"x x x.
Certainly, this Court can never turn a blind eye, much less tolerate respondent’s impiety and its odious effects on the administration of justice in this part of the judicial hemisphere. Again, we find the need and occasion to rule that a resolution of the Supreme Court requiring comment on an administrative complaint against officials and employees of the judiciary should not be construed as a mere request from the Court. Nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately or selectively. Respondents in administrative complaints should comment on all accusations or allegations against them in the administrative complaints because it is their duty to preserve the integrity of the judiciary. Moreover, the Court should not and will not tolerate future indifference of respondents to administrative complaints and to resolutions requiring comment on such administrative complaints[22].
As a judge, respondent is expected to behave at all times to promote public confidence in the intergity and impartiality of the judiciary[23]. We have often said that every officer or employee in the judiciary is duty-bound to obey the orders and processes of this Court without the least delay and to exercise at all times a high degree of professionalism[24]. Truly, there is no place in the judiciary for those who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity.[25]
It is gross misconduct even outright disrespect for the Supreme Court for a respondent judge to exhibit indifference to the resolution requiring him to comment on the accusations in the complaints thoroughly and substantially.[26]
In fine, this Court in Grefaldeo vs. Judge Lacson, et al.[27], declared:
“xxx What really sealed the fate of respondent judge is her continued defiance of no less than four (4) resolutions from this Court and two (2) letters from the OCA ordering her to comment on the complaint. As we have said before, this contumacious conduct merits no compassion. Any disregard or cavalier attitude towards this Court’s lawful directives will not be tolerated. Hence, the supreme penalty of dismissal has been unhesitatingly imposed on those who have persistently failed to comply with orders requiring them either to file comment or show cause and comply. Respondent’s obstinate refusal to abide by the lawful directives of this Court must similarly taken to mean as her own utter lack of interest to remain with, if not her contempt of, the system to which she unfittingly belongs. xxx"
Need we to remind respondent that benevolence is not limitless and patience, to be sure, is not without boundaries. These virtues must, at a definite point, yield to the higher considerations of justice and public service, ideals which respondent has sworn to maintain and uphold.
x x x."
