ignorant of the rules on inhibition, especially Section 8, Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC which provides that the Order of Inhibition should be transmitted to the pairing judge who shall be the one to hear and decide the case. Her ignorance of such rules was highlighted when she violated the same by issuing the October 11, 2007 Order in the Migano case which was not solely intended to inform the OCA of her inhibition therefrom, but also "to hold the case in abeyance until such time that a new Presiding Judge will be appointed by the Court Administrator." [18] Worse, she caused undue delay in transmitting the records of the said case to the appropriate pairing court as such transmittal was effected only six (6) years after her inhibition therefrom. [19] Anent the issue of respondent's failure to resolve motions for inhibition within the prescribed period, the OCA found that while her caseload was indeed heavy during the time she failed to resolve said motions, she made no effort to seek for an extension of time to resolve them. In this relation, the OCA pointed out that in such instances, all that respondent needed to do was to request and justify an extension of time to decide the cases and the Court would have granted such request, but she failed to do so. [20] The Issue Before the Court The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not grounds exist to dismiss respondent from service, as recommended by the OCA. The Court's Ruling The Court concurs with the OCA in finding respondent guilty of Undue Delay in Issuing Orders in Several Cases and Undue Delay in Transmitting the Records of a Case, but differs from its finding that respondent should likewise be held guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law/Procedure. To be able to render substantial justice and maintain public confidence in the legal system, judges should be embodiments of competence, integrity and independence. Judges are also expected to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules and to apply them properly in all good faith. They are likewise expected to demonstrate mastery of the principles of law, keep abreast of prevailing jurisprudence, and discharge their duties in accordance therewith. [21] Corollary thereto, the Court has ruled that when a judge displays an utter lack of familiarity with the rules, he erodes the public's confidence in the competence of our courts. Such is gross ignorance of the law. However, gross ignorance of the law is more than an erroneous application of legal provisions. [22] Not every error or mistake that a judge commits in the performance of his duties rende