GODOFREDO DELA CRUZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE BONIFACIO V. CURSO, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, PALOMPON, LEYTE, RESPONDENT.

In an unsworn letter-complaint dated July 31, 1989, complainant Godofredo
dela Cruz charged respondent Judge Bonifacio V. Curso of delay in the
administration of justice for allegedly failing to decide Criminal Case No. 717 entitled “People of the Philippines vs.
Felix Gervacio, et al.” for violation of Presidential Decree No. 772 (the
Anti-Squatting Law), while the latter was still the presiding judge of the
Municipal Trial Court of Kawayan, Leyte.

On August 31, 1989, this Court required respondent Judge to
comment on said complaint. On October
31, 1989, respondent judge, through counsel, requested that the Court require
complainant to verify his complaint as required by Sec. 1, Rule 140 of the
Rules of Court. The Court granted said request and required complainant to verify his complaint.

On December 12, 1989, complainant submitted the same
letter-complaint, this time sworn to before Notary Public Bonifacio B. Matol,^[1]
as well as a certification dated
December 5, 1989 from the Clerk of Court of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court
of Kawayan-Almeria,^[2]
Leyte, to the effect that Criminal Case
No. 717 was one of two (2) cases that are in the possession of respondent Judge
and that said case was submitted for decision on April 29, 1981.

Though duly served with a copy of the verified complaint,^[3]
respondent Judge failed to file his comment thereto, thereby compelling the
Court on June 26, 1990 to require
respondent Judge to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken
against him for not filing his comment, and to file said comment.

On July 19, 1990, respondent Judge filed his compliance with said
resolution, alluding that he had not received a copy of the verified complaint
and alleging that complainant had already executed an affidavit of desistance on March 1, 1990.

As to his comments on the allegation contained in the complaint,
respondent Judge admitted not having decided Criminal Case No. 717 because the
records thereof were lost before he
could render his decision. Respondent
does not know how or when the records were lost; he believes that the records
could have been lost during one of the
typhoons that hit the area since the
court was located in a dilapidated building and was at the mercy of strong winds and heavy rains
generated by said typhoon. Respondent Judge further alleged that
complainant could not move for the reconstitution of the case since the records of his counsel were lost in a fire that destroyed the
latter’s office.

In view of the allegation in the comment, the Court required
complainant to file a reply. When no
reply was filed within the period given by the Court, a show cause resolution
dated August 31, 1992 was issued to complainant. On October 5, 1992, complainant submitted
his Manifestation and Explanation, stating that he had already executed an
affidavit of desistance and that
because of his poor health and advanced age, and the fact that he is
presently in possession of the property in dispute, he is no longer interested
in pursuing the complaint.

The Court then referred the case to the Office of the Court
Administrator, who recommended that respondent be reprimanded.

The Court agrees with the Court Administrator.

The fact that the complainant had manifested that he is no longer
interested in pursuing the case
does not warrant the dismissal of the administrative complaint, especially
where respondent Judge admits the material allegations of the complaint and
reveals his failure to safeguard the records of cases pending before him. On this score, We agree with the Court Administrator when he said:

We cannot give concurrence with the wish of both parties that this
case be dropped and considered terminated. In Bais vs. Tugaoen, Jr. 89 SCRA 109, it was held that: “This [C]ourt looks with disfavor at
the outright dismissal of this complaint [upon the mere affidavit of desistance
executed by the complainant]
where on the basis of the evidence presented and record of the case, herein
respondent should at least be
severely warned to be more discreet in the performance of his judicial function
x x x.” The fact that respondent judge admitted that he does not exactly
know how or when the record was lost is a clear indication that he was
negligent in the performance of his duties. In Longboan vs. Polig, 186 SCRA 557, the Court ruled that x x x
“This fact reflects an inefficient and disorderly system in the recording
of cases assigned in the sala. Although
blame can also be conveniently laid on the court’s personnel[‘s]
[mis]management of the records [of the cases], proper and efficient court
management is as much the judge[‘s]
responsibility x x x.”^[4]

Respondent Judge should be
thankful that his inaction and negligence had not prejudiced the complainant, in which case, We would have called for a stiffer penalty, if not his outright
dismissal from service.

WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Bonifacio V. Curso is hereby REPRIMANDED with a stern warning that
a commission of the same or similar
offense in the future will be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino,
Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Campos, Jr., and Quiason, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 7.

^[2]
Id., p. 8.

^[3]
Id., p. 10.

^[4]
Memorandum of Deputy Court Administrator Eutropio Migriño, p. 2.