A.M. No. RTJ-11-2287 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 11-3640-RTJ) - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. HON. CADER P. INDAR, AL HAJ, PRESIDING JUDGE AND ABDULRAHMAN D. PIANG, PROCESS SERVER, BRANCH 14, BOTH OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 14, COTABATO CITY.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Cour

Ruling

accordingly betrays not only a recalcitrant streak in character, but also disrespect for the Courts lawful order and directive. 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. Benedictoss insolence is further aggravated by the fact that she is an employee of the Judiciary, who, more than an ordinary citizen, should be aware of her duty to obey the orders and processes of the Supreme Court without delay. [23] (Citations omitted.) The Court was even more severe in Soria v. Judge Villegas , [24] ruling as follows: Respondent should know that judges must 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 is not to be construed as a mere request nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately or selectively. Respondents failure to comply with the repeated directives of this Court constitutes gross disrespect to its lawful orders and directives, bordering on willful contumacy. In Alonto-Frayna v. Astih , it was held: A judge who deliberately and continuously fails and refuses to comply with the resolution of this Court is guilty of gross misconduct and insubordination. It is gross misconduct and even outright disrespect for this Court for respondent to exhibit indifference to the resolutions requiring him to comment on the accusations contained in the complaint against him. Respondents continued refusal to comply with the lawful orders underscores his lack of respect for authority and a defiance for law and order which is at the very core of his position. This is anathema to those who seek a career in the judiciary because obedience to the dictates of the law and justice is demanded of every judge. How else would respondent judge endeavor to serve justice and uphold the law, let alone lead his peers, when he disdains to follow even simple directives? In the Judiciary, moral integrity is more than a cardinal virtue, it is a necessity. The exacting standards of conduct demanded from judges are designed to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. When the judge himself becomes the transgressor of the law which he is sworn to apply, he places his office in disrepute, encourages disrespect for the law and impairs public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary itself. (Citations omitted.) Judging by the foregoing standards, the Court can only conclude that Judge Indar is guilty of gross misconduct and insubordination for his long delay in complying, as well as for his total non-compliance, with the directives/orders of the OCA and this Court. Lastly, Judge Indars excuse that he inadvertently signed Piangs DTRs for February and March 2010 as it was submitted for signature together with the DTRs of the other employees of RTC-Branch 14 of Cotoba