No bearing

A LAW EACH DAY (Keeps Trouble Away) By Jose C. Sison (The Philippine Star) Updated August 04, 2010

12:00 AM Comments (0)

In administrative cases, will the death of the complainant render the complaint moot? How about the death
of the respondent, will it preclude the finding of administrative liability and the imposition of sanctions?
These are the questions answered in this administrative case.

The case involved among others the administrative complaint filed by Magno against a Regional Trial Court
Judge (Judge ES) for bias and gross partiality in his investigation and dismissal of the complaint against
another Judge of a Municipal Circuit Trial Court in the Province (MCTC Judge) and the latter’s court
personnel for alleged absenteeism and irregular attendance.

In his report to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) which directed him to investigate the case,
Judge ES said that he went to the office of the MCTC Judge to ascertain the veracity of the complaint and
found that said Judge was really sickly because of a heart condition that compelled him to take leaves of
absences. Judge ES also claimed that since the complaint did not specify the particular dates when the
MCTC Judge failed to report for work, he could not ascertain whether his absences had been authorized.
Judge ES also stated that he personally inquired from other offices in the municipality, from lawyers and
party litigants with pending cases before the MCTC Judge and found that nobody complained in the
disposition of the cases due to the absence and irregular attendance of said MCTC Judge and his staff. So in
his report, Judge ES declared that the complaint against the MCTC Judge and his staff had no merit.

But the Court of Appeals (CA) which was, in turn, assigned to investigate the administrative complaint
against Judge ES for bias and partiality in dismissing the complaint against the MCTC Judge and his staff,
found that Judge ES conducted a very superficial investigation and prepared a slanted report to deliberately
cover up the absences and irregular attendance of the MCTC Judge under the mistaken notion of aiding a
fellow judge who was allegedly too sickly to perform his official duties. In rendering this assistance, Judge
ES also overlooked the absences and irregular attendance of the court staff of the MCTC Judge, according to
the CA.

The CA arrived at the conclusion because it found evidence refuting the report of Judge ES particularly the
Certification that the Clerk of Court of the MCTC Judge had not reported for work prior to and during the
dates Judge ES conducted his investigation. The CA also found that Judge ES did not examine the daily time
record of said Clerk of Court and other personnel assigned the MCTC Judge’s sala which should have been
the first course of action Judge ES should have taken. The CA also found that Judge ES remiss in
ascertaining the MCTC Judge’s absences because he merely relied on the leave of absence filed by the MCTC
Judge more than two years before his investigation. This gap according to the CA should have alerted Judge
ES to examine the MCTC Judge’s records in the intervening period which he failed to do. Judge ES also did
not personally interview the MCTC Judge to get the latter’s position on the matter under investigation.

On October 16, 2009, the Supreme Court affirmed these findings of the CA and found Judge ES guilty of
dishonesty, inefficiency and serious misconduct and imposed a fine of P40,000 on Judge ES. Before this date
however and even while the case was being investigated by the CA, Magno the complainant was killed by
unidentified persons on April 14, 2004. Then on July 6, 2009 Judge ES himself was killed. Could the penalty
of fine be still imposed?
Yes. The death of the complainant and the respondent Judge during the investigation of this administrative
case are not deterrents to the resolution on the merits of the complaint and to the imposition of the
sanctions demanded by the circumstances.

The death of the complainant does not warrant the withdrawal of the charges against the respondent nor
does this development render the complaint moot; the complainant is treated only as a witness in this type
of proceedings.

On the other hand the death of the respondent in an administrative case, as a rule, does not preclude the
finding of administrative liability. The recognized exceptions to this rule are: first, when the respondent has
not been heard and continuation of the proceedings would deny him of his right to due process; second,
where exceptional circumstances exist in the case leading to equitable and humanitarian considerations; and
third, when the kind of penalty imposed or imposable would render the proceedings useless. None of these
exceptional circumstances are present in this case. So the fine can just be deducted from the retirement
benefits of Judge ES which can be processed and released already unless there are other lawful causes for
withholding them (Mercado etc. vs. Salcedo A.M. No. RTJ-03-1781, October 16, 2009; 604 SCRA, 4)

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now
available. Call Tel. 7249445.