ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. No. RTJ-93-955.� February 1, 2005]
CASTA�OS vs. ESCA�O
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 1 2005 .
A.M. No. RTJ-93-955 (Lucas M. Casta�os, et al. vs. Judge Francisco H. Esca�o, Jr.)
For our resolution is the letter-appeal dated December 19, 2004, of former Judge Francisco H. Esca�o Jr.� He seeks reconsideration of this Court's December 12, 1995, decision finding him liable for gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of judicial authority and ordering him dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch, instrumentality or agency of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations. [1] cralaw
Respondent judge prays that he be exonerated from the offenses of which he was found liable.� Or, in the alternative, he prays that (1) the part of the decision which disqualifies him from employment in the government and government-owned or controlled corporations be removed; (2) his accrued leave credits be paid; and (3) his GSIS and Pag-ibig benefits be paid, if there is any, or to return to him his personal contribution to the system and to the Pag-ibig Fund.
The Court reiterates for the last time that there is no reason to disturb the court's (a) finding that respondent had precipitately adjudged Francisco Agapito guilty of indirect contempt in utter disregard of the elementary rules of procedure and (b) its ruling that respondent judge was liable for gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of judicial authority.
For now, there being no showing of a compelling reason, the Court cannot grant his prayer to lift his disqualification from employment in the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
But as to his accrued leave credits, we agree that he could be paid therefore in line with current rulings [2] cralaw of this Court.� The third relief he seeks, however, is hereby denied for lack of jurisdiction; the matter of payment� of benefits and return of his personal contributions are not for this Court but for the GSIS and the Pag-ibig Fund officials to consider as may be appropriate.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Casta�os v. Esca�o, Jr., A.M. No.RTJ-93-955, 12 December 1995, 251 SCRA 174, 199-200.
[2] cralaw Torcende v. Judge Sardido, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1239, 24 January 2003, 396 SCRA 11, 30.� See also Oktubre v. Judge Velasco, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1444, 22 July 2004, p. 18-19.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
