Facts:

The case involves Antonio V. Balana, Jr. as the complainant and Hon. Perfecto Quicho, a Judge of the Court of First Instance of Albay (Branch I), as the respondent. The complaint was filed on July 22, 1971, and it centers around allegations of incompetence, gross negligence, and violation of law against the respondent Judge. The complainant asserted that the respondent Judge exhibited incompetence during a guardianship proceeding (Special Proceeding No. 566) by questioning whether the inventory submitted by the guardian needed to be under oath, incorrectly stating that a provision of the Rules of Court was merely directory, and allowing a motion for substitution of guardian without notifying the concerned parties. Furthermore, the complainant alleged that the respondent Judge failed to act on a motion for the removal of the guardian for seven months and neglected to compel the guardian to submit required inventory and accounting reports for five years. The final charge of vio...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Complainant: Antonio V. Balana, Jr.
• Respondent: Hon. Perfecto Quicho, Judge of First Instance of Albay (Branch I).
• The case involves administrative charges against Judge Quicho for (a) Incompetence, (b) Gross Negligence, and (c) Violation of law.

First Charge: Incompetence

1. Query on Inventory Oath: During a hearing in Special Proceeding No. 566 (a guardianship proceeding), Judge Quicho questioned whether the inventory submitted by the guardian needed to be under oath.
2. Statement on Rule 94: The judge allegedly stated that Section 1(c), Rule 94 of the Rules of Court (regarding guardian's bond conditions) was "purely directory."
3. Motion for Substitution of Guardian: The judge granted a motion for substitution of guardian without notifying the parties, invoking Section 4, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court.

Second Charge: Gross Negligence

1. Delay in Resolving Motion for Removal of Guardian: A motion for the removal of the guardian, filed on June 10, 1967, remained unresolved for seven (7) months.
2. Failure to Enforce Inventory and Accounting Reports: The guardian, Tan Chu Lim, failed to submit required inventory and accounting reports for five (5) years, and the judge neglected to act on this until the complainant filed a motion for removal.

Third Charge: Violation of Law

1. Failure to Hold Court Sessions on Saturdays: The judge admitted to not holding court sessions on Saturdays, dedicating the day to study and preparation of decisions.
2. False Statements in Monthly Certifications: The judge allegedly falsified monthly certifications (New Judicial Form No. 86) for October, November, and December 1967, despite not resolving the motion for removal of guardian.

Respondent's Defense

• The judge denied the charges, stating:
  • He could not recall making the query about the inventory being under oath or the statement about Rule 94 being directory.
  • The delay in resolving the motion for removal was due to new motions and pleadings filed after the hearing.
  • He repeatedly reminded the guardian to comply with his duties.
  • His practice of not holding sessions on Saturdays was for study and preparation of decisions.
  • He denied falsifying monthly certifications, claiming the motion for removal was not yet submitted for decision.

---

Issue:

1. Whether Judge Quicho is guilty of incompetence for:
   • Querying whether the inventory must be under oath.
   • Stating that Section 1(c), Rule 94 is "purely directory."
   • Granting a motion for substitution of guardian without notice.
2. Whether Judge Quicho is guilty of gross negligence for:
   • Failing to resolve the motion for removal of guardian for seven (7) months.
   • Neglecting to enforce the submission of inventory and accounting reports for five (5) years.
3. Whether Judge Quicho is guilty of violation of law for:
   • Not holding court sessions on Saturdays.
   • Allegedly falsifying monthly certifications of service.

---

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the charges against Judge Quicho, finding no sufficient grounds to sustain the allegations of incompetence, gross negligence, or violation of law. However, the charges were recommended to be considered in a related administrative case involving the alleged falsification of monthly certificates of service.