ChanRobles Virtual law Library
A.M. No. RTJ-03-1802]
J. KING AND SONS COMPANY, INC., vs. JUDGE AGAPITO L. HONTANOSAS, JR.,
En Banc
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court dated FEB. 28, 2006
Adm. Matter No. RTJ-03-1802 (J. King and Sons Company, Inc., represented by its President, Richard L. King vs. Judge Agapito L. Hontanosas, Jr., Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Cebu City)
In a Resolution dated September 21, 2004, this Court found respondent guilty of (a) Gross Misconduct for demanding P250,000.00 from complainant, using complainant's karaoke bar for free and for entertaining litigants at his home; (b) Gross Ignorance of the Law for lifting a writ of preliminary attachment without according complainant due notice and hearing; and (c) Simple Misconduct for his negligence in approving an insufficient counter-bond. The Court also considered as an aggravating circumstance, the fact that respondent had been previously found guilty of violating Circular No. 4, enjoining inferior court judges from playing or being present in gambling casinos. Thus, the Court imposed the penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave credits and disqualification from reinstatement to any public office. Respondent was further required to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law for conduct unbecoming of a member of the bar.
In compliance with this Court's directive, respondent filed his
Comment dated
RESOLUTION
Respondent has a point in stating that: the Resolution in A.M.
No. 02-9-02-SC should not be applied in his case. However, the application of said Resolution
to a particular administrative action is not dependent on the date of commission
of the offense. Rather, it is dependent
on the date of filing the case. In Office of the Court Administrator v. Morante
,
[1]
cralaw
it was categorically held that A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC cannot be applied to an
administrative case filed with this Court before its effectivity on
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the disciplinary action against respondent as a member of the Philippine Bar is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw 428 SCRA 1, 35 (2004)
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH