A.M. No. MTJ-07-1677 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 06-1827-MTJ) - CIPRIANO G. PUYO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE JAMES V. GO, PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 2, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BUTUAN CITY, AGUSAN DEL NORTE.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly betrays not only a recalcitrant streak in character, but also disrespect for the Court's 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. Benedictos's 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. It is essential to reiterate that any judge who deliberately and continuously fails and refuses to comply with a resolution or directive of the Court is guilty of gross misconduct and insubordination. This is because the Court is the agency exclusively vested by the Constitution with the administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel from the Presiding Justices of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals to the lowliest clerk and employee of the municipal trial court. [12] Such gross misconduct and insubordination are serious transgressions of the law and cannot be tolerated. When the judge himself becomes the transgressor of the law that he is sworn to obey and to apply, he places his office in severe disrepute, encourages disrespect for the law, and impairs public confidence in the integrity of the Judiciary itself. [13] Although the respondent submitted an initial comment to comply with the directive of the Court Administrator through the letter dated March 30, 2006, [14] his submission, which merely manifested his never having been charged administratively in his 23 years of service, did not squarely address the accusations leveled against him, and thus was not a sufficient compliance with the directive for him to show cause. Nonetheless, we have to find and conclude that he did not thereby deliberately and continuously fail and refuse to comply with the directive to a degree that would render him liable for grave misconduct and insubordination. Instead, he should answer for a lesser liability. But was the respondent also guilty of undue delay in resolving the complainant's motions? The answer is in the affirmative. The respondent was guilty of undue delay and should be accordingly sanctioned. Rule 1.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires every judge to administer justice impartially and without delay. The Code of Judicial Conduct also mandates every judge to dispose of his court's business promptly and to decide cases within the required periods. [15] The precepts on promptness imposed the duty to dispose of all matters submitted to him, remembering that justice delayed is often justice denied. This duty is supplemented by Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary [16] demanding of judges to perform all their judicial duties efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness. The respondent was tasked