April 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[A.M. No. RTJ-05-1925 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 00-989-RTJ) : April 12, 2011]
GRACE F. MUNSAYAC-DE VILLA, LILY F. MUNSAYAC-SUNGA, AND ROY PETER F. MUNSAYAC VS. JUDGE ANTONIO C. REYES
"A.M. No. RTJ-05-1925 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 00-989-RTJ) - Grace F. Munsayac-De Villa, Lily F. Munsayac-Sunga, and Roy Peter F. Munsayac vs. Judge Antonio C. Reyes
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1926 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 01-1248-RTJ) - Ramon K. Ilusorio vs. Judge Antonio C. Reyes, RTC, Branch 61, Baguio City
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1927 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 02-1435-RTJ) - Judge Ruben C. Ayson vs. RTC Judges of Baguio City
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1928 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 02-1485-RTJ) - Judge Clarence Villanueva vs. Judge Ruben C. Ayson
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1929 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 02-1552-RTJ) - Judge Ruben C. Ayson vs. Judge Abraham Borreta
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1930 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 02-1559-RTJ) - Atty. Cristeta R. Caluza-Flores vs. Judge Amado S. Caguioa
No. P-05-2020 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 02-1358-P) - Hon. Amado S. Caguioa vs. Atty. Cristeta R. Caluza- Flores
RESOLUTION
On June 26, 2006, this Court promulgated its Decision[1] in the instant consolidated administrative matters. In A.M. No. RTJ-05-1927, the dispositive portion of said Decision reads in part:
3. In A.M. No. RTJ 05-1927 - Judge Ruben C. Ayson v. RTC Judges of Baguio City:
- Judge Clarence J. Villanueva is found GUILTY of immorality and is DISMISSED from the service, with prejudice to his reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and forfeiture of retirement benefits, if any, except accrued leave credits.[2]
On July 3, 2006, former Judge Clarence J. Villanueva (Villanueva) filed a motion for reconsideration which this Court denied with finality in its Resolution dated July 25, 2006, there being no substantial matters raised to warrant the reversal of the questioned decision.
Subsequently, Villanueva filed an Ex-Parte Petition (for judicial clemency) dated October 19, 2009, praying for the Court to grant him judicial clemency by: '(1) allowing him to get one-half (1/2) of his retirement benefits; (2) removing the prohibition against being appointed to a public office other than the judiciary; and (3) for such relief as may be just, legal and equitable in the premises.'
In support of his petition, Villanueva alleges that he has no means of livelihood to support his family since his law practice is not lucrative anymore. He discloses that litigants do not engage his services on the impression that he was dismissed from judicial service due to graft and corruption. Villanueva also states that he could not even apply as a Notary Public because he could not comply with the requirement of submitting affidavits of at least two lawyers from his Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Chapter, attesting to his good moral character, since no one would dare execute such affidavit due to the above-mentioned Decision finding him guilty of immorality. Moreover, he claims that he is no longer given any teaching load at the University of the Cordilleras and the University of Baguio where he previously taught law subjects. Villanueva narrates that two of his children had to stop schooling because of lack of funds to defray the expenses. In view of his predicament, he reveals that he is 'contemplating to just drive a passenger bus or jeep or tricycle to earn a living; but, on second thought, he declines as this would also degrade the judiciary he being an RTC Judge for sixteen (16) years.'
In praying for judicial clemency, Villanueva invokes his twenty-two (22) years of government service - 4 years as a Special Attorney in the Philippine Tourism Authority, 3 years as a Provincial Board Member of La Union, and 16 years as an RTC Judge.
Villanueva further prays that this Court allow him to get 'even just one-half (1/2) only of his retirement benefits as this is also the conjugal share of his wife, and removing the prohibition against being appointed to another public office, other than the judiciary.' And if granted judicial clemency, Villanueva promises that he will guard himself from any indiscretion.
In a Resolution dated December 1, 2009, this Court referred the petition for judicial clemency filed by Villanueva to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluation, report and recommendation.
In a Memorandum dated March 10, 2010, the OCA recommended that judicial clemency be granted to Villanueva and that he be authorized to be employed (if qualified) in any government office, including government-owned or controlled corporations, except the Judiciary, and to receive whatever monetary benefits is due him for his long service in the government.
The petition is impressed with some merit.
With respect to the lifting of the prohibition against Villanueva's appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations, we adopt and approve the recommendation of the OCA. We, however, decline to grant Villanueva the monetary benefits he prays for.
This Court has always been unsparing in wielding the rod of discipline against members of the Judiciary who fall short of the exacting standards decreed by the Code of Judicial Conduct. This is because a judge, upon his assumption to office, becomes the visible representation of the law and of justice.[3] Thus, we have held that the conduct of a judge must be free of a whiff of impropriety not only with respect to his performance of his judicial duties, but also to his behavior outside his sala and as a private individual. There is no dichotomy of morality; a public official is also judged by his private morals. The Code 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. A judge's official life cannot simply be detached or separated from his personal existence.[4]
As in the instant case, Villanueva was dismissed from the service, having been found guilty of immorality. Said dismissal imposed upon Villanueva came with a prohibition of his reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and forfeiture of retirement benefits, if any, except accrued leave credits.
This accessory penalty was imposed pursuant to Rule XIV [Discipline] of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987) and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws which provides:
Sec. 9. The penalty of dismissal shall carry with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and the disqualification for reemployment in the government service. Further, it may be imposed without prejudice to criminal or civil liability.
We are, however, not unmindful that in a number of cases involving judges and court personnel, this Court has shown compassion in modifying already final decisions in administrative cases.[5]
In Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 37, Appealing for Judicial Clemency,[6] this Court set forth the guidelines in resolving requests for judicial clemency, to wit:
- There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall include but should not be limited to certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, judges or judges associations and prominent members of the community with proven integrity and probity. A subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case for the same or similar misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of non-reformation.
- Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of reformation.
- The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has productive years ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself.
- There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning or legal acumen or contribution to legal scholarship and the development of the legal system or administrative and other relevant skills), as well as potential for public service.
- There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify clemency.[7]
In the same case, the Court explained:
Clemency, as an act of mercy removing any disqualification, should be balanced with the preservation of public confidence in the courts. The Court will grant it only if there is a showing that it is merited. Proof of reformation and a showing of potential and promise are indispensable.[8]
In view of the foregoing and out of humanitarian considerations, this Court resolves to partially grant Villanueva's ex parte petition for judicial clemency. Villanueva has rendered twenty-two (22) years in government service, sixteen (16) of which were with the judiciary which may be taken as proof of his dedication to the institution. Indeed, taking into consideration his long experience in public service, the Court finds that the lifting of Villanueva's disqualification from appointment to any public office would open opportunities for him to secure gainful employment and would enable him to support his family financially.
WHEREFORE, the Ex Parte Petition for Judicial Clemency dated October 19, 2009, filed by former Judge Clarence J. Villanueva is PARTLY GRANTED. The prohibition against his 'appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations' imposed in our Decision dated June 26, 2006 is LIFTED. He is authorized to be employed (if qualified) in any government office, including government-owned or controlled corporations, except the Judiciary."
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Munsayac-De Villa v. Reyes, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1525, June 26, 2006, 492 SCRA 404.[2] Id. at 454.
[3] Junio v. Rivera, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-91-565, October 5, 2005, 472 SCRA 69, 71.
[4] Castillo v. Calanog, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-90-447, July 12, 1991, 199 SCRA 75, 83.
[5] Garcia v. De la Pe�a, A.M. No, MTJ-92-687, December 8, 2008, 573 SCRA 172, 175.
[6] A.M. No. 07-7-17-SC, September 19, 2007, 533 SCRA 534.
[7] Id. at 539.
[8] Id. at 538.
