EN BANC
[A.M. No. RTJ-00-1530.
DR. EDGARDO ALDAY, MERCEDES FAVIS, MARNA VILLAFUERTE, and
CHRISTOPHER GARCIA, complainants, vs. JUDGE ESCOLASTICO U. CRUZ, JR.,
Regional Trial Court, Makati City, Branch 58, respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
PER CURIAM:
On March 14, 2001, this Court promulgated a decision suspending
respondent judge Escolastico U. Cruz, Jr., for a
period of one year and imposing on him a P50,000 fine, after finding him
guilty of conduct grossly prejudicial to the service, with a warning that
commission of a similar act will be dealt with more severely. The suspension came as a result of a
complaint filed against respondent judge by herein complainants whom he
threatened with a gun during a traffic altercation. On
Respondent judge's suspension was to have been immediately executory. He
received a copy of our decision on
Thus, on September 18, 2001, we issued another resolution voiding the orders, decisions, and other issuances of respondent judge that were done during the period of his suspension, i.e. after March 22, 2001, the date when he received a notice of his suspension. We stressed that when suspension is "to take effect immediately", this Court means that the period of suspension should commence on the day respondent judge receives notice of the decision suspending him from office.
In the same resolution, we likewise ordered respondent judge to
show cause why he should not be cited for contempt or otherwise penalized for
disobedience in disregarding our decision dated
In an explanation submitted to this Court on September 26, 2001,
respondent judge stated that he thought he did not have to serve suspension
immediately since doing so would have rendered the decision final, thus
foreclosing any other recourse to this Court.
He also argued that had he immediately served his suspension, he would
have been deemed to have abandoned his office as judge. He pointed out that he had to act on matters
pending in his sala lest his docket reach
"unmanageable limits". [1] He averred that he intended to abide by this
Court's decision, and pointed out that he promptly relinquished his office when
his motion for reconsideration was denied.
We referred this matter to the Office of the Court Administrator
for investigation, report , and recommendation on
In explaining its recommendation, the OCA cited respondent judge's obstinate refusal to heed the directive of this Court, which constitutes grave misconduct. The order of suspension clearly stated that it was "to take effect immediately", but respondent judge chose to disregard it. The OCA pointed out that respondent judge could not have been unaware of our pronouncement in Development Bank of the Philippines v. Judge Angel S. Malaya (deceased) and Sheriff Roque Angeles, both of the RTC, Branch 22, Naga City, P-98-1277 (formerly OCA-IPI No. 95-45 RTJ), July 27, 1999, to the effect that administrative penalties are to take effect immediately.
After a thorough evaluation of the records of this case, we agree
with the OCA that respondent judge's deliberate refusal to obey our order dated
Indeed, we clarified in Development Bank that:
As penalties imposed in administrative cases are immediately executory, suspension of respondent should have begun at
the time respondent received the resolution of
While this does not preclude the filing by respondent judge of a
motion for reconsideration, the filing and pendency
of such a motion does not have the effect of staying the suspension order. Contrary to respondent judge's contention,
our decision suspending him was not "in suspense" during the time his
motion for reconsideration was pending.
Otherwise, as we stressed in our resolution dated
We are not persuaded by respondent judge's rationalization that
he would not have any other recourse if he had desisted from performing his
duties as judge upon receipt of our decision, or that it would "operate as
an actionable abandonment of his office".[4] The language of our decision is clear as to
leave no doubt in the mind of respondent judge.
Directives issued by this Court are not to be treated lightly, certainly not on the pretext that one has misapprehended the meaning of said directives. Effective and efficient administration of justice demands nothing less than a faithful adherence to the rules and orders laid down by this Court, and in this regard, respondent judge failed to show such adherence. Instead, he demonstrated his defiance of the Court's clear order that should have been obeyed by him without delay.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Escolastico U. Cruz, Jr., of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 58, is found GUILTY of grave misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and is hereby ordered DISMISSED from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except for his accrued leaves, if any; and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations. This order of dismissal is immediately executory.
Without prejudice to further orders by this Court, the decisions, resolutions, orders, and other processes issued or conducted by respondent judge in the FOLLOWING CASES are hereby ORDERED examined thoroughly by the Office of the Court Administrator, who shall form a team of review officers for that purpose, so that those that have been unlawfully, erroneously and improperly issued after respondent judge was suspended from office may be declared by this court as NULL and VOID, EXPUNGED, or otherwise properly disposed of soonest, to wit: CIVIL CASE Nos. 99-1359; 00-662; 95-1651; 01-063; 93-4098; 00-1076; 98-2532; 97-2766; 01-701; 01-740; 00-1025; 01-1005; 01-832; 92-098; 98-3030; 00-546; 99-1735; 01-1160; 95-1560; 91-2940; 01-248; 01-038; 01-139; 92-2495; 01-6210; 00-1503; 98-2694; 98-601; 98-1763; 97-911; 00-395; 95-1056; 97-2983; 00-510; 01-930; 99-2073; 00-1135; 98-607; 99-1061; 98-654; LRC M-3985; 01-334; 00-12-01; 99-1283; LRC M-4158; Sp. Proc. M-4611; 00-041; 00-1221; 95-1272; 00-770; 00-1436; 98-2198; 99-232; 92-3567; 97-1596; 99-791; 00-368; Nat. Case M-49; 01-629; 01-665; 01-624; 01-439; 01-499; 01-195; 96-030; 00-637; 98-1853; 01-007; Sp. Proc. Correction of Entry B.C. Jennefer Tamayo Martinez v. Local Civil Registrar of Makati; 01-038; 99-1148; 00-296; 00-975; 99-2127; 99-1823; 00-771; 01-701; 00-821; 00-1433; 01-832; 99-1461; 95-1651; Sp. Proc. M-4986; and Criminal Case Nos. 00-755; 00-1972; 00-1711; 98-1543-44; 94-5576-84; 97-1311-12; 00-206; 00-1528; 01-924; 01-1135-36; 01-509; 01-509; 01-982; 01-1890; 01-403; 99-1181; 99-1063; 00-2005; 01-129; 99-1707; 01-648; Pp. V. Victorino M. Diala, et al.; 00-1447; 99-698; 01-1067; 01-1797; 01-1453; 01-568; 00-1634; 01-1513-16; 00-848; 01-1458; 90-5387; 01-1128; 00-1916; 2217; 01-869; 01-871; 00-1197; 00-600; 99-2549-51; 98-392; 00-1868; 00-2162; 99-557; 00-2190; 98-867; 96-103; 98-2001; 00-1273; 01-1117; 00-1627; 00-2097; 93-10454-79; 99-1569; 01-807; 95-2279-83; 00-1497; 01-143; 01-609; 01-783; 01-966. Report hereon by the Court Administrator shall be submitted to the Court within twenty (20) days. Let a copy of this Resolution be provided to the parties concerned and spread in the records of the abovenumbered cases.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ., concur.