ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. RTJ-00-1521. August 14, 2000]
JOSEPH B. BOHIER vs. JUDGE AMALIA R. ANDRADE
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 14 2000.
A.M. No. RTJ-00-1521 (Joseph B. Bohier v. Judge Amalia R. Andrade).
Judge Amalia R. Andrade, then Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Kalibo, Aklan, was charged with serious misconduct and ignorance of the law in connection with her handling of Civil Case No. 3084 entitled "Joseph Bohier v. Carlito Eliserio, et al.," for having ordered the release of the entire amount of the redemption price to the defendants before the latter had placed the plaintiff (herein complainant) in possession of the subject property, thus creating the impression that she was favoring the defendants.
On December 13, 1999, this Court rendered a decision as follows:
WHEREFORE, Judge Amalia R. Andrade of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Manila, is hereby ADMONISHED to be more circumspect in the discharge of her functions and to refrain from giving impression of impropriety. She is warned that repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
Following the decision in this case, Officer-in-Charge of the Fiscal Management Office of the Office of the Court Administrator raised the question whether in view of the admonition and warning given to Judge Andrade she is entitled to the payment of mid-year and year-end bonus for CY 2000. Attention was invited to the resolution, dated April 11, 2000, in A.M. No. 00-3-06-SC entitled "Re: Complaint of Judge Pablo B. Francisco, RTC, Sta. Cruz, Laguna re complaint on confiscation of his salary, etc.," in which it was held that admonition is not a penalty justifying the denial of benefits. The Court Administrator takes the view, however, that the Court's disposition in this case should be considered as imposing a penalty justifying the withholding of the midyear and year-end bonus for CY 2000 from Judge Andrade. In his memorandum dated July 13, 2000, the Court Administrator states:
The question before us is whether the discipline imposed upon Judge Andrade by the Supreme Court may be considered as "admonition with warning" and thus, a penalty which would justify the withholding of her mid-year and year-end bonus for CY 2000.
The Supreme Court in the subject resolution ADMONISHED and, in a separate sentence in the dispositive portion, WARNED Judge Andrade that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
To our mind, although the admonition and warning were not incorporated in one clause, the discipline imposed by the Court on Judge Andrade should be treated as a penalty. It has the same effect as when it is worded as "admonished with warning", admonished and warned", and "admonition with warning": Whether in one clause or in separate sentences, they have the same meaning, that is, a disapproval to one's remissness or mistake, thus, his attention is called and he is put on guard that a commission of a similar act would entail a stiffer penalty. And this, we believe, was the intention of the Honorable Court when it resolved the administrative case and imposed the sanction upon Judge Andrade.
In view of the foregoing it is respectfully recommended that the discipline imposed upon Judge Amalia R. Andrade, RTC, Branch 5, Manila in A.M. No. RTJ-00-1521 be considered as a penalty to justify the withholding of her mid-year and year-end bonus for CY 2000.
The propriety of withholding Judge Andrade's mid-year and year-end bonus for CY 2000 is now before us for resolution. The Court disagrees with the above recommendation.
The grant of year-end bonus to qualified government employees is governed by Budget Circular No. 7, the pertinent portion of which provides:
The following government personnel shall not be entitled to the benefits authorized herein:
3.1������ Those with pending cases as of October 31 of each year under the following instances:
. . . .
3.3 Those who are formally charged in administrative cases and/or meted penalties as of October 31 of each year. Thereafter, they shall be entitled to year-end benefits unless subsequently formally charged and/or meted penalties for another offense. Accordingly, those with pending cases are only disqualified to receive the said benefits during the first year of the pendency of the cases.
As the administrative case against her has already been resolved, Judge Andrade no longer has any pending case against her. Neither has she been meted out a "penalty" which disqualifies her from receiving the year-end benefits because, as held in A.M. No. 00-3-06-SC entitled Re: Complaint of Judge Pablo B. Francisco, RTC, Sta. Cruz, Laguna re complaint on confiscation of his salary, etc., admonition is not a penalty that warrants the denial of benefits in general.
The distinction drawn between plain "admonition," in which case it is said it is not a penalty, and "admonition" coupled with "warning," in which case it said to be a penalty, cannot be sustained. Without more, "admonition" implies a warning. As this Court explained in Tobias v. Veloso (100 SCRA 177, 184 ((1981), admonition is merely "a gentle or friendly reproof, a mild rebuke, warning or reminder, counseling on a fault, error or oversight, an expression of authoritative advice or warning."
WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVED to direct the Fiscal Management Office to release the mid-year and year-end bonus of Judge Amalia R. Andrade.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
