Cebu v. Gako
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An administrative complaint was filed by the City of Cebu against retired Judge Ireneo Lee Gako, Jr. for serious misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, willful violation of rules and laws, judicial interference, tolerating forum-shopping, and violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics. The complaint stemmed from several civil cases presided over by the respondent judge. Procedural History: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found the respondent judge administratively liable for undue delay in deciding Civil Case No. CEB-29570 and for gross ignorance of the law in violating the doctrine of non-interference in Civil Case No. 30684. The OCA recommended a fine and suspension. The Court designated an Investigating Justice to further evaluate the charges. The Investigating Justice found the respondent judge liable only for undue delay in deciding Civil Case No. CEB-29570 and recommended a two-month suspension. The respondent judge subsequently retired from the judiciary. The Petition: The City of Cebu filed the administrative complaint against Judge Gako, Jr. alleging various administrative offenses based on his conduct in several civil cases.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed serious misconduct and gross ignorance of the law on two counts. Whether the respondent judge willfully violated rules and laws on four counts, including two counts of judicial interference. Whether the respondent judge engaged in other violations, such as "injunction-for-sale" and allowing parties to write decisions. Whether the respondent judge violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. Whether the respondent judge was guilty of undue delay in rendering a decision in Civil Case No. CEB-29570.
Ruling
The Supreme Court upheld the findings and conclusions of the Investigating Justice regarding undue delay in rendering a decision in Civil Case No. CEB-29570. However, the Court modified the recommended penalty due to the respondent judge's retirement. The Court found the other charges to be without merit. Retired Judge Ireneo Lee Gako, Jr. was found guilty of "undue delay in rendering a decision" in Civil Case No. CEB-29570 and was ordered to pay a fine of P40,000.00, to be deducted from his retirement benefits.
Ratio Decidendi
On the charge of serious misconduct and gross ignorance of the law (calling a witness): The Court found nothing irregular in the respondent judge calling a witness to the stand and conducting the direct testimony, even if the counsels were not interested. The Court reiterated that a trial judge, in the exercise of sound discretion and in furtherance of justice, may call additional witnesses or recall witnesses to enlighten him on particular facts or issues. On the charges of willful violation of rules and laws, including judicial interference: The Court found these charges to be without merit. The Court held that for liability to attach for ignorance of the law, the assailed order must not only be erroneous but also motivated by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred, or similar motives. Mere error of judgment is not a ground for disciplinary proceedings. The Court also noted that appropriate judicial remedies, such as appeal or certiorari, were available to the complainant, making recourse to an administrative action improper. On the charge of "injunction-for-sale" and allowing parties to write decisions: The Court dismissed these accusations for being hearsay, as no evidence was introduced to support them. The presumption of regularity in the respondent's performance of official duties was upheld. On the charge of undue delay in rendering a decision in Civil Case No. CEB-29570: The Court found the respondent judge to have transgressed Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct by not resolving the case within the constitutionally mandated timeframe. The judge's insistence that a settlement was imminent did not persuade the Court, as the records showed a delay of almost nine months beyond the expected decision period. The Court concluded that the respondent judge was guilty of undue delay. On the penalty: The Court noted that the respondent judge had retired. While retirement does not render the case moot, it necessitates a modification of the penalty. Were it not for his retirement, the Court would have imposed a heavier penalty of suspension. In lieu of suspension, the Court imposed a fine of P40,000.00, to be deducted from his retirement benefits.
Main Doctrine
While a judge's retirement does not render an administrative case moot, it necessitates a modification of the penalty. In cases of undue delay in rendering a decision, if the respondent judge has already retired, the penalty of suspension is converted to a fine, to be deducted from retirement benefits.