Re: Rabang
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Judge Francisco P. Rabang III, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Cotabato City, filed an application for indefinite leave and travel abroad on May 16, 2007. Executive Judge Cader P. Indar deferred action on the application because it lacked specificity regarding the duration and nature of the leave, and because Judge Rabang had failed to account for previous unauthorized absences in April and May 2007. It was noted that Judge Rabang had previously taken a two-month leave but returned later than scheduled. Procedural History: On October 10, 2007, the Supreme Court issued a Resolution disapproving the leave application, declaring the absences unauthorized, and directing Judge Rabang to report back to work immediately under pain of being dropped from the rolls. Subsequent investigations by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) and the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) revealed that Judge Rabang's residence was closed and that he had relocated to Ontario, Canada, where his wife worked as a nurse. Despite the Resolution being sent to his father, a retired judge, Judge Rabang failed to comply or return to his station. The Petition: This administrative matter stems from the Court's oversight of its personnel and the report from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) dated February 15, 2011. The OCA recommended that Judge Rabang be dismissed from the service for gross misconduct and abandonment of office, citing his four-year unauthorized absence and his departure from the country without the Court's permission in violation of Memorandum Order No. 14-2000.
Issue(s)
Whether Judge Rabang is guilty of Gross Misconduct and Abandonment of Office warranting dismissal from the service.
Ruling
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS Judge Francisco P. Rabang III of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Cotabato City from the service for Gross Misconduct and Abandonment of Office, with FORFEITURE of all benefits due him, except accrued leave benefits, if any, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations. His position in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Cotabato City is declared VACANT. This Decision is immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court emphasized that the absenteeism of judges or court employees is a serious charge that warrants severe penalties like dismissal. Under Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, gross misconduct includes frequent and prolonged leaves without permission and the abandonment of office. In this specific instance, Judge Rabang was found to have been absent without leave (AWOL) for more than four years since his departure for Canada in May 2007. The Court noted that his total lack of communication and failure to report back despite a direct order in the October 10, 2007 Resolution betrayed a complete lack of concern for his judicial office. Furthermore, his actions were a direct violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates that judges must dispose of court business promptly to maintain public faith in the judiciary. Consequently, the Court determined that his prolonged absence constituted both gross misconduct and a clear abandonment of his sala, necessitating his immediate removal from the service.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reaffirms that the prolonged and unauthorized absence of a judge from their station constitutes abandonment of office and gross misconduct. Under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, such behavior is a serious charge that warrants the ultimate administrative penalty of dismissal from the service. This rule is grounded in the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to perform their duties with promptness and regularity to ensure the efficient administration of justice. Abandonment of office is particularly egregious when a judge leaves the country without the Court's permission, as it demonstrates a total disregard for judicial responsibilities and the rights of litigants.