A.M. No. 03-1515-MTJ (formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 98-591-MTJ) - DOLORES IMBANG, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE DEOGRACIAS K. DEL ROSARIO, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, PATNONGON, ANTIQUE.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly betrays not only a recalcitrant streak in character, but also disrespect for the Courts lawful order and directive. [6] Furthermore, this contumacious conduct of refusing to abide by the lawful directives issued by the Court has, likewise, been considered as an utter lack of interest to remain with, if not contempt of, the system. [7] We are wont to reiterate our pronouncement in our Decision of February 3, 2004: The respondents failure to comply with the Courts directive to file his comment to the letter-complaint against him constitutes a blatant display of his indifference to the lawful directives of the Court. As we held in Martinez v. Zoleta : [T]he resolution of the Supreme Court requiring comment on an administrative complaint against officials and employees of the judiciary should not be construed as a mere request from the Court. Nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately or selectively. Respondents in administrative complaints should comment on all accusations or allegations against them in the administrative complaints because it is their duty to preserve the integrity of the judiciary. Moreover, the Court should not and will not tolerate future indifference of respondents to administrative complaints and to resolutions requiring comment on such administrative complaints. Five years has passed since the respondent was first directed to file his comment on the complaint against him. He has, thus, waived his right to defend himself against the complainants accusations. Furthermore, his repeated failure to comply with the Courts directive constitutes gross misconduct and insubordination. This, the Court cannot countenance. As a magistrate, the respondent should have known that he is the visible representation of the law, and more importantly, of justice. It is from him that the people draw their will and awareness to obey the law. For the judge to return that regard, he must be the first to abide by the law and weave an example for others to follow. Consequently, the last person to refuse to adhere to the directives of the Court, or, in its stead, the Office of the Court Administrator, is the judge himself. No position is more demanding as regards moral righteousness and uprightness of any individual than a seat on the bench. By his actuations, the respondent violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1, as well as Rule 2.01 of Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The respondent also violated Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires a member of the bar to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to judicial officers and insist on similar conduct by others. It is not lost upon this Court that the respondent suffered from serious ailments and was hospitalized therefor. While his poor health will not exculpate him from administrative liability, it may be considered as a mitigating circumstance. [8] Thus, considering the respondents actuations and his failing health, we find that a