Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-19-2567)
Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-19-2567)
Facts:
Office of the Court Administrator v. Hon. Danilo P. Galvez (Ret.), A.M. No. RTJ-19-2567 (Formerly A.M. No. 01-12-641-RTC), August 14, 2019, Supreme Court Third Division, Inting, J., writing for the Court.The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) filed an administrative matter against Judge Danilo P. Galvez, former Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 24, Iloilo City, concerning his alleged failure to resolve cases raffled to him from RTC, Branch 25 after the compulsory retirement of Judge Bartolome M. Fanunal on April 21, 2001. A judicial audit and physical inventory conducted by the OCA on July 16–20, 2001, disclosed eight criminal and thirty-six civil cases submitted for decision but left undecided by Judge Fanunal.
Pursuant to the audit, the Court issued a Resolution dated January 28, 2002 directing Judge Galvez to decide the thirty-six civil and eight criminal cases submitted for decision, to resolve specified cases with pending incidents, to take action on others (including archiving some), and to submit reports and certified copies of decisions; the Court also designated Judges Lolita C. Besana and Roger B. Patricio to assist Judge Galvez and ordered that the inherited cases be raffled among the three judges. When the judges failed to comply, the Court issued a show-cause order on August 19, 2002.
Judge Patricio reported on September 13, 2002 that he received nineteen cases and rendered nine decisions. Deputy Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepano sent telegram reminders to Judge Galvez and Judge Besana; Judge Besana later reported she disposed of twelve inherited cases. On February 24, 2003, the Court found Judges Patricio’s and Besana’s letters satisfactory but required Judge Galvez to manifest whether he was submitting the cases for decision on the basis of records already filed.
Judge Galvez filed a motion received June 13, 2018 — asserting he only became aware of the matter while processing his retirement clearance (he retired April 27, 2018), that he misunderstood the raffle directive, that he separated the inherited cases from Branch 24’s regular docket to treat incidents separately, and that the parties largely abandoned the cases (save one he claimed to have decided). He accepted the OCA’s earlier recommendation of a P20,000 fine. The Court referred his motion to the OCA, which recommended finding him guilty of gross misconduct for contumacious conduct, lack of candor and insubordination and recommended a P40,000 fine to be deducted from his retirement gratuity, citing prior administrative complaints against him.
The Supreme Court, after considering OCA’s memorandum and relevant authorities, found Judge Galvez guilty of gross misconduct for deliberate and repeated failure to comply with the Court’s lawful orders, and imposed an appropriate disciplinary sanction (described below). Four justices concurred in the decision; there were no separate opinions.
Issues:
- Did Judge Danilo P. Galvez commit gross misconduct by failing to comply with the Supreme Court’s directives to decide or otherwise dispose of the cases raffled to him?
- If guilty, what disciplinary sanction is appropriate and administratively permissible in his case?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)