THIRD DIVISION
[ A.M. No. RTJ-19-2567 (Formerly A.M. No. 01-12-641-
RTC). August 14, 2019 ]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. HON.
DANILO P. GALVEZ (RET.), REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 24,
ILOILO CITY, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
INTING, J.:
For this Court's consideration is a Memorandum[1] dated January 10, 2019 from the
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on the administrative liability of retired Judge
Danilo P. Galvez (Judge Galvez), former Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 24, Iloilo City, in connection with the unresolved cases pending before
Branch 25 of said court, of which Judge Galvez was the Pairing Judge.
On July 16-20, 2001, the OCA conducted a judicial audit and physical inventory of cases
in Branch 25. It was conducted after the erstwhile Presiding Judge of Branch 25, Judge
Bartolome M. Fanuñal (Judge Fanuñal), compulsorily retired on April 21, 2001.
The audit and inventory revealed, among others, that there were eight (8) criminal and
thirty-six (36) civil cases that were already submitted for decision but left undecided by
Judge Fanuñal. Thus, in its Resolution[2] dated January 28, 2002, the Court directed Judge
Galvez to resolve the aforesaid cases; and designated Judge Lolita C. Besana (Judge
Besana), Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 32, Iloilo City, and Judge Roger B. Patricio
(Judge Patricio), Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 38, Iloilo City, to assist Judge Galvez
in the resolution of said cases, viz.:
(a) to DIRECT Judge Danilo P. Galvez, Pairing Judge of Regional Trial Court, Iloilo
City, Branch 25 to: (1) DECIDE with dispatch the thirty six (36) inherited civil cases
which were left undecided by Judge Bartolome Fanuñal but with complete transcript of
stenographic notes, to wit: Civil Cases Nos. 18984, 19279, 20374, 20402, 19189, 17632,
18732, 19344, 13681, 19077, 12626, 18453, 15060, LRC N-949, 12655, 15189, 18513,
13296, 19990, 15405, 15540, 17824, 13793, 12293, 14405, 18861, 18670, 17218, 14690,
13780, 17847, 13801, 10570, 12501, 13035, 16681 as well as Criminal Cases Nos.
47984, 47985, 47986, 47987, 47988, 47989, 47990 and 47991 which are submitted for
decision before Judge Fanuñal but still within the ninety (90) day period to decide; (2)
RESOLVE the following cases with pending incidents/motions within thirty (30) days
from notice, to wit: Criminal Cases Nos. 01-5352, 99-50554, 99-50595, 99-50596, 99-
50597 and 99-50598; and (3) TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION on Criminal Cases Nos.
00-52682, 00-52165, 00-52166 and Civil Case No. 99-14732 taking preferential attention
on Criminal Cases Nos. 99-51326 and 99-51327 where the defense have complied with
the order of September 26, 2000 requiring him to submit his formal Offer of Exhibits
within ten (10) days from said date, as well as archive Criminal Cases Nos. 00-51693, 00-
51861, 00-51491, 00-52063, 00-52064, 99-51445, 00-52094, 00-52603, 00-52405 and
00-51942 pursuant to the guidelines set forth in Administrative Circular No. 7-A-92,
dated June 21, 1993;
(b) to DESIGNATE Judges Lolita Contreras Besa[n]a, Presiding Judge, Branch 32 and
Roger B. Patricio, Presiding Judge, Branch 38, same court, to assist Judge Galvez in the
writing of the decisions of the inherited cases mentioned in Item (1-a) and for this
purpose to assign said cases to these 3 Judges thru raffle;
(c) to DIRECT Judges Danilo Galvez, Lolita Besana and Roger B. Patricio to SUBMIT a
report together with certified copies of the decisions within ten (10) days from
rendition/promulgation thereof; and
(d) to ORDER Branch Clerk of Court Marie Yvette D. Go, Regional Trial Court, Iloilo
City, assisted by the Clerks in charge of criminal and civil cases to UPDATE the entries
in the criminal and civil docket books and to NOTIFY this office [sic] within ten (10)
days of their compliance.[3]
On August 19, 2002, however, the Court issued a show cause order[4] against the three
judges for their failure to comply with the aforementioned January 28, 2002 Resolution.
In a letter dated September 13, 2002, Judge Patricio informed the Court that he received
nineteen (19) cases and already rendered decisions on nine (9) of those cases.[5]
After almost a year, telegrams[6] were sent to Judge Galvez and Judge Besana by Deputy
Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepaño (DCA Elepaño) reminding them to comply with
the Court's twin Resolutions.
Judge Besana submitted her letter dated January 7, 2003, with an explanation that she
already decided, disposed of, or terminated twelve (12) of her inherited cases.[7]
On February 24, 2003, this Court issued a Resolution[8] wherein the letters of Judge
Patricio and Judge Besana were deemed as satisfactory compliance. With regard to Judge
Galvez, he was merely required to make the proper manifestation as to whether "he is
submitting the case on the basis of the pleadings/records already filed and submitted."[9]
Allegedly unaware of the pendency of the Court's twin resolutions against him, Judge
Galvez filed a motion[10] which was received by the Court on June 13, 2018. He explains
therein that it was neither his intention to defy nor to disregard the earlier resolutions of
the Court as he only came to know about the matter when he was processing his
clearance after he compulsorily retired last April 27, 2018. He recalls that the judicial
audit was a result of the designation of Branch 25 as a drugs court sometime in 2002 and
upon retirement of Judge Fanuñal, and the thirty-six (36) pending cases therein were
raffled to him, to Judge Besana and to Judge Patricio per DCA Elepaño's directive. He
admits that he misunderstood the foregoing directive and that he adopted a remedy to
separate these inherited cases from the regular docket of Branch 24, with the intention to
treat the incidents separately, in the event that the parties concerned and their counsel
raise any matter therein. He professes that these cases have already been abandoned as
none of the parties or their counsel called his attention by filing the appropriate motion,
except for one case which was already decided on the merits. Lastly, he accepts the
OCA's recommendation of the imposition of a P20,000.00 fine against him.
Judge Galvez reiterated his explanation in a similarly worded letter[11] dated June 26,
2018 addressed to the Court Administrator.
The Court then referred the motion to the OCA for evaluation, report and
recommendation.
The OCA 's Recommendation
In its Memorandum dated January 10, 2019, the OCA found that Judge Galvez was "less
than honest as he tried to feign ignorance" of the pendency of the instant case.[12] For the
OCA, Judge Galvez gravely ignored the Court's directives and "[h]is failure to comply
accordingly betrays not only a recalcitrant streak in character, but also disrespect for the
Court's lawful order and directive."[13] It added that "[t]his contumacious conduct of
refusing to abide by the lawful directives issued by the Court [is] an utter lack of interest
to remain with, if not contempt of, the system."[14]
The OCA further mentions of a pending administrative case filed by former Judge Ofelia
Artuz against Judge Galvez for gross ignorance of the law, grave misconduct, gross
negligence and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of service docketed as A.M. No.
17-4774-RTJ. It also cites A.M. No. 4189-RTJ for gross ignorance of the law and A.M.
No. 04-2080-RTJ for knowingly rendering unjust judgment which were likewise filed
against Judge Galvez but were earlier dismissed.
Thus, the OCA recommends that Judge Galvez be adjudged guilty of gross misconduct
and fined in the amount of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) which shall be deducted
from his retirement gratuity.
The Ruling of this Court
The judge is the visible representation of the law and, more importantly, of justice.
[15]
Thus, a judge must be the first to abide by the law and weave an example for the
others to follow.[16] He/She should be studiously careful to avoid committing even the
slightest infraction of the Rules.[17]
Compliance with the directives issued by the Court is one of the foremost duties that a
judge accepts upon assumption to office as laid out in Canon 1 of the New Code of
Judicial Conduct:[18]
Section 7. Judges shall encourage and uphold safeguards for the discharge of judicial
duties in order to maintain and enhance the institutional and operational independence of
the judiciary.
Section 8. Judges shall exhibit and promote high standards of judicial conduct in order to
reinforce public confidence in the judiciary, which is fundamental to the maintenance of
judicial independence.
In this case, the Court cannot countenance the unjustified refusal of Judge Galvez to
comply with the Court's twin Resolutions dated January 28, 2002 and August 19, 2002,
as well as the directive from DCA Elepaño. The Court thus agrees with the findings of
the OCA that Judge Galvez is guilty of gross misconduct for his deliberate and repeated
failure to comply with the Court's lawful orders and directives. He owes candor to the
Court when rendering an explanation, in the same way that he expected it from lawyers
who appeared before his court.[19] It is even hardly necessary to remind Judge Galvez that
judges should respect the orders and decisions of higher tribunals, much more the Highest
Tribunal of the land from which all other courts should take their bearings.[20] Ultimately,
a resolution of the Supreme Court should not be construed as a mere request and should
be complied with promptly and completely.[21]
The Court is equally not convinced that Judge Galvez was unaware of the pendency of
the Court's directives against him. It is highly incredulous that he could feign ignorance
of the Court orders and, at the same time, admit that he was aware of DCA Elepaño's
directive that the pending cases left behind by retired Judge Fanuñal be raffled among
Judge Besana, Judge Patricio and himself. It is also dubious that he conveniently omitted
to specify the number of cases raffled to him and the docket number of the sole case
which he claimed to have already decided on the merits. These circumstances taken as a
whole would lead to no other conclusion than that of the contumacious conduct of Judge
Galvez manifested by his blatant disregard and refusal to respect the Court's directive to
decide or otherwise dispose of the thirteen (13) cases which were raffled to him by reason
of Judge Fanuñal's retirement.
Concomitant therewith, all directives coming from the Court Administrator and his
deputies are issued in the exercise of this Court's administrative supervision of trial courts
and their personnel, hence, should be respected.[22] Similarly, these directives are not mere
requests, but should be complied with promptly and completely.
[23]
Assuming arguendo that the twin Resolutions were not served upon Judge Galvez, his
unexplained disregard of the directive of the OCA for him to decide or otherwise dispose
of the cases raffled to him shows his disrespect for and contempt, not just for the OCA,
but more importantly for the Court, which exercises direct administrative supervision
over trial court officers and employees through the OCA.[24] His indifference to, and
disregard of the directives issued to him clearly constituted insubordination which this
Court will not tolerate.[25]
Thus, the Court finds reason to wield disciplinary sanction upon Judge Galvez for his
gross misconduct of, even outright disrespect for the Court, for his indifference to the
directive of the OCA and the Court. Gross misconduct is a serious offense under Section
8(3), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.
In Alonto-Frayna vs. Astih,[26] the Supreme Court ruled that a judge who deliberately and
continuously fails and refuses to comply with the resolution of this Court is guilty of
gross misconduct and insubordination. Also, in the case of Davila vs. Generoso,[27] the
failure of respondent judge to comply with the show-cause resolutions of the Court was
deemed as grave and serious misconduct affecting his fitness and worthiness of the honor
and integrity attached to his office.
To reiterate, the Court cannot tolerate the conduct exhibited by Judge Galvez which
constitutes no less than clear acts of defiance against the Court's authority. It is not
enough that no parties were prejudiced or that the cases were deemed abandoned because
of their inaction. What is more important is whether in the course of the judicial process,
judicial norms have been maintained with the end in view that a judge must discharge his
functions with diligence and efficiency as mandated by Canon 3, Rule 3.08, of the Code
of Judicial Conduct which provides that "a judge should diligently discharge
administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence in court management
and facilitate the performance of the administrative functions of other judges and court
personnel."[28]
It is also worthy to note that court personnel should conduct themselves in a dignified
manner befitting the public office they are holding to achieve public confidence in the
judiciary.[29] Judges should avoid any conduct or demeanor that may tarnish or diminish
the authority of the Supreme Court.[30] In the case at bench, the callous and brazen
disregard by Judge Galvez of the Supreme Court's directives, his lack of candor as well as
his recalcitrant attitude betray his absence of concern for his office.
Veritably, indifference or defiance to the Court's orders or resolutions may be punished
with dismissal, suspension or fine as warranted by the circumstances.[31] Section 11 (A),
Rule 140 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 11. Sanctions. — A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the
following sanctions may be imposed:
1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may
determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office,
including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the
forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits;
2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but
not exceeding six (6) months; or
3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.
Considering that the transgression committed herein by Judge Galvez touched on the
parties' right to the speedy disposition of cases which resulted in the delay in the
resolution thereof for at least 17 years (or from 2001 to 2018), not to mention his
indifference and recalcitrant behavior towards judicial processes, this Court holds that the
imposition of the penalty of suspension from office for six (6) months, without salary, as
commensurate thereto. However, in lieu of his retirement, the alternative penalty of fine
equivalent to his six (6) months salary shall be imposed instead.
WHEREFORE, Judge Danilo P. Galvez, former Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 24, Iloilo City, is found GUILTY of GROSS
MISCONDUCT and METED OUT the penalty of FINE equivalent to six (6) months
salary, which shall be deducted from his retirement gratuity.
Let a copy of this decision be FORWARDED to the Office of the Court Administrator
for the prompt release of the remaining benefits due to Judge Galvez after the appropriate
reductions therefrom, unless there exists another lawful cause for withholding the same.
Atty. Warme P. Araneta, Branch Clerk of Court, Branch 25, Regional Trial Court, Iloilo
City is DIRECTED to inform the Court in writing, through the Office of the Court
Administrator, of the status of Civil Cases Nos. 13681, 13793, 13801, 15060, 17632,
17847, 18453, 18513, 18670, 18861, 19344, 20402, and LRC N-949, attaching therewith
copies of the latest orders or decisions therein, if any, within fifteen (15) days from notice
hereof.
SO ORDERED.
Peralta, (Chairperson), Leonen, A. Reyes, Jr., and Hernando, JJ., concur.
