EN BANC
- versus -
JUDGE RODOLFO
B. GARCIA,
Respondent.
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
Petitioner, [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI
No. 03-1595-P]
Present:
PUNO, C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
-
versus -
CARPIO
MORALES,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA,
REYES,
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, and
CELFRED P.
FLORES, UTILITY BRION, JJ.
WORKER, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT
TRIAL COURT, CALATRAVA, Promulgated:
NEGROS OCCIDENTAL,
Respondents. October 6, 2008
x - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
PUNO, C.J.:
The case at
bar consolidates two administrative cases filed by Judge Rodolfo B. Garcia and
Utility Worker Celfred P. Flores, both of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of
Calatrava-Toboso, Negros Occidental, against each other.
The first case, Administrative Matter No. MTJ-03-1499, is a
verified Letter-Complaint[1]
filed on
In his Comment[6]
dated
On the counter-charge for falsification, Judge Garcia alleged
that
The Court, in a Resolution[13]
dated
Judge Chiongson, in his Report and Recommendation[17]
dated
The Court, through its Second Division, noted the receipt of
Judge Chiongson’s Report and Recommendation in a Resolution[18]
dated
On
1. That Judge Rodolfo B. Garcia (Retired),
Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Calatrava-Toboso, Negros Occidental, be found GUILTY of gross misconduct constituting
violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct [Sec. 8(3), Rule 140 of the Rules of
Court];
2. That Judge Garcia be FINED in the amount of [P]20,500,
the amount of which shall be taken from the [P]80,000 withheld by the
Court in its Resolution dated June 8, 2004 in A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1403-MTJ;
and[,]
3. That the administrative case, docketed
as A.M. No. P-03-1752, against Celfred P. Flores, Utility Worker, same court,
for falsification of his daily time records (sic), be DISMISSED.[19]
On
The Court issued a Resolution[21]
on
1. the Joint Manifestation dated 11
October 2007 of Ret. Judge Rodolfo B. Garcia and Mr. Celfred P. Flores, filed
in compliance with the Resolution dated 23 July 2007, praying for the dismissal
of their respective cases against each other and/or for the Court to consider
the same as closed and terminated, be DENIED
for utter lack of merit; [and,]
2. the recommendations in our October 12,
2006 Memorandum be taken into consideration in resolving the instant
consolidated cases.[22]
The subsequent reconciliation of the parties to an
administrative proceeding does not strip the court of its jurisdiction to hear
the administrative case until its resolution. Atonement, in administrative
cases, merely obliterates the personal injury of the parties and does not
extend to erase the offense that may have been committed against the public
service. As succinctly put by the Memorandum of the Office of the Court
Administrator:
xxx
[T]he withdrawal of an administrative complaint or subsequent desistance by the
complainant does not free the respondent from liability as the purpose of an
administrative proceeding is to protect the public service, based on the
time-honored principle that a public office i[s] a public trust. The withdrawal
of the complaint or the execution of an affidavit of desistance does not
automatically result in the dismissal of the administrative case. It will not
divest the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction to investigate the matters alleged
in the complaint. Thus, the joint manifestation filed by the parties praying
that the charges and counter-charges be dismissed should be denied. xxx To
condition administrative actions upon the will of every complainant who may,
for one reason or another, condone a detestable act is to strip the Court of
its supervisory power to discipline erring members of the judiciary. Disciplinary
proceedings of this nature involve no private interest and afford no redress
for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for public
welfare, i.e.[,] to maintain the
faith and confidence of the people in the government and its agencies and
instrumentalities.[23]
As gleaned
from the Pre-Trial Order,[24]
Judge Garcia admitted at the pre-trial conference to having confronted
Judge Garcia had acted in wanton disregard of the exacting
standards of conduct attached to his position as a magistrate. Judicial office
circumscribes the personal conduct of a judge and imposes a number of
restrictions thereon which he must pay for accepting and occupying an exalted
position in the administration of justice.[25]
His personal behavior, not only upon the bench but also in everyday life,
should be above reproach and free from the appearance of impropriety. The
Code of Judicial Ethics dictates that a judge, in order to promote public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, must behave with
propriety at all times. Being the subject of constant public scrutiny, a
judge should freely and willingly accept restrictions on conduct that might be
viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. He should personify
judicial integrity and exemplify honest public service.[26]
Thus, when Judge Garcia acted without exercising civility, self-restraint,
prudence and sobriety even – if at all – he was indeed provoked, he did so in
violation of Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, [27]
viz.:
CANON
4
PROPRIETY
Propriety
and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all the
activities of a judge.
SECTION
1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of
their activities.
SEC.
2. As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must accept personal restrictions
that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so
freely and willingly. In particular, judges shall conduct themselves in a way
that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.
An act that
violates the Code of Judicial Conduct constitutes gross misconduct which is
considered a serious charge under Section 8(3) of Rule 140 of the Rules of
Court, viz.:
SEC. 8. Serious
charges. – Serious charges include:
1. Bribery, direct or indirect;
2. Dishonesty and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law (R.A. No.
3019);
3.
Gross misconduct constituting
violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct;[28]
4.
Knowingly rendering an unjust
judgment or order as determined by a competent court in an appropriate proceeding;
5. Conviction of a crime involving moral
turpitude;
6. Willful failure to pay a just debt;
7.
Borrowing money or property from
lawyers and litigants in a case pending before the court;
8. Immorality;
9. Gross ignorance of the law or procedure;
10. Partisan political activities; and
11. Alcoholism and/or vicious habits.
Under Section 11 of the same Rule, a
serious charge metes out either of the following penalties, viz.:
SEC. 11.
Sanctions. – A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the
following sanctions may be imposed:
1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture
of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification
from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned
or controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits
shall in no case include accrued leave credits;
2.
Suspension from office without
salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months;
or
3. A fine
of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.
The Office
of the Court Administrator has correctly noted that there are attendant
mitigating circumstances in the case at bar. These include Judge Garcia’s
retirement, twenty years of service in the judiciary, old age, subsequent
reconciliation with P5,000.00 in MTJ-00-1282
for misconduct, oppression and abuse of authority, and reprimand in MTJ-88-208
for gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of authority.
Prescinding from the foregoing, we uphold the imposition of a
fine of P20,500.00 as recommended by the Office of the Court
Administrator. The amount shall be deducted from the P80,000.00 which
has been previously withheld from Judge Garcia’s retirement benefits pursuant
to the Court’s Resolution dated
The case for falsification
against
IN VIEW
WHEREOF, retired Judge Rodolfo B. Garcia of the Municipal Circuit
Trial Court of Calatrava-Toboso, Negros Occidental is found GUILTY of gross misconduct constituting
a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct under Section 8(3) of Rule 140 of
the Rules of Court. The Court hereby imposes upon Judge Garcia a FINE of
Twenty Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P20,500.00) to be deducted from the
amount of P80,000.00 which was
previously withheld by the Court from his retirement benefits pursuant to the
Court’s Resolution dated
SO ORDERED.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
(on official leave)
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
DANTE O. TINGA MINITA V. CHICO-N
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
RUBEN T. REYES TERESITA J.
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
* On official leave.
[1] Rollo I, 5.
[2] Dated
[3] Rollo II, 8.
[4] Rollo I, 14.
[5] Rollo I, 15.
[6] Rollo I, 22-30.
[7] Rollo II, 9.
[8] Rollo I, 35-38.
[9] Rollo I, 31.
[10] Rollo II, 7.
[11] Rollo II, 16-18.
[12] Rollo II, 19-20.
[13] Rollo II, 48.
[14] Rollo I, 97-100.
[15] Rollo II, 83.
[16] Rollo I, 245.
[17] Rollo II, 107-108.
[18] Rollo II, 113.
[19] Memorandum, 6; Rollo II, 119. Emphases in
the original.
[20] Rollo II, 122-123.
[21] Rollo II, 129.
[22] Memorandum dated
[23] Memorandum dated
[24] Rollo I, 117-120.
[25] Torcende v. Sardido, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1238,
[26] Cacatian
v. Liwanag, AM No. MTJ-02-1418,
[27] A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC: Adopting the New Code of Judicial Conduct
for the Philippine Judiciary.
[28] Emphasis supplied.
[29] Julieta F. Ortega v. Judge Rodolfo B. Garcia.