March 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > March 2007 Resolutions >
[A.M. RTJ-03-1779 : March 27, 2007] CHIEF STATE PROSECUTOR JOVENCITO R. ZUNO, ET. AL. V. JUDGE ARNULFO G. CABREDO :
[A.M. RTJ-03-1779 : March 27, 2007]
CHIEF STATE PROSECUTOR JOVENCITO R. ZUNO, ET. AL. V. JUDGE ARNULFO G. CABREDO
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated March 27, 2007
A.M. RTJ-03-1779 - (Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito R. Zuno, et. al. v. Judge Arnulfo G. Cabredo)
In a letter dated January 8, 2007 addressed to the Justices of this Court, reinstated Judge Arnulfo G. Cabredo prayed for payment of back salaries and other withheld benefits during the time of his suspension, citing Neeland v. Villanneva, Jr.
Judge Cabredo, then judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tabaco City, Albay, Branch 15, was charged with grave misconduct, knowingly rendering an unjust interlocutory order, manifest impartiality, evident bad faith and gross inexcusable negligence.
In a Decision promulgated on April 30, 2003, Judge Cabredo was found guilty of grave misconduct and dismissed from service. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
On August 23, 2005, the Court resolved the motion for reconsideration with a compassionate approach after noting that the offense was the first and only misdeed committed by Judge Cabredo in his thirty-three years of government service. Moreover, Judge Cabredo required the posting of a bond when he issued the questioned temporary restraining order in seizure and forfeiture proceeding conducted by the Bureau of Customs. The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads:
Further, Judge Cabredo declared that he has been receiving his salary as a judge and also the back salary ordered to be paid to him from August 25, 2006, the date of his reinstatement. He stated that he came across the case of Neeland v. Villanueva, Jr.[1] wherein a reinstated court employee was given back salaries and other economic benefits from the time of his dismissal to his reinstatement. He now prays that he be given the same privilege by the Court.
Neeland v. Villanueva, Jr. involved a foreclosure of chattel mortgage wherein respondent Clerk of Court Ildefonso M. Villanueva, Jr. issued a certificate of sale without ascertaining that the balance of P20,000 due from the winning bidder was duly turned over and accounted by Sheriff Abordaje to the mortgagor. Clerk of Court Villanueva was dismissed from the service for gross misconduct for his failure to supervise Sheriff Abordaje in the performance of the latter's duties. The Resolution dismissing Clerk of Court Villanueva and Sheriff Abordaje was immediately enforced, and they were barred from working even before they could move for a reconsideration.
In the resolution of the motion for reconsideration filed by Clerk of Court Villanueva, the Court downgraded the offense of gross misconduct to simple neglect of duty, and Villanueva was sentenced to pay a fine of P5,000.
Clerk of Court Villanueva, thereafter, wrote a letter to former Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. praying that he be paid his back salaries and other economic benefits from the time of his dismissal from the service to his actual reinstatement.
The Court granted his request on the ground that his dismissal for gross misconduct was unjustified and "falls under a situation of unjustified dismissal from work, which lays the basis for the claim for back salaries and other economic benefits." Upon reconsideration, Clerk of Court Villanueva was found guilty only of simple neglect of duty. The Court stressed that its resolution of the motion for reconsideration penalized Clerk of Court Villanueva only with a fine, and did not include as part of his penalty his suspension from work for the period he was dismissed from the service on account of its original Resolution, and also did not order the forfeiture of his salaries and other economic benefits.
In this case, Judge Cabredo was found guilty of grave misconduct and punished with the extreme penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of all benefits, excluding accrued leave credits, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or agency of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations. On motion for reconsideration, the offense of Judge Cabredo was not downgraded, unlike in the case of Neeland. The Court only reconsidered his dismissal and reinstated him in government service. As penalty, Judge Cabredo was considered suspended without pay for the entire time from the date of the dismissal up to his re-assumption of office.
Hence, Judge Cabredo is not entitled to payment of back salaries during the time of his suspension, because the dispositive portion of the Resolution dated August 23, 2005 clearly states that "he is considered SUSPENDED without pay for the entire time from the date of the dismissal up to his re-assumption of office."[2]
WHEREFORE, the request of Judge Arnulfo G. Cabredo for payment of back salaries and other withheld benefits during his suspension is DENIED.
A.M. RTJ-03-1779 - (Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito R. Zuno, et. al. v. Judge Arnulfo G. Cabredo)
In a letter dated January 8, 2007 addressed to the Justices of this Court, reinstated Judge Arnulfo G. Cabredo prayed for payment of back salaries and other withheld benefits during the time of his suspension, citing Neeland v. Villanneva, Jr.
Judge Cabredo, then judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tabaco City, Albay, Branch 15, was charged with grave misconduct, knowingly rendering an unjust interlocutory order, manifest impartiality, evident bad faith and gross inexcusable negligence.
In a Decision promulgated on April 30, 2003, Judge Cabredo was found guilty of grave misconduct and dismissed from service. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, Judge Arnulfo G. Cabredo is found GUILTY of GRAVE MISCONDUCT. The Court imposes on him the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service with forfeiture of all benefits, excluding accrued leave credits, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or agency of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.Judge Cabredo filed a motion for reconsideration seeking a modification of the Decision.
On August 23, 2005, the Court resolved the motion for reconsideration with a compassionate approach after noting that the offense was the first and only misdeed committed by Judge Cabredo in his thirty-three years of government service. Moreover, Judge Cabredo required the posting of a bond when he issued the questioned temporary restraining order in seizure and forfeiture proceeding conducted by the Bureau of Customs. The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads:
WHEREFORE, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED and the Court's Decision of April 30, 2003 is RECONSIDERED and the respondent Judge Arnulfo G. Cabredo is hereby REINSTATED but he is considered SUSPENDED without pay for the entire time from the date of the dismissal up to his re-assumption of office, with a stern warning that a repetition of the offense will be dealt with more severely.In an En Banc Resolution dated March 7, 2006, the Court resolved, upon recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator, to
a) DESIGNATE Judge Arnulfo B. Cabredo as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, Tabaco City, vice Judge Virginia Almonte who retired on December 17, 1005; andJudge Cabredo stated in his letter that he could not return to his original position since another judge was appointed to his sala while his motion for reconsideration was pending. The retirement of Judge Virginia Almonte gave him a chance to re-assume his position as RTC judge.
b) DECLARE that Judge Cabredo is entitled to his salary and other benefits beginning August 25, 2006.
Further, Judge Cabredo declared that he has been receiving his salary as a judge and also the back salary ordered to be paid to him from August 25, 2006, the date of his reinstatement. He stated that he came across the case of Neeland v. Villanueva, Jr.[1] wherein a reinstated court employee was given back salaries and other economic benefits from the time of his dismissal to his reinstatement. He now prays that he be given the same privilege by the Court.
Neeland v. Villanueva, Jr. involved a foreclosure of chattel mortgage wherein respondent Clerk of Court Ildefonso M. Villanueva, Jr. issued a certificate of sale without ascertaining that the balance of P20,000 due from the winning bidder was duly turned over and accounted by Sheriff Abordaje to the mortgagor. Clerk of Court Villanueva was dismissed from the service for gross misconduct for his failure to supervise Sheriff Abordaje in the performance of the latter's duties. The Resolution dismissing Clerk of Court Villanueva and Sheriff Abordaje was immediately enforced, and they were barred from working even before they could move for a reconsideration.
In the resolution of the motion for reconsideration filed by Clerk of Court Villanueva, the Court downgraded the offense of gross misconduct to simple neglect of duty, and Villanueva was sentenced to pay a fine of P5,000.
Clerk of Court Villanueva, thereafter, wrote a letter to former Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. praying that he be paid his back salaries and other economic benefits from the time of his dismissal from the service to his actual reinstatement.
The Court granted his request on the ground that his dismissal for gross misconduct was unjustified and "falls under a situation of unjustified dismissal from work, which lays the basis for the claim for back salaries and other economic benefits." Upon reconsideration, Clerk of Court Villanueva was found guilty only of simple neglect of duty. The Court stressed that its resolution of the motion for reconsideration penalized Clerk of Court Villanueva only with a fine, and did not include as part of his penalty his suspension from work for the period he was dismissed from the service on account of its original Resolution, and also did not order the forfeiture of his salaries and other economic benefits.
In this case, Judge Cabredo was found guilty of grave misconduct and punished with the extreme penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of all benefits, excluding accrued leave credits, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or agency of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations. On motion for reconsideration, the offense of Judge Cabredo was not downgraded, unlike in the case of Neeland. The Court only reconsidered his dismissal and reinstated him in government service. As penalty, Judge Cabredo was considered suspended without pay for the entire time from the date of the dismissal up to his re-assumption of office.
Hence, Judge Cabredo is not entitled to payment of back salaries during the time of his suspension, because the dispositive portion of the Resolution dated August 23, 2005 clearly states that "he is considered SUSPENDED without pay for the entire time from the date of the dismissal up to his re-assumption of office."[2]
WHEREFORE, the request of Judge Arnulfo G. Cabredo for payment of back salaries and other withheld benefits during his suspension is DENIED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] A.M. No. P-99-1316, August 31, 2001, 364 SCRA 204.
[2] Underscoring supplied.
