RE: REQUEST OF JUDGE NINO A. BATINGANA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 6, MATI, DAVAO ORIENTAL, FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO DECIDE THE CIVIL ASPECT OF CRIMINAL CASE NUMBERS 4514, 4648, AND 4649.

 [ A.M. No. 07-4-188-RTC, January 27, 2021 ]

INTING, J.:

Disposition:    The instant administrative case against the late Judge Nino A. Batingana is DISMISSED. Accordingly, his retirement benefits are ordered to be RELEASED to the heirs of the late Judge Nino A. Batingana.

FACTS

Judge Batingana subsequently sought more extensions of time to decide the criminal cases through a series of letters. Without complying with the Resolution dated February 27, 2008, Judge Batingana yet again wrote a few more letters respectively dated March 3, 2008, May 30, 2008, and August 20, 2008, each requesting for additional time to resolve the criminal cases.

In a Resolution dated July 16, 2012, the Court reiterated for the last time the Resolution dated February 27, 2008 arid required Judge Batingana to comply therewith. The Court further denied his requests for extensions of time, as contained in his May 30, 2008 and August 20, 2008 letters.

On October 3, 2018., Judge Batingana passed away.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Batingana should be held administratively liable for Gross Insubordination and Undue Delay in Rendering a Decision, or in Transmitting the Records of a Case.

RULING

Judge Batingana's persistent refusal to obey the Court's Resolutions and numerous directives constitutes insubordination and gross misconduct.

The Court held in the case of Payo v. Go that:

It is essential to reiterate that any judge who deliberately and continuously fails and refuses to comply with a resolution or directive of the Court is guilty of gross misconduct and insubordination. This is because the Court is the agency exclusively vested by the Constitution with the administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel — from the Presiding Justices of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals to the lowliest clerk and employee of the municipal trial court. Such gross misconduct and insubordination are serious transgressions of the law and cannot be tolerated. When the judge himself becomes the transgressor of the law that he is sworn to obey and to apply, he places his office in severe disrepute, encourages disrespect for the law, and impairs public confidence in the integrity of the Judiciary itself.

Insubordination is the refusal to obey some order that a superior officer is entitled to give and to have obeyed. It imports a willful or intentional disregard of the lawful and reasonable instructions of the employer. Judge Batingana's willful disobedience and disregard of the directives of the Court constitutes grave and serious misconduct putting in serious question his fitness and worthiness of the honor and integrity attached to his office. His obstinate refusal to comply with the orders of the Court displayed his rebellious character and disrespect for the Court. It is glaring proof that he has become disinterested to remain with the judicial system to which he purports to belong.

However, in view of Judge Batingana's supervening death while the case was pending resolution, the Court is constrained to dismiss this administrative case.

The death of a respondent in an administrative case before its final resolution is a cause for its dismissal. Just like in criminal prosecutions where the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, a respondent in an administrative case similarly enjoys the right to be presumed innocent pending final judgment of his/her case. Considering that only substantial evidence is required in administrative cases, a respondent therein should be presumed innocent if his/her death preceded the finality of a judgment, as in this case.