ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
November-2006 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 6266 - ESTELA ANASTACIO-BRIONES vs ATTY. ALFREDO A. ZAPANTA

  • A.C. No. 7123 - MARIA DIVINA CRUZ-VILLANUEVA vs ATTY. CARLOS P. RIVERA, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 7214 - AILEEN A. FERANCULLO vs ATTY. SANCHO M. FERANCULLO, JR.

  • A.C. No. 6266 - ESTELA ANASTACIO-BRIONES vs ATTY. ALFREDO A. ZAPANTA

  • A.C. No. 7123 - MARIA DIVINA CRUZ-VILLANUEVA vs ATTY. CARLOS P. RIVERA, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 7214 - AILEEN A. FERANCULLO vs ATTY. SANCHO M. FERANCULLO, JR.

  • A.C. No. 6266 - ESTELA ANASTACIO-BRIONES vs ATTY. ALFREDO A. ZAPANTA

  • A.C. No. 7123 - MARIA DIVINA CRUZ-VILLANUEVA vs ATTY. CARLOS P. RIVERA, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 7214 - AILEEN A. FERANCULLO vs ATTY. SANCHO M. FERANCULLO, JR.

  • Adm. Case No. 7252 - CBD 05-1434 - JOHNNY NG vs ATTY. BENJAMIN C. ALAR

  • A.C. No. 7280 - DAHLIA S. GACIAS vs ATTY. ALEXANDER BULAUITAN

  • A.M. No. 06-4-219-RTC - RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT AND PHYSICAL INVENTORY

  • A.M. No. 2004-15-SC - PROSECUTOR AGAPITO B. ROSALES vs ENGR. CELERINO BUENAVENTURA

  • A.M. No. 2005-26-SC - RE: LOST CHECKS ISSUED TO THE LATE RODERICK ROY P. MELLIZA, ETC.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-03-1503 - NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION vs JUDGE LUISITO T. ADAOAG

  • A.M. No. MTJ-06-1660 - Formerly A.M. No. OCA IPI 04-1519-MTJ - SPOUSES TREFIL AND LINA A. UMALE vs JUDGE NICOLAS V. FADUL, JR.

  • A.M. No. P-03-1731 - PNB MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs CARMELO CACHERO

  • A.M. No. P-03-1737 - Formerly OCA IPI No. 01-1250-P - NICOLAS PACLIBAR vs RENAN V. PAMPOSA

  • A.M. No. P-05-2092 - ATTY. PERFECTO A.S. LAGUIO, JR. vs MILA AMANTE-CASICAS

  • A.M. No. P-05-1979 - JUDGE LEONARDO P. CARREON vs ERIC ANTHONY S. ORTEGA

  • A.M. No. P-06-2109 - LIGAYA V. REYES vs MARIO PABLICO

  • A.M. No. P-06-2204 - NYDIA S. SERVINO vs MA. MAWILYNN CONCEPCION B. ADOLFO

  • A.M. No. P-06-2266 - ENCARNACION FLORES vs ROMEO S. GATCHECO, JR.

  • A.M. No. P-06-2257 - SPS. ARTHUR and LEONORA STILGROVE vs ERIBERTO R. SABAS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-06-2268 - BIENVENIDO L. PUNZALAN vs RUMEL M. MACALISANG

  • A.M. No. RTJ-05-1901 - FORTUNE LIFE INSURANCE, COMPANY, INC. vs JUDGE JIMMY H. F. LUCZON, JR.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-06-2002 - ROCKLAND CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. vs JUDGE MARIANO M. SINGZON, JR.

  • G.R. No. 74269 & 92137 - SOLID HOMES, INC., ET AL. vs HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127636 - E. ROMMEL REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. vs STA. LUCIA REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 126890 - UNITED PLANTERS SUGAR MILLING COMPANY, INC. vs COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129820 - PNOC-ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs EMILIANO G. VENERACION, JR.

  • G.R. No. 132834 - RUPERTO LUCERO, JR., ET AL. vs CITY GOVERNMENT OF PASIG

  • G.R. No. 135817 - REYNALDO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. vs CONCORDIA ONG LIM, ET AL.

  • G.R. NOS. 140371-72 - DY YIENG SEANGIO, ET AL. vs AMOR A. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140833 - LACEPI T. MAGNANAO vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 141480 - CARLOS B. DE GUZMAN vs TOYOTA CUBAO, INC.

  • G.R. No. 142351 - ST. MARTIN FUNERAL HOMES vs NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143219 - ASIAN TERMINALS, INC. vs RENATO P. VILLANUEVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143382 - SECURITY BANK and TRUST COMPANY vs MAR TIERRA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144062 - THE BASES CONVERSION AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ET AL. vs ELPIDIO UY

  • G.R. No. 146707 - ERNESTO DUMLAO, JR., ET AL. vs RODOLFO PONFERRADA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148090 - STRONGHOLD INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. vs NEMESIO S. FELIX, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148490 - 7K CORPORATION vs NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. NOS. 148500-01 - TIMES TRANSPORTATION CO. INC. vs NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. NOS. 148839-40 - NAGKAHIUSANG MAMUMUO SA PICOP RESOURCES, INC. - SOUTHERN PHILIPPINES FEDERATION OF LABOR (NAMAPRI - SPFL), ET AL. vs COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148971 - ALBERTO GARONG vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 149633 - EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GABRIEL S. CASAL, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 149748 - JANG LIM, ET AL vs COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 149753 - Miguel Cosme, Jr. v. People of the Philippines

  • G.R. NO. 149764 - PHILIPPINE OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION vs ENRIQUE GUTIERREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 150253 - DAVAO LIGHT AND POWER CORPORATION, INC. vs ANTONIO G. DIAZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 150402 - EPARWA SECURITY AND JANITORIAL SERVICES, INC. vs LICEO DE CAGAYAN UNIVERSITY

  • G.R. No. 152258 - ROGELIO P. ANTALAN vs ANIANO DESIERTO

  • G.R. No. 152984 - WILLIAM G. KWONG vs ATTY. RAMON GARGANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. NO. 154006 - STAR PAPER CORPORATION vs CARLITO ESPIRI TU, ET AL.

  • G.R. NO. 154565 - REMEDIOS RAMOS vs TESSIE PABAS

  • G.R. No. 154685 - METROPOLITAN BANK and TRUST COMPANY, ET AL. vs COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 155645 - PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC. vs MAYFLOR T. YLAGAN

  • G.R. No. 155574 - TIMOTEO A. GARCIA vs SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 156294 - MELVA THERESA ALVIAR GONZALES vs RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION

  • G. R. No. 156888 - PEDRO R. SANTIAGO vs SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. 156903 - SPOUSES CARLOS and TERESITA RUSTIA vs EMERITA RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 157107 - ALPINE LENDING INVESTORS, ET AL. vs ESTRELLA CORPUZ

  • G.R. No. 157117 - COASTAL SUBIC BAY TERMINAL, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF LABOR and EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. NOS. 157236-45 - ROMEO D. LONZANIDA vs SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 157906 - JOAQUINITA P. CAPILI vs SPS. DOMINADOR CARDAÑA and ROSALITA CARDAÑA,

  • G.R. No. 158676 - BPI-FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC. vs SPS. ZENAIDA DOMINGO & ABUNDIO S. DOMINGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 158707 - COMMUNITY RURAL BANK OF SAN ISIDRO (N.E.), INC. vs YSAGANI V. PAEZ

  • G.R. NOS. 157294-95 - JOSEPH VICTOR G. EJERCITO vs SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 158960 - LORNA FRANCES FILIPINO vs F. WALTER R. MACABUHAY

  • G.R. No. 159373 - JOSE R. MORENO, JR. vs PRIVATE MANAGEMENT OFFICE

  • G.R. No. 159991 - CARMELINO F. PANSACOLA vs COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. 159734 and G.R. NO. 159745 - ROSARIO V. ASTUDILLO vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 160347 - ARCADIO and MARIA LUISA CARANDANG vs HEIRS OF QUIRINO A. DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 160618 - DENNIS D. SY vs METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY

  • G.R. No. 160805 - SPOUSES ADIEL DE LA CENA and CARIDAD AREVALO DE LA CENA vs SPOUSES JOSE BRIONES and HERMINIA LLEDO BRIONES

  • G.R. No. 161086 - CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION vs COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 161136 - WILFREDO VAGILIDAD, ET AL. vs GABINO VAGILIDAD, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 161115 - DOLE PHILIPPINES, INC. vs MEDEL ESTEVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 162037 - Heirs of Enrique Diaz v. Elinor A. Virata

  • G.R. No. 162243, G.R. No. 164516 & G.R. No. 171875 - HEHERSON ALVAREZ vs PICOP RESOURCES, INC.

  • G.R. No. 162308 - G & M PHILIPPINES, INC. vs ROMIL V. CUAMBOT

  • G.R. No. 162331 - LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING CO. vs WMC RESOURCES INT L. PTY. LTD., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 162366 - FEDERICA M. SERRANO, ET AL. vs SPOUSES ANSELMO GUTIERREZ AND CARMELITA GUTIERREZ

  • G.R. No. 163735 - GREEN ASIA CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. vs COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 163712 - METROPOLITAN BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, ET AL. vs JOSE B. TAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 163763 - MALAYAN REALTY, INC. vs UY HAN YONG

  • G.R. No. 164300 - SPOUSES BENJAMIN AND AGRIFINA SIM vs M.B. FINANCE CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 164321 - SKECHERS, U.S.A., INC. vs INTER PACIFIC INDUSTRIAL TRADING CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 164545 - LORBE REBUCAN y BALTAZAR vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 165038 - HEIRS OF EMILIO R. DOMINGO AND FELICIDAD CORNEJO, ET AL. vs THE HEIRS OF CLARITA D. MARTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 164858 - HENRY P. LANOT vs COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. 165724 - ZAMORA REALTY and DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL. vs OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 165879 - MARIA B. CHING vs JOSEPH C. GOYANKO, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 166403 - BENZON O. ALDEMITA vs HEIRS OF MELQUIADES SILVA

  • G.R. NOS. 166143-47 and G.R. NO. 166891 - ABDUSAKUR M. TAN, ET AL. vs COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 166496 - JOSEFA BAUTISTA FERRER vs SPS. MANUEL M. FERRER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 166501 - ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR. vs HON. BAYANI F. FERNANDO

  • G.R. No. 166649 - ROBERT B. CABUYOC vs INTER-ORIENT NAVIGATION SHIPMANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 166833 - FELIXBERTO CUBERO, ET AL. vs LAGUNA WEST MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 166837 - LIGAYA S. ORBETA vs RUBEN P. ORBETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 167680 - SAMUEL PARILLA, ET AL. vs DR. PROSPERO PILAR

  • G.R. No. 167723 - CLUB FILIPINO, INC. vs ROMEO ARAULLO

  • G.R. No. 167743 - HILARIO P. SORIANO vs OMBUDSMAN SIMEON V. MARCELO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 167844 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN vs COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 168035 - MELANIE M. MESINA, ET AL. vs GLORIA C. GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 168718 - OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN vs FARIDA T. LUCERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 168694 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs SAIDAMIN MACABALANG y MALAMAMA

  • G.R. No. 169193 - SPOUSES ILUMINADA CAPITLE and CIRILO CAPITLE vs FORTUNATA ELBAMBUENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. NOS. 169295-96 - REMINGTON INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION vs ERLINDA CASTANEDA

  • G.R. No. 169341 - City of Cebu v. Vicente B. Del Rosario

  • G.R. No. 169578 - TERESITA DIO vs ST. FERDINAND MEMORIAL PARK, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 169698 - LUPO ATIENZA vs YOLANDA DE CASTRO

  • G.R. No. 169891 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL RAILWAYS vs ETHEL BRUNTY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 170220 - JOSEFINA S. LUBRICA, ET AL. vs LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 170522 - CELSO LOPEZ OCATE vs COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 170829 - Perla G. Patricio v. Marcelino G. Dario III, et al.

  • G.R. No. 171102 - ATP TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL, INC. vs MICRON PRECISION PHILS., INC.

  • G.R. No. 170840 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs GREGORIO CARPIO @ "GORIO"

  • G.R. No. 171144 - SANTOS L. NACAYTUNA vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. NOS. 171322-24 - MARIANITO S. VICTORIANO vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 172274 - ROMEO D. CABARLO vs PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G. R. No. 171447 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs FEDERICO ARNAIZ y ARMONIO

  • G.R. No. 173290 - ZENAIDA M. LIMBONA vs JUDGE RALPH S. LEE, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    A.M. No. MTJ-03-1503 - NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION  vs  JUDGE LUISITO T. ADAOAG

      A.M. No. MTJ-03-1503 - NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION vs JUDGE LUISITO T. ADAOAG

    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [A.M. NO. MTJ-03-1503 : November 16, 2006]

    NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (NBI), Complainant, v. JUDGE LUISITO T. ADAOAG, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Gerona-Ramos-Pura, Tarlac, Respondent.

    D E C I S I O N

    PER CURIAM:

    Respondent Judge Luisito T. Adaoag, Acting Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Gerona-Ramos-Pura, Tarlac, stands charged with (a) serious misconduct for acts constituting direct bribery in relation to violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019), as amended; and (b) violation of the Court's August 4, 2003 resolution for issuing a warrant of arrest while under suspension.

    On June 9, 2003, Desiree A. Legario (Legario) filed a Complaint1 and executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay2 before the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) alleging that she was arrested on May 9, 2003 pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued by respondent Judge for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. PO3 Eddie Galicia (PO3 Galicia), who implemented the warrant, informed Legario that she should prepare money for her release order. On May 12, 2003, she was released on bail after giving P1,500.00 to PO3 Galicia and P2,000.00 to respondent Judge. Thereafter, PO3 Galicia advised Legario to prepare a motion to postpone and a motion to quash, as well as P20,000.00 to be given to respondent Judge in consideration of the dismissal of the case. This was confirmed by respondent Judge in a cellular phone conversation with Legario on May 20, 2003.

    Instead of delivering the money, Legario sought the help of a television network and of the NBI. Her Complaint was subscribed before NBI Supervising Agent Atty. Alexander Bautista who took down the statements of Legario in her Sinumpaang Salaysay which was subscribed before Special Agent Rosauro Bautista.3

    Thereafter, the NBI agents prepared five pieces of P100 bills4 dusted with fluorescent powder and mixed them with several bundles of money.5 At around 3:00 p.m. of June 11, 2003, they conducted the entrapment operation.

    Atty. Olga I. Angustia (Atty. Angustia), the NBI agent who posed as the aunt of Legario in the entrapment operation, testified that on June 11, 2003, she accompanied the latter to the chambers of respondent Judge where they conversed for about 15 to 20 minutes. Respondent Judge said to Legario: "mahirap ang maraming kaso, bata ka pa, ayusin mo." At this point, Atty. Angustia handed the marked money to respondent Judge who received the same after commenting "baka may marka yan?" Atty. Angustia and Legario immediately left the chambers to give the signal to the other NBI operatives.6

    Special Investigator III Ocampo Criste (Sp. Investigator Criste), testified that after the lady agent gave the signal, he, together with other NBI agents, entered the chambers of respondent Judge. He identified himself as an NBI agent and asked respondent Judge to bring out the money from his pocket. At first, respondent Judge refused but eventually took out the money from his pocket using a handkerchief. Sp. Investigator Criste added that the entire incident was videotaped.7

    On the same day, respondent Judge was brought to the NBI where the dorsal and palmar portions of his left and right hands were examined and all were found positive for fluorescent powder.8

    On June 18, 2003, the NBI forwarded a copy of the investigation records to the Office of the Court Administrator and informed the Court that on June 12, 2003, respondent Judge was brought to the Office of the Ombudsman for inquest proceedings docketed as OMB-C-C-03-0346-F.9

    On August 4, 2003, respondent Judge was suspended pending final outcome of the criminal proceedings against him.

    In a resolution dated September 17, 2003, the Court noted the letter of the Office of the Ombudsman referring the case of respondent Judge to the Office of the Court Administrator with attached copy of the June 17, 2003 Order provisionally dismissing the case against respondent Judge to give way to the Court's determination of his administrative liability.10

    On October 14, 2003, respondent Judge sought clarification whether his suspension is now deemed lifted in view of the dismissal of his case by the Office of the Ombudsman.11

    Meanwhile, the Court received a letter from a certain Ms. Dominga Salazar stating that despite the August 4, 2003 resolution placing respondent Judge under suspension, the latter issued a warrant of arrest against her on October 22, 2003 in Criminal Case No. 0118-03.12 Respondent Judge was thus directed to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service for violating the resolution suspending him from service.13

    On November 22, 2004, the Court referred the matter to Justice Narciso T. Atienza, a Consultant of the Office of the Court Administrator for investigation, report, and recommendation.14

    In his Comment15 to the administrative charge for bribery, respondent Judge denied receiving money from Legario on May 12, 2003, or extorting any amount or talking to her on the phone on May 20, 2003. As to the June 11, 2003 incident, respondent Judge claimed that on said date, Legario and a lady companion talked to him inside his chambers regarding her (Legario) pending case. He told the latter "Areglohin mo yong complainant. Bata ka pa. Sayang ka." Addressing Legario, the lady companion said, "Ibigay mo na yong apat." Legario brought out an envelope from her bag prompting him to say "Para ano yan? "Bawal yan! Baka marked money pa yan!" Legario and her lady companion replied "Hindi," "Pangsigarilyo-Pangmerienda" and hastily went out of the office. He wanted to return the money, but since he was carrying several records which he intended to take home, he placed the money inside his pocket hoping that he would be able to catch up with them outside the building. However, he failed to return the money because the NBI operatives got the same from him on his way out of office.

    At the hearing, respondent Judge testified that Legario left an envelope on his table. Out of curiosity, he peeked at the envelope and saw P500.00 peso bills which he suspected to have been dusted with ultra violet powder. He then wrapped said envelope containing the money with a handkerchief and placed the same in his pocket for the purpose of returning it to Legario.16 He added that after the latter and her lady companion left, it took about two minutes before the NBI agents entered his chambers.17

    Commenting on the issuance of the arrest warrant in Criminal Case No. 0118-03, respondent Judge stated that he acted in good faith on the belief that his suspension was deemed lifted considering that his case before the Office of the Ombudsman had been dismissed.18 At the hearing, respondent Judge testified that he belatedly noticed the notation in the Order of the Ombudsman that the dismissal of the criminal case was only provisional.19

    On February 22, 2006, Justice Atienza recommended that respondent Judge be (1) dismissed from service for violation of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave credits and be disqualified for appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations; and (2) fined in the amount of P2,000.00, to be deducted from his accrued leave credits, for issuing a warrant of arrest in Criminal Case No. 0118-03 while under suspension.

    The Court agrees with the recommendations of Justice Atienza. There is substantial evidence showing that respondent Judge is guilty of serious misconduct for committing acts constituting direct bribery20 in soliciting and receiving money from Legario in consideration of dismissal of the case filed against her. Although Legario failed to testify at the hearing, her Complaint and Sinumpaang Salaysay which were admitted as part of the testimony of NBI Supervising Agent Atty. Alexander Bautista, constitute evidence to support the conclusion that respondent Judge agreed to dismiss the case against her for material consideration. Verily, in administrative proceedings, as in the instant case, it is not legally objectionable to resolve a case based solely on position papers, affidavits or documentary evidence submitted by the parties considering that affidavits of witnesses may take the place of their direct testimony.21

    In the instant case, the intention of respondent Judge to accept the money was clearly established by his act of pocketing the same.ςηαñrοblεš νιr υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

    That he touched the marked bills, contrary to his testimony that he merely peeked at the envelope, is proven by the results of the laboratory examination that the palmar and dorsal aspects of his left and right hands were positive for fluorescent powder. It is hard to believe that he intended to return the money to Legario because, instead of immediately rushing towards the door to catch up with Legario and return the money, respondent Judge pocketed it. Indeed, such act shows a resolve to take the money as his own and not to return the same.

    Respondent Judge tainted the image of the judiciary to which he owes fealty and the obligation to keep it all times unsullied and worthy of the people's trust.22 The Court has time and again admonished judges to conduct themselves in a manner that is free even from the appearance of impropriety.For judicial officers to enjoy the trust and respect of the people, it is necessary that they live up to the exacting standards of conduct demanded by the profession and by the Code of Judicial Conduct. This is especially true in the case of judges who, on a daily basis, interact with the public. Their official conduct, as well as personal behavior should always be beyond reproach.23

    Under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended, this administrative offense is considered serious and punishable under Section 11, thus:

    Sec. 8. Serious charges. - Serious charges include:

    1. Bribery, direct or indirect;

    x x x

    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.

    We have consistently imposed the penalty of dismissal on judges found guilty of bribery. In Rafols, Jr. v. Dizon, Jr.,24 the Court stated the rationale for imposing the severest penalty in such cases, as follows:

    Bribery is classified as a serious charge punishable by, inter alia, dismissal from the service with forfeiture of benefits and disqualification from re-employment or appointment in any public office including government-owned or controlled corporations. (NBI v. Reyes, 326 SCRA 109 [2000]). It constitutes a serious misconduct in office, which this Court condemns in the strongest possible terms. It is this kind of gross and flaunting misconduct on the part of those who are charged with the responsibility of administering the law and rendering justice that so quickly and surely erodes the respect for the law and the courts without which government cannot continue and that tears apart the very bonds of our polity. (Calilung v. Suriaga, 339 SCRA 340 [2000] citing Haw Tay v. Singayao, 154 SCRA 107 [1987]).

    Respondent Judge should also be fined in the amount of P2,000.00 for issuing a warrant of arrest while under suspension.ςηαñrοblεš νιr υαl lαω lιbrαrÿ

    Said act is a clear violation of the August 4, 2003 resolution placing him under suspension "pending final outcome of the criminal proceedings against him considering the evidence is prima facie strong or until further orders from this Court." The dismissal of his case before the Office of the Ombudsman is only provisional, and cannot be considered to be the "final outcome" contemplated in the August 4, 2003 resolution.

    WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Luisito T. Adaoag, Acting Presiding Judge of Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Gerona-Ramos-Pura, Tarlac, is found guilty of serious misconduct and is DISMISSED from service with FORFEITURE of all benefits, except accrued leave credits, with prejudice to his reemployment in any branch or service of the government including government-owned or controlled corporations. He is further ordered to pay a fine of P2,000.00, to be deducted from his leave credits, for issuing a warrant of arrest while under suspension.

    SO ORDERED.


    Endnotes:


    1 Rollo, pp. 13-14.

    2 Id. at 16-19.

    3 TSN, April 14, 2005, pp. 7-9. (Rollo, unpaged)

    4 Exhibit "B" to "B-4, rollo, p. 32.

    5 TSN, March 18, 2005, pp. 8-9. (Rollo, unpaged)

    6 TSN, March 3, 2005, pp. 20-24. (Rollo, unpaged)

    7 Id. at 10-12. (Rollo, unpaged)

    8 Rollo, p. 194.

    9 Id. at 9.

    10 Id. at 104-105.

    11 Id. at 139-140.

    12 Id. at 164.

    13 Id. at 179.

    14 Id. at 193.

    15 Id. at 118-124.

    16 TSN, August 25, 2005, pp. 30-32. (Rollo, unpaged)

    17 TSN, September 15, 2005, p. 37. (Rollo, unpaged)

    18 Rollo, pp. 182-184.

    19 TSN, September 15, 2005, pp. 38-39. (Rollo, unpaged)

    20 The crime of direct bribery as defined in Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code consists of the following elements: (1) that the accused is a public officer; (2) that he received directly or through another some gift or present, offer or promise; (3) that such gift, present or promise has been given in consideration of his commission of some crime, or any act not constituting a crime, or to refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to do; and (4) that the crime or act relates to the exercise of his functions as a public officer. (Marifosque v. People, G.R. No. 156685, July 27, 2004, 435 SCRA 332, 340.)

    21 Liguid v. Camano, Jr., 435 Phil. 695, 705 (2002).

    22 Calilung v. Suriaga, 393 Phil. 739, 765 (2000).

    23 Id. at 768.

    24 A.M. No. RTJ-98-1426, January 31, 2006, 481 SCRA 92, 107-108, citing Office of the Court Administrator v. Bautista, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1631, August 14, 2003, 409 SCRA 17, 31.

    A.M. No. MTJ-03-1503 - NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION  vs  JUDGE LUISITO T. ADAOAG


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED