ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M No. 99-8-125-MTCC.December 7, 1999]

RE: CASES LEFT BY RETIRED JUDGE ANTONIO F. PARAGUYA

EN BANC

Gentlemen :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 7, 1999 .

A.M No. 99-8-125-MTCC(Re: Cases left by Retired Judge Antonio F. Paraguya in the MTCC, Branch 6, Cebu City.)

In our Resolution of 10 August 1999 in Adm. Matter No. 99-6-78-MTC ¹ Re: Letter of Judge Antonio F. Paraguya requesting that his retirement benefits be released even pending disposition of OCA IPI No. 97-366-MTJ.we granted the request of Judge Antonio F. Paraguya, formerly of the MTCC-Br, 6, Cebu City, for the release of his compulsory retirement benefits under R.A. No. 910, as amended, but directed the Fiscal Management Office of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to withhold P50,000.00 therefrom to answer for whatever administrative sanctions may be imposed upon Judge Paraguya as a consequence of OCA IPI No. 97-366-MTJ still pending against him.

In the same manner, on 21 September 1999 we issued a Resolution in the instant administrative matter also directing the Fiscal Management Office of the OCA to set aside/withhold an additional amount of P20,000.00 from Judge Paraguya's retirement benefits, this time to answer for whatever penalty may be imposed on him in this case.

In a Letter dated 16 September 1999, obviously written before a copy of the aforesaid Resolution of 21 September 1999 was received by Judge Paraguya, he informed the Court that his retirement benefits could not be released notwithstanding the Resolution of 10 August 1999 in Adm. Matter No. 99-6-78-MTC because of the pendency of the instant case. He therefore requested the Court order another additional amount of to be set aside/withheld from his retirement benefits to answer for whatever administrative sanctions may be imposed in case, so that the same may finally be released. Judge Paraguya explained that the reason why he failed to decide the thirty-one (31) cases and to resolve the fifty (50) pending incidents within mandatory period was because he was twice hospitalized for prostatectomy (surgical operation of the prostate gland) in 1998his actual retirement. He appeals for understanding and sympathy and promises to furnish the Court with the surgeon's certification if required.

ACCORDINGLY , the Letter dated 16 September 1999 of Judge Mtonio F. Paraguya (Ret.) is simply NOTED as it was already acted upon in our Resolution of 21 September 1999. However this Court reiterates that Judge Paraguya should explain immediately why no sanction should be imposed on him for his failure to decide the thirty-one (31) cases and resolve the pending incidents in another fifty (50) cases mentioned and enumerated in the same Resolution.

In his compliance with the Resolution of 21 September 1999, Judge Paraguya is directed to incorporate therein a more detailed explanation, attaching proofs thereof whenever necessary, including the promised surgeons certification attesting to his alleged illness before his retirement.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

( Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Assistant Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE