Lao v. Abelita
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Benjamin Sia Lao filed two administrative complaints against Judge Felimon Abelita III. The first complaint alleged that respondent Judge forcibly entered Lao's residence, office, and bodega on April 9, 1995, removed the padlock, and replaced it with a new one, thereby depriving Lao of access and possession. The second complaint alleged that on March 11, 1996, during the pendency of a civil case, respondent Judge ordered people to enter a nursery compound, construct a shanty to gain possession, and in the evening of March 19, 1996, through henchmen, cut off the electric power to a water pump to drive Lao away. It was further alleged that respondent Judge ordered his man, Policronio Agao, to shoot Lao's workers, resulting in the injury of Lao's nephew, William Lao, and the confiscation of firearms from respondent Judge, who was subsequently charged with Frustrated Homicide and violation of PD 1866. The case was referred to Associate Justice Romeo J. Callejo for investigation. Procedural History: The administrative case was docketed and referred for investigation. The Investigating Justice submitted a report with findings and recommendations. The Supreme Court reviewed the report and the evidence. The Petition: The administrative complaints filed by Benjamin Sia Lao against Judge Felimon C. Abelita III.
Issue(s)
Whether the bodega used by the complainant is located at the corner of Port Road and Zurbito Street, Barangay Bapor, Masbate, or along Zurbito Extension, Barangay Bagumbayan, Masbate, Masbate. Whether the respondent destroyed the lock to the door of the bodega used by the complainant and gained entry thereto on April 9, 1995. Whether the respondent ordered Policronio Agao to shoot William Lao near the house of Rosa Sia in the nursery property on March 24, 1996. Whether the respondent was a victim of a "frame-up" by the complainant, in connivance with SPO3 Cesar Ramirez and Superintendent German Doria. Whether the evidence on record warrants the imposition of disciplinary penalty against the respondent.
Ruling
The Supreme Court, finding respondent Judge Felimon C. Abelita III guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the judiciary, ordered his dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and prejudice to re-employment in any government branch or agency. The decision was made immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the location of the bodega: The Investigating Justice found that the respondent's claim that the complainant was using the bodega in the Bapor property was belied by the evidence. The "Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate" and the technical descriptions on the Transfer Certificates of Title showed that the Bagumbayan property, which was leased to the complainant, was bounded by Zurbito Extension, not Surbito Street. The Bapor property, in contrast, was bounded by Zurbito Street. Furthermore, the respondent and his wife admitted in their Answer to a civil complaint that the complainant was allowed temporary use of the bodega in "Zurbito Extension, Masbate, Masbate." On the forced entry into the bodega: The evidence on record, including the respondent's own admission in a civil case, supported the complainant's claim that the respondent forcibly gained entry into the bodega. The respondent celebrated his appointment at the bodega after destroying its lock and replacing it with a new one, effectively evicting the complainant. This act, even if the respondent believed he owned the property, was improper given the outstanding lease contract in favor of the complainant. On the order to shoot William Lao: The testimonies of William Lao and Vicente Noynay, corroborated by physical evidence such as the presence of gunpowder residue on the respondent and Policronio Agao, and the pellet wound on Lao's buttock, established that the respondent ordered Agao to shoot Lao. The Investigating Justice found the testimonies of Lao and Noynay to be candid and straightforward, while the versions of the respondent and Agao were found to be divergent, inherently flawed, preposterous, and bizarre. The claim of self-defense by Agao was negated by his actions of returning the shotgun to the van and prioritizing eating over reporting the incident to the police. On the "frame-up" allegation: The Supreme Court rejected the respondent's defense of "frame-up." The Court held that police officers are presumed to have performed their duties in accordance with law, and the burden of proving otherwise rests on the one alleging it. The defense of "frame-up" is generally viewed with disdain by courts as it is easily concocted. The evidence presented by the respondent was found to be flimsy and fragile, while the complainant's evidence was deemed to be in terra firma. The presence of probable cause found by Assistant Provincial Prosecutors for the confiscation of firearms and the arrest of the respondent further weakened the "frame-up" claim. On the imposition of disciplinary penalty: The Court found that the respondent Judge failed to live up to the standards expected of a member of the judiciary. His actions, including the forcible entry into the bodega, ordering the shooting of William Lao, carrying an unlicensed firearm outside his residence, fleeing from police authorities, and possessing an unlicensed .45 caliber handgun, constituted grave misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a judge. These acts were deemed to have cast an indelible stain on the judiciary, warranting dismissal from the service.
Main Doctrine
A judge who engages in acts of abuse of authority, grave misconduct, oppression, harassment, serious misconduct, and conduct unbecoming of a judge, including the commission of criminal offenses, is subject to dismissal from the service.