CIPRIANO G. PUYO, v. JUDGE JAMES V.

GO, PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 2,

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BUTUAN CITY, AGUSAN DEL NORTE
(2018)

Facts:

Complainant Puyo was charged with violations of BP 22 by Atty. Bernabe (acted as private
counsel of S.M. Osin Enterprises). Although Puyo stated that the checks subject of the criminal
charges had already been paid, Atty. Bernabe did not present evidence to show that the bouncing
checks had not been replaced with legitimate payments. However, despite that and the failure to
appear in court, Judge Go refused to dismiss the case even if 6 years had already passed and they
simply kept on resetting the hearings without actions on the motion to dismiss.

Issues:

Whether or not Judge Go must be held administratively liable for his failure to submit the
responsive comment.

Law Applicable:

Code of Judicial Code – Rule 1/02

New Code of Judicial Conduct – Canon 6, Sec. 5

Case History:

The Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that Judge Go be held administratively

liable for his refusal to submit the responsive comment because such refusal constituted a clear
and willful disrespect to the lawful orders of his office and to be further liable for undue delay in
the disposition of cases and motions based on his failure to act on complainant’s Puyo motions.

Ruling:

The Court find the recommendations of the Court Administrator in order. OCA has
sufficient factual basis to support the recommendation to consider Judge Go’s refusal to submit
the responsive comment as a clear and willful disrespect of lawful orders. Any judge who
deliberately and continuously fails and refuses to comply with a resolution is guilty of misconduct
and insubordination. Also, Judge Go’s failure to act on the motions and respond to the inquiry as
to the status of the pending motions constituted dereliction of duty.

The failure to decide a case or to resolve a motion within the reglementary period amounted
to gross inefficiency and warranted the imposition of administrative sanctions against him.
Therefore, Judge Go has been dismissed from the Judiciary and all his retirement benefits, except
accrued leave credits, had been declared forfeited.

Opinion:

It is stated in our 1986 Constitution that under Section 16, Article III, it provides that “all
persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial,
or administrative bodies”. Failure to comply to this Constitutional right undermines the people’s
faith and confidence in the judiciary.