Perez v. Abiera
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Atty. Romeo S. Perez filed an administrative charge against Judge Carlos Abiera for "grave misconduct, gross dishonesty and serious inefficiency" on September 23, 1971. Judge Abiera retired on September 27, 1971, upon reaching the compulsory retirement age of seventy. The charge stemmed from Judge Abiera's alleged failure to resolve a motion for reconsideration filed by Atty. Perez in Civil Case No. 847, "Resurrecion de Asia vs. Rodolfo Alvarez, et al.", for a period of three years. The motion for reconsideration was filed on October 9, 1968, and was considered submitted for resolution on October 21, 1968. Despite multiple motions to resolve and verbal reminders, the motion remained unresolved until September 10, 1971, after a petition for certiorari and mandamus was filed with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals found that Judge Abiera gravely abused his discretion in hastily granting a writ of preliminary injunction without prior notice. Procedural History: The administrative complaint was filed against Judge Abiera. Despite his retirement, the Court required him to answer. The case was referred to Justice Guillermo S. Santos for investigation, report, and recommendation. The Investigating Justice found Judge Abiera guilty of serious misconduct for the undue delay in resolving the motion and for making untruthful statements in his salary vouchers and leave certificates, violating Section 5 of the Judiciary Act. The Petition: The administrative charge sought the declaration of Judge Abiera as unworthy and unfit for the position, ordering his dishonorable discharge, and forfeiture of retirement benefits. The respondent judge argued that the Court lost jurisdiction upon his retirement and that his failure to resolve the motion was due to oversight, poor health, and the un-transcribed stenographic notes.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court retains jurisdiction to proceed with an administrative case against a judge who has retired from the service. Whether the respondent judge committed serious misconduct by failing to resolve a motion for reconsideration for approximately three years and by making untruthful certifications in his salary vouchers and leave certificates. Whether the respondent judge's retirement benefits should be forfeited.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Judge Carlos Abiera GUILTY of serious misconduct in office. Considering his length of service and claim of poor health as mitigating factors, the Court imposed a FINE equivalent to his three (3) months' salary as Judge of the Court of First Instance, deductible from his retirement benefits.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction over a retired judge: The Court held that it retains jurisdiction over administrative cases filed against a judge who has retired from the service. The cessation from office does not per se warrant dismissal. The Court's jurisdiction, acquired at the time of the filing of the complaint, is not lost by the mere fact that the respondent public official had ceased to be in office. This is to prevent corrupt officials from committing abuses in their last days in office, knowing they would soon be beyond the law's reach. Public policy dictates that the Court must maintain jurisdiction for acts inimical to the service and prejudicial to litigants and the public. On the issue of serious misconduct: The Court found that respondent Judge Abiera committed serious misconduct. There was undue delay in resolving the motion for reconsideration, which was filed on October 9, 1968, and resolved only on September 10, 1971, a period of almost three years. This delay occurred despite multiple motions to resolve and verbal reminders from counsel. Compounding this delay, the respondent judge continued to receive his salary and applied for leaves, certifying that he had no matters pending for more than ninety days, in violation of Section 5 of the Judiciary Act. These certifications constituted untruthful statements in his salary vouchers and leave certificates, for which he could not escape responsibility. On the issue of forfeiture of retirement benefits: While the Investigating Justice recommended forfeiture, the Court considered the respondent's length of service and claim of poor health as mitigating factors. The Court noted that retirement benefits are a reward for satisfactory and meritorious service. Although the respondent met the age and premium requirements, his conduct in this case indicated a lack of satisfactory service. However, instead of outright forfeiture, the Court imposed a fine equivalent to three months' salary, deductible from his retirement benefits, as a penalty for the misconduct.
Main Doctrine
The cessation from office of a respondent judge due to resignation or retirement does not per se warrant the dismissal of an administrative complaint filed against him while still in the service; the Court retains jurisdiction to pronounce the respondent innocent or guilty and impose penalties. Furthermore, judges who make untruthful statements in salary vouchers and leave certificates, certifying that all pending matters have been decided when they have not, are liable for serious misconduct.