A.M. No. MTJ-95-1062, MTJ-00-1260

Ms. Alice Davila regarding the undue delay in resolving Criminal Case No. 12293.
Dr. Leticia S. Santos concerning the delay in deciding Civil Case No. 11072, a case of ejectment.

Both complaints arose from the judge’s repeated failure to issue decisions within the statutory or reglementary periods, thereby eroding public confidence in the judiciary.

Ms. Davila’s letter-complaint was submitted, alleging that Criminal Case No. 12293 had been submitted for decision since February 16, 1993, yet remained undecided.
Multiple directives were issued to Judge Generoso:

A 1st Indorsement (May 30, 1994) from Deputy Court Administrator (DCA) Bernardo P. Abesamis, requiring a comment within ten (10) days.
A subsequent First Tracer issued by DCA Reynaldo L. Suarez, warning that a failure to respond would lead to a resolution being passed without the judge's input.

Resolution dated December 11, 1995: Ordered the judge to explain his inaction on Criminal Case No. 12293 and to show cause within ten (10) days why disciplinary or contempt proceedings should not be instituted.
Resolution dated October 7, 1996: Directed the judge again to comment on the complaint within fifteen (15) days.
Resolution dated August 13, 1997: Issued a final notice requiring compliance within ten (10) days or else the case would be decided based solely on existing pleadings.
Additional resolutions followed on January 21, 1998; October 5, 1998; and March 17, 1999, each mandating a show-cause response and compliance under threat of escalating disciplinary actions.

Administrative Matter No. OCA IPI 97-251-MTJ, initiated by Dr. Santos’s complaint regarding Civil Case No. 11072 (submitted for decision on June 28, 1995), was consolidated with the earlier matter.
The 1st Indorsement for this matter was issued on June 20, 1996, followed by a First Tracer and subsequent correspondence underscoring the need for immediate compliance.

Despite several opportunities and clear directives, Judge Generoso repeatedly failed to respond and comply with the administrative orders.
The judge’s inaction was interpreted as a sign of disinterest in his judicial responsibilities, culminating in a recommendation for his dismissal.

The repeated failure of the judge to decide cases within the prescribed ninety (90) day period and to respond to the directives was considered gross inefficiency.
The judge’s conduct was characterized as "grave and serious misconduct,” undermining the integrity and honor attached to the judicial office.

Whether the judge’s repeated non-compliance with the directives of the Court Administrator constituted grave and serious misconduct affecting his fitness and worthiness to hold office.
Whether the undue delay in the disposition of criminal and civil cases rendered the judge grossly inefficient and in violation of Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates prompt disposition of cases.
Whether the imposition of the severe administrative sanction, including dismissal with forfeiture of benefits and disqualification from any reinstatement or appointment in government service, was warranted based on the evidence of misconduct.