"x x x.
We have repeatedly held that delay in resolving motions and incidents pending before a judge within the 90-day period fixed by the Constitution amounts not only to gross inefficiency but also constitutes a violation of Rule 3.05, Canon 3, of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates that a magistrate shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.[6] Worse, making a false statement in a certificate of service constitutes falsification of an official document warranting the penalty of dismissal under Memorandum Circular No. 30 of the Civil Service[7] dated 20 July 1989.[8]
But what really sealed the fate of respondent Judge is her continued defiance of no less than four (4) resolution 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.[9] Any disregard or cavalier attitude towards this Court's lawful directives will not be tolerated.[10] 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 to show cause and comply.[11]Respondent's obstinate refusal to abide by the refusal to abide by the lawful directives of this Court must similarly be 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.[12] In fact we note that this propensity of respondent Judge to disregard, if not challenge, the authority of this Court is again reflected in another administrative matter pending before us. In A.M. No. 98-5-58-MTC[13] respondent Judge refused to comment and/or take appropriate action on a simple letter request by Angel Majadillas for the expeditious resolution of Civil Case No. 12-11 pending before her court, despite a reasonable lapse of time and no less than three (3) follow-ups by the Office of the court Administrator.
There are two other pending administrative matters involving respondent Judge, namely, A.M. No. MTJ-92-642, "Carranza et. al. v. Judge Lacson et al.," for delay in the resolution of two (2) criminal cases pending with her and falsification of certificates of service, and A.M. No. MTJ-93-745, "Janoras v. Judge Lacson," for evident partiality and oppression. However these are not necessary in the adjudication of the instant case as respondent Judge's contumacious conduct here alone justifies beyond argument the imposition of the ultimate penalty of dismissal.
It may be pertinent to mention that on 27 December 1994 respondent Judge Rica H. Lacson, together with another Judge, was charged by Director Ma. Suzette M. Agcaoili of the DSWD Regional Office No. V, and Cecile Buenafe, private complainant in a case for sexual abuse of a minor under RA No. 7610, with "gross misconduct, conduct unbecoming members of judiciary, abuse of judicial authority and deliberate obstruction of justice for entering the premises of the Center for Girls in Pampang, Sorsogon, Sorsogon, without authority, and for pressuring Cecile (Buenafe), who was temporarily residing thereat, into signing an Affidavit of Desistance to procure the dismissal of the criminal case for rape against Judge Panday." In that case, respondent Judge Rica H. Lacson was found "administratively liable for engaging in notarial services in connection with cases unrelated to her official functions as municipal judge of Sorsogon. Accordingly, she is meted a FINE of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) with warning that a repetition by her of similar acts will be dealt with more severely."
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Rica H. Lacson is DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all her accrued retirement benefits and other privileges, if any, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch, agency or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations. This judgment is immediately executory and respondent is directed to cease and desist from performing the functions of the office of Judge, Municipal Trial Court, Sorsogon, Sorsogon upon receipt of this Decision, except to turn over all her cases and property accountabilities to the Clerk of Court or whoever is officially designated in charge of her court.
SO ORDERED."