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

Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-95-1062, MTJ-00-1260)

Allegations of Delay

Ms. Alice Davila filed a complaint regarding the undue delays in Criminal Case No. 12293, which was submitted for decision on February 16, 1993. As of the time of her complaint, more than two years had elapsed with no resolution. Similarly, Dr. Leticia S. Santos expressed frustration over the delay in Civil Case No. 11072, an ejectment case that was pending resolution since its submission for decision on June 28, 1995.

Court Administrator's Interventions

Following Davila's complaint, Deputy Court Administrator Bernardo P. Abesamis issued a 1st Indorsement, requiring Judge Generoso to comment on the matter within ten days. Subsequently, additional reminders and tracers were sent due to the judge's non-compliance, with similar steps taken for Dr. Santos's complaint. Despite these efforts, Judge Generoso consistently failed to respond to directives and provide explanations for the delays.

Consolidation of Complaints

On March 17, 1997, the Court resolved to consolidate the two administrative matters into a single case, as both complaints centered on Judge Generoso's failure to decide cases within a reasonable time frame. The continued lack of response demonstrated a pattern of non-compliance with the judicial duties expected of him.

Recommendations for Disciplinary Action

Based on the persistent inaction of Judge Generoso regarding both cases, the Court Administrator ultimately recommended his dismissal from service, citing gross inefficiency and failure to comply with the Code of Judicial Conduct. The various reminders and orders issued did not elicit any substantial response from the judge, underscoring a lack of regard for his obligations.

Finding of Grave Misconduct

The Court found merit in the recommendations of the Court Administrator, determining that Judge Generoso’s disregard for the Court's directives constituted "grave and serious misconduct." His inability to issue timely decisions within the stipulated ninety-day period clearly violated Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code o