ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 97091.
IN RE:PETITION FOR JUDICIAL CLEMENCY
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
G.R. No. 97091 (In re:Petition for Judicial Clemency and to Allow Petitioner to be Entitled to the Benefits of Retirement under Republic Act No. 910 on Disability.Manuel V. Romillo, Jr., petitioner.)
The Court Resolved to NOTE the Memorandum dated
This is in compliance with Your Honor's instruction this morning regarding the petition of Maripaz Romillo, daughter of Judge Manuel V. Romillo, Jr., petitioner in this case, seeking mercy for his father.
Petitioner was a judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal Branch XXVII, Pasay City when, on 10 June 1986, this Court dismissed him from the service for having acted in bad faith in awarding excessive and unjustifiable damages to the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 0018-P(Samil Beiruty and Mohammed Al-Sulain v. Cathay Pacific Airways, Inc.).His leave and retirement benefits and privileges were ordered forfeited.His dismissal was also rendered with prejudice to reinstatement in government service, including government-owned and/or controlled corporations.
Upon petitioner's two motions for reconsideration, on
It turned out, however, that as of P85,000.00.Alleging that the amount was not sufficient
for his medical needs and the schooling of his children, petitioner filed a
motion for reconsideration.
The Court denied that motion but on
On
Undaunted, petition filed a motion for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration, alleging that in the meantime, he suffered from cerebral
infarct (stroke) twice.In his motion
for reconsideration, petitioner admitted his guilt for grave and serious
misconduct that affected his "integrity and efficiency as a judge by rendering
that erroneous and controversial judgment award in Civil Case No. 0018-P."In the Resolution of
However, petitioner explored another remedy to his plight.He sought the intervention of the President
by seeking executive clemency.The
Executive Secretary granted his request but executive clemency was "limited to
the reinstatement of the retirement benefits due him under the law."The executive action was forwarded to this
Court for favorable action by then Senate Secretary Lorenzo E. Leynes, Jr. upon
the request of petitioner's daughter, Maripaz Romillo, an employee in the
Office of the Chairman of the Commission on Appointments.On
On 5 February 2003, the Office of the Chief Justice received a letter from Maripaz Romillo pleading that the Court forgive her father to restore his dignity and the benefits due him for his long years of government service.
It appears that Fr. Ranhilio C. Aquino of the PHILJA requested the assistance of the Court Administrator in order that petitioner may receive his retirement benefits.The Court Administrator submitted a Memorandum to Your Honor stating that since the Court has denied with finality petitioner's request, no further action should be taken towards the grant to petitioner of retirement benefits.
In the Resolution of
Petitioner's dismissal resulted in the forfeiture of his retirement benefits excluding his accrued leave credits.However, the Court has not always been adamantine as regards an order to dismiss an erring judge.Upon a showing that the dismissed judge sincerely repented having committed the act that violated judicial ethics and standards by manifest acts of reformation of character, this Court would grant clemency to him.One such example is the case of Judge Manuel M. Calanog who was charged with immorality.The Court granted clemency to him and lifted the penalty of disqualification from public office.
Petitioner was dismissed from the service on account of an exorbitant award of damages to parties in a civil case.However, the winning parties in that case did not benefit from the judgment petitioner rendered because the Court remanded that case to the trial court for further proceedings.Nevertheless, the Court considered his act as prejudicial to the administration of justice that, by the principle of res ipsa loquitur, violated the rules of judicial conduct.The offense that caused petitioner's dismissal from judicial service thus belongs to the gray area of error of judgment and violation of judicial standard.
Petitioner, who has served the government for more than 29 years with the last 16 years thereof in the judiciary, has openly admitted his guilt before the Court.Now an octogenarian, he has been suffering from a lingering illness that has left his family in constant search for means with which to respond to his medical needs.This Court may not turn a deaf ear to his pleas for clemency and compassion.
However, more than 17 years have elapsed since petitioner filed his application for disability retirement; it is now quite late to grant him retirement benefits.
Petitioner's situation is similar to that of Judge Carlos C.
Ofilada who, on
These cases and similar others laid the groundwork and paved the
way for the amendment of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.Before its amendment, Rule 140 only provided
for the procedure in case a complaint was filed against a regional trial court
judge.There was no mention of specific
sanctions that may be imposed as it only provided for "(a)fter the filing of
the report, the court will take such action as the facts and law may
warrant."When it was amended specific
sanctions were already provided.Relatedly, while the "Plea of Mercy" of Ms. Ofilada was pending before us,
Rule 140 of the Rules of Court regarding the discipline of Justices and Judges
was again amended.It now provides that
effective
SEC.11.Sanctions. - A.If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be imposed:
1.���� Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations.Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits;
2.���� Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not more than six (6) months; or
3.���� A fine of more than P20,000.00
but not exceeding P40,000.00 x x x (italics supplied).
Under this amendment, the Court may forfeit respondent's retirement benefits in whole or in part depending on the circumstances of each case.In addition to his accrued leaves, the respondent may be allowed to enjoy a portion of his retirement benefits.Notably, even before the effectivity of this amendment; the Court already had occasion to grant a dismissed judge not only the money equivalent to his accrued leaves but also a portion of his retirement benefits, as we did in Sabitsana, Jr. v. Villamor.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolves to GRANT the heirs of Judge Carlos
C. Ofilada the money equivalent of all his accrued sick and vacation leaves and,
in addition, a gratuity equivalent to twenty-five percent (25%) of his
retirement benefits.To this extent,
the dispositive portion of the Decision dated
Petitioner may thus be granted a gratuity or financial assistance
in such amount as the Court may determine, such as two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00)
or twenty-five (25%) of his retirement benefits whichever is higher.Having been granted the money equivalent of
his accrued leave credits, petitioner shall only be allowed gratuity or
financial assistance.
It is therefore respectfully recommended that the Court (a) GRANT
clemency to Judge Manuel V. Romillo, Jr., and (b) MODIFY the dispositive
portion of the Decision of 10 June 1986, as amended by the Resolution of 12
August 1986, by granting him gratuity or financial assistance of two hundred
thousand pesos [P200,000.00] or twenty-five (25%) of the amount that he
would have been entitled had he retired regularly, whichever is higher.
The Court further RESOLVED, for humanitarian reasons and in the
highest interest of justice and compassion, and as an act of clemency, to
approve the recommendation of Atty. Di�o to grant petitioner MANUEL V. ROMILLO
financial assistance or gratuity of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000),
or twenty-five percentum (25%) of the amount that he would have been entitled
to had he retired regularly, whichever is higher.The amount herein involved shall be charged against the savings
of the Lower Court.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.)LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
