THE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE JOSE C. BORROMEO OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CEBU, RESPONDENT.

Administrative
complaint against respondent judge, Honorable Jose C. Borromeo,
of the Court of First Instance of Cebu for serious
misconduct and gross inefficiency.

The specific nature of
this case and its related circumstances are more or less fully stated in the
Memorandum of the Acting Judicial Consultant dated January 31, 1977 as follows:

“Re: Adm. Matter No. 222-CFI

Sec. of Justice
Vicente Abad Santos

vs.
Hon. Jose Borromeo of CFI Cebu

“The Secretary of Justice indicted Responder for Serious
Misconduct and Gross Inefficiency allegedly committed as follows:

“That respondent failed to decide within the reglementary
period the following cases:”

 A. 
CRIMINAL  CASES:

1.   No. V-12498 – For Slight Oral
Defamation.

2.   No.
CU-184 – For Slight
Oral Defamation.

3.   No. V-13042 – For Serious Physical Injuries Thru Reckless Imprudence

4.   No. CU-236 – For Malicious Mischief

“B. CIVIL
CASES:

5.   No. R-9208 – Manuel Hernaez
et al., vs. Andres Nadela

6.   No. R-11874 – Epifanio
Mendoza et al., vs. Pedro Gutang et al.

7.   No. R-11871 – First Insular Bank of Cebu vs. Julia S. Yap.

“That Respondent falsely certified that all cases, since their
submission for decision ninety days theretofore, had been decided on or before
the date of said certifications of service for the months of December 1970,
January, February, March, April and May 1971.

“That Respondent approved the monthly reports submitted by his
Branch Clerk of Court to the Department of Justice for the same period, wherein
it was made to appear that respondent had no case pending decision for more
than ninety days; that respondent had incurred un­reasonable delay in taking
appropriate action on many pending cases; that such inefficiency resulted in
the heavy accumulation of old cases in his docket, which reveals the following:

“a. In Case No. R-6818 for Forcible
Entry, pending since July 31, 1962
when the respondent assumed office, action was taken only on October 31, 1967, after a lapse of 5
years and 3 months;

“b. Action was unreasonably delayed in the following pending
cases:

“I.  CRIMINAL
CASES

“II.  CIVIL
CASES

“c.  The
following pending cases were acted upon only after unreasonable delay:

“In a Resolution dated August
30, 1971, the Supreme Court required Respondent to file his answer
to the complaint within ten (10) days from notice.

“Before Respondent could file his comment, the Secretary of
Justice filed on September 14, 1971,
a ‘Motion To Hold Proceedings In Abeyance’ stating inter
alia, that, on the basis of the decisions
prepared by the respondent in Criminal Cases Nos. V-12498, V-13042 and CU-236,
Complainant found that Respondent acted in good faith in the filing of his
certificates of service; and that although the Res­pondent’s explanation with
respect to four (4) other cases pending decision needed corroboration from the
records, the suspension of the payment of Respondent’s salary had been lifted
on the ground that he had acted in good faith.

“In his explanation submitted to Complainant, Respondent
averred that the decisions in Criminal Cases Nos. V-12498, V-13042, and CU-236
(cases appealed from the lower court), were already prepared and ready for
promulgation but, because of a material question pending with the Supreme Court
regarding the interpretation of Republic Act No. 6031, he issued orders
(Annexes “A”; “B” and “C”) holding in abeyance
the promulgation of the decisions until the Supreme Court shall have decided
the petition for Certiorari and Mandamus in Civil Case No. 8592
entitled Juliano Enad vs. Augustin Mantalaba et al., also
originating from his Court; that Criminal Case No. CU-184, another appealed
case from the City Court of Lapu-Lapu, was
transferred to the new Branch of the
Court of First Instance of Lapu-lapu City; that in
regard to Civil Cases Nos. R-9202, R-11871 and 11874, two of them were
transferred to the new Branch of the CFI of Cebu City
and the third was decided by him
within the 90 day period; that the decisions in these cases were also held in
abeyance pending the decision of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Enad vs. Montalaba case because they were similarly
situated as the criminal cases aforementioned; that in the 24 cases referred
to, action was delayed because they were not calendared by the Clerk of Court,
and the parties took no steps to have the cases heard; and that despite the
Court’s lack of personnel, consisting of only a total of 10 employees, his
court had the least number of pending cases among the six (6) branches in Cebu City. “On the basis of the memorandum of Judicial
Supervisor Umberto Ancajas, dated November 26, 1971, Judge Jose Borromeo decided Criminal Cases No. V-12498, V-13042 and
CU-236 within 90 days after they were considered submitted for decision.

“The 24 cases wherein action was allegedly delayed, were
disposed of by Respondent in a manner consistent with the normal disposition of
cases as shown by the data prepared by the Branch Clerk of Court, as follows:

“Data appearing under ‘STATUS’

 column prepared by:

(SGD) CONRADO ABELARDO

Branch Clerk of Court

CFI, Cebu,
Br. IV

“Slight delay in the disposition of some of the cases, may be
attributed to the nature of the cases, such as Guardianship proceedings,
wherein no closure of the proceedings may be ordered until the incompetent ward
becomes competent or dies, or Intestate Estate proceedings which may not be
dismissed even for lack of interest of the parties.

“Considering the manifestation set forth in the ‘Motion To Hold Proceedings In Abeyance’, whereby the Secretary of
Justice exculpated Respondent, and the explanation of Respondent regarding the
cases in question, it is respectfully
submitted that the complaint against Judge Jose Borromeo
may be dismissed.”

In attention to the above
recommendation, the Court his reviewed all pertinent records and has arrived at
the conclusion that while respondent’s performance as a judge may not be
considered excellent nor exemplary, the same may not be said to be unsatisfactory or below average. 
In fact, it is to be noted that he succeeded in
substantially relieving the docket of the sala to
which he was assigned and in a manner which can compare favorably with the
other judges similarly situated.

It may not be amiss to
state here that on September 14, 1971, the complainant, as mentioned in the
above memorandum, filed the following:

“MOTION
TO HOLD PROCEEDINGS IN ABEYANCE

“The complainant Secretary of Justice respectfully manifests:

“1.    That, in connection with the filing of the
instant case, the complainant, on August 10, 1971, wrote to the respondent a
letter, a copy of which is herewith attached as Annex ‘A’, calling at­tention
to the large number of pending cases in his court, including cases pending
decision for more than ninety days, and suspending payment of the respondent’s
salary.

“2.    That, on August 23, 1971, the respondent
replied to the complainant in a letter, a copy of which is herewith attached as
Annex ‘B’, submitting his explanation on the cases pending decision and
commenting briefly on the other pending case.  The respondent also submitted, by way
of corroborating his explanation, the records of three of the criminal cases
pending decision, namely, No. V-12498, V-13042 and CU-236.

“3.    That, on the basis of the respondent’s
explanation and the records of the three criminal cases submitted by him, the
complainant found that these cases had already been decided, as shown by the
corresponding decisions submitted by the respondent; that the respondent
suspended the promulgation of these decisions because the cases had been
appealed from the city courts; and that, in view of a certiorari
proceeding in the Supreme Court involving the finality of the decision of the
Court of First Instance on appeal, the respondent suspended the promulgation of
the decisions to give the accused if convicted a chance to appeal if the
Supreme Court should hold that he has that right.

“4.    That, on the basis of the decisions prepared
by the respondent in the said three criminal cases, the complainant found that
the respondent acted in good faith in filing his certificates of service, even
if the cor­rectness of his act in suspending the promulgation of the said
decisions may be disputed.

“5.    That, with respect to the other four cases
pending decision, the respondent explains that they consist of one criminal and
three civil cases appealed from municipal or city courts, which he did not
consider submitted for decision because the records of these cases did not
include the transcript of the proceedings in the lower courts.

“6.    That, although the respondent’s explanation
with respect to the other four cases pending decision needs to be corroborated
by the records of these cases, the complainant, considering the respondent’s
explanation with respect to the three criminal cases which he decided, found
the said explanations sufficient to warrant the lifting of the suspension of
the payment of the respondents salary on the ground that he had acted in good
faith in filing his certificates of service.

“7.    That, since the respondent does not fully
explain the large number of pending cases in his court, it is believed that, in
view of his explanation with respect to the cases pending decision, he should
be given a fair opportunity to explain to the com­plainant his side on the
charges filed against him in the instant case in order that the complainant may
consider whether such explanation is satisfactory as a basis for filing a
petition to either amend or withdraw the charges.

“8.    That, in order to give the respondent
sufficient time to prepare and submit his explanation to the complainant and to
give the complainant sufficient time to consider such explanation, it is
believed that the proceedings in the instant case should be held in abeyance.

“WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the proceedings in
the instant case be held in abeyance to give the respondent a fair opportunity
to explain to the complainant his side on the charges and to give the
complainant sufficient time to consider whether such explanation is
satisfactory as a basis for filing a petition to either amend or withdraw the
charges.”

While it is true that on
October 10, 1972, complainant subsequently filed a motion to resume
proceedings stating that “complainant, after carefully considering the
explanation of the respondent judge, has, much to his regret, found it unsatisfactory,” it is Our considered opinion,
on the basis of Our more detailed study of the documents submitted to Us
that punitive action more than an admonition to respondent to augment his
efforts to act with dispatch in the performance of his functions would be
unwarranted.  And inasmuch as respondent
has already reached the age of compulsory retirement, such admonition would now
be academic.

WHEREFORE, the Memorandum of the Judicial Consultant aforequoted is hereby approved, the complaint against
respondent is dismissed and the payment of his retirement benefits is allowed.

Fernando, Antonio, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr. and
Martin, JJ., concur.

Castro, C.J., and Makasiar, J., concurs in
the result.

Teehankee, J., concurs in the result in a separate opinion.

Muñoz Palma, J., concurs in the concurring opinion of Justice
Teehankee.