SC dismisses 2 Mindanao judges
BAGUIO CITY, Philippines—The Supreme Court has started to clean house by dismissing last week two judges in separate rulings for gross misconduct and incompetence. One of these judges drew the court’s ire for annulling marriages without undergoing court procedures.
In decisions promulgated on April 10, the court dismissed Judge Cader Indar, who is presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court Branch 14 in Cotabato City, and acting presiding judge of the RTC Branch 15 in Shariff Aguak, Maguindanao; and Judge James Go, presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities Branch 2 in Butuan City.
Affirming the recommendations of the Office of the Court Administrator, the court also disbarred Indar and ordered his name stricken out of the roster of lawyers for violating the Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
According to the decision, Indar’s case stemmed from an administrative complaint for gross misconduct and dishonesty because he “issued decisions on numerous annulment-of-marriage cases which do not exist in the records of RTC Shariff Aguak Branch 15 or the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC, Cotabato City.”
“The court condemns Judge Indar’s reprehensible act of issuing decisions that voided marital unions, without conducting any judicial proceedings. Such malfeasance not only makes a mockery of marriage and its life-changing consequences but likewise grossly violates the basic norms of truth, justice and due process,” the court said.
“Not only that, Judge Indar’s gross misconduct greatly undermines the people’s faith in the judiciary and betrays public trust and confidence in the courts,” it said.
Indar was dismissed from service “with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch, agency, or instrumentality of the government including government-owned or controlled corporations.”
The court also directed the OCA to investigate lawyer Umaima Silongan, acting clerk of court of RTC Cotabato City, on her alleged participation in the authentication of the questioned decisions on the annulment of marriage cases that Indar issued.
In a separate ruling, the court dismissed Go for inefficiency after the court audit team discovered that he had “failed to immediately arraign the accused in 632 criminal cases, to archive 140 criminal cases, to act on summons issued in 477 criminal cases, to act on 13 cases which had not been acted upon for a considerable length of time, to take further action on 32 civil cases, and to resolve motions or incidents in 88 civil cases.”
“The audit team also noted the reports of some court officials and employees that Judge Go would always leave the court in the morning after finishing all hearings scheduled for the day and would return only on the following day,” it said.
Go said he needed to rest because he had previously suffered a stroke, but this failed to persuade the high court.
Like Indar, Go was dismissed and all of his retirement benefits were forfeited.
Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr. took no part in the deliberations over Go’s case, indicating in the ruling that he had a relationship with one of the parties in the case. Associate Justice Jose Perez also inhibited from Go’s case because he “acted on the matter as court administrator.”
