Case Digest (A.M. No. R-704-RTJ)
Facts:
Felixberto M. Longboan v. Hon. Emilio L. Polig, Adm. No. R-704-RTJ, June 14, 1990, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam.Complainant Felixberto M. Longboan filed a letter-complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator on July 18, 1986, charging respondent Hon. Emilio L. Polig, then a judge, with gross negligence of duty or abuse of authority for failing to inform Longboan of the status of Civil Case No. 641 despite repeated registered-letter inquiries. Civil Case No. 641 was a money-collection suit in which Longboan had obtained a favorable judgment from Municipal Circuit Judge Flora M. Tel-equen on October 26, 1981; the case was on appeal when the dispute over its records arose.
On February 20, 1984, Regional Trial Court Judge Nicasio A. Baguilat informed Longboan that respondent, Polig, was in possession of the records because the appeal had been perfected before Polig’s transfer to RTC Branch 14 in Lagawe, Ifugao. On August 8, 1984, Judge Baguilat’s Clerk certified that Civil Case No. 641 was among the cases retained by Polig and that no decision had been received from him. Longboan sent five registered letters requesting the case status; the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) issued three tracers on August 12, 1985, April 15, 1986, and June 23, 1986, but Polig did not reply.
The Court issued a show-cause resolution on September 9, 1986 ordering Polig to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken and to comply within ten days. After noncompliance, the Court suspended Polig on July 31, 1987 for willful disobedience and directed him again to show cause and comply. On May 30, 1989 the Court dispatched an audit team led by Deputy Court Administrator Juanito A. Bernad to conduct a physical inventory after being told by Judge Baguilat that Civil Case No. 641 had already been decided elsewhere and other records could not be located.
Polig submitted a June 1, 1989 manifestation asking for reinstatement, explaining that the record of Civil Case No. 641 had been mislaid during his transfer but was later found and transmitted to Judge Baguilat; he explained his failure to timely respond as due to shock, anxiety and self-reproach. The inventory conducted on June 27, 1989 and reported July 4, 1989 showed all but eight records accounted for: four criminal cases (accused not detained) and four civil cases remained missing as of June 29, 1989. The Court referred the matter for investigation and recommendation to Associate Justice Jesus Elbinias of the Court of Appeals on July 6, 1989.
The investigating officer conducted hearings and recommended lifting the suspension and imposing a fine equivalent to two months’ pay by salary deduction. Nonetheless, the investigating officer found that Polig’s silence to party inquiries and to OCA tracers, his failure to obey the Court’s show-cause orders, the missing records, and the fact that 35 cases submitted for decision at his last assignment remained unresolved beyond the 90-day reglementary period, evidenced grave and serious misconduct, inexcusable negligence and gross inefficiency. The report relied on the Code of Judicial Conduct (Canon 3, Rule 3.08) and cited precedents including ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did respondent Judge Emilio L. Polig’s silence, failure to comply with show-cause orders and tracers, loss/mismanagement of court records, and delay in decision constitute grave and serious misconduct, inexcusable negligence and gross inefficiency warranting disciplinary sanction?
- If so, is dismissal from service with forfeiture of accrued retirement benefits and bar to re-e...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)