THIRD DIVISION
A.M. No. RTJ-16-2452, March 09, 2016
IN THE MATTER OF: ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT FOR DISHONESTY, GRAVE MISCONDUCT AND PERJURY COMMITTED BY JUDGE JAIME E. CONTRERAS (IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE THEN 4th PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR OF LIBMANAN, CAMARINES SUR)
D E C I S I O N
REYES, J.:
This is an administrative case for gross dishonesty against Judge Jaime E. Contreras (Judge Contreras) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City, Branch 25.
(i) OMB-1 -94-2624 [Case dismissed];Among the four cases, Judge Contreras, while he was then a Provincial Prosecutor, was admonished for simple misconduct in OMB-ADM-1-94-1040 for exerting undue influence in causing the arrest of a certain Carlito Nudo despite proof that the latter has posted a bail bond duly approved by the court.
(ii) OMB-ADM-1 -94-1040 [Sanctioned];
(iii) OMB-1-97-1152 [Case dismissed]; and
(iv) OMB-ADM-1-97-0369 [Case dismissed].
Sec. 12. The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and shall, in appropriate cases, notify the complainants of the action taken and the result thereof.In Office of the Ombudsman v. CA (16th Division),11 this Court held that the Ombudsman's authority as defined under the Constitution and Republic Act No. 6770 is broad enough to include the direct imposition of the penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine or censure on an erring public official or employee. This Court further held that:
All these provisions in Republic Act No. 6770 taken together reveal the manifest intent of the lawmakers to bestow on the [OMB] full administrative disciplinary authority. These provisions cover the entire gamut of administrative adjudication which entails the authority to, inter alia, receive complaints, conduct investigations, hold hearings in accordance with its rules of procedure, summon witnesses and require the production of documents, place under preventive suspension public officers and employees pending an investigation, determine the appropriate penalty imposable on erring public officers or employees as warranted by the evidence, and, necessarily, impose the said penalty.12ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryUndoubtedly, the finding of the OMB against Judge Contreras for simple misconduct in OMB-ADM-1-94-1040 is considered an administrative offense, which he should have declared in his PDS when he was asked: "Have you ever been convicted of any administrative offense?"
A careful perusal of the wording of the question "Have you ever been charged?" would show that it solicits an answer that pertains to either past or present charge, whether it was already dismissed or not. Judge Contreras should have known fully well the consequences of making a false statement in his PDS. Being a former public prosecutor and a judge now, it is his duty to ensure that all the laws and rules of the land are followed to the letter. His being a judge makes the act all the more unacceptable. Clearly, there was an obvious lack of integrity, the most fundamental qualification of a member of the judiciary.14
- In the PDS dated 16 April 2007 submitted before the JBC, respondent Judge Contreras answered "NO" to the question "Have you ever been charged with, found guilty of, or otherwise imposed a sanction for, violation of any law, decree, ordinance, administrative issuance or regulation by any court, tribunal, or any other government office, agency or instrumentality in the Philippines or in any foreign country?"; x x x
- In the PDS dated 24 January 2010, also filed with the JBC in connection with respondent Judge Contreras' application for the post of Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, he answered "YES" to the question "Have you ever been charged with violation of any law, decree, ordinance, administrative issuance, or regulation by any court, prosecution office, tribunal, or any other government office, agency or instrumentality in the Philippines or in any foreign country?". In relation to his affirmative answer, respondent Judge Contreras mentioned two (2) cases filed before the [OMB] in 1997, viz:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Case Title/Docket Type of Complaint Disposition Nudo vs. Contreras Violation of R.A. 3019 Dismissed Nudo vs. Contreras Violation of R.A. 6713 Dismissed- In a more recent PDS dated 28 September 2013, which was also submitted before the JBC, respondent Judge Contreras answered "YES" to the question "Have you ever been charged with violation of any law, decree, ordinance, administrative issuance, or regulation by any court, prosecution office, tribunal, or any other government office, agency, or instrumentality in the Philippines or in any foreign country?". In relation to his affirmative answer, respondent Judge Contreras again mentioned the two (2) cases which were filed before the [OMB] in 1997, viz:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryx x x x13 (Citations omitted)
Case Title/Docket Type of Complaint Disposition Nudo vs. Contreras Violation of R.A. 3019 Dismissed Nudo vs. Contreras Violation of R.A. 6713 Dismissed
Nonetheless, Rule IV, Section 53 of the Civil Service Rules also provides that in the determination of the penalties to be imposed, extenuating, mitigating, aggravating or alternative circumstances attendant to the commission of the offense shall be considered. Among the circumstances that may be allowed to modify the penalty are (1) length of service in the government, (2) good faith, and (3) other analogous circumstances.In the present case, taking into account Judge Contreras' more than 30 years of government service, and that this is his first offense as a member of the bench, this Court finds the imposition of suspension of one (1) year without pay to be proper under the circumstances.chanrobleslaw
In several jurisprudential precedents, the Court has refrained from imposing the actual administrative penalties prescribed by law or regulation in the presence of mitigating factors. Factors such as the respondent's length of service, the respondent's acknowledgement of his or her infractions and feeling of remorse, family circumstances, humanitarian and equitable considerations, respondent's advanced age, among other things, have had varying significance in the determination by the Court of the imposable penalty. x x x.18ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 7-10.
2 Id. at 5-6.
3 Id. at 7-8.
4 Id. at 1.
5 Id. at 29-30.
6 Id. at 95-103.
7Villordon v. Avila, 692 Phil. 388, 396 (2012).
8Advincula v. Dicen, 497 Phil. 979, 990 (2005).
9Acting Judge Bellosillo v. Rivera, 395 Phil. 180, 191 (2000).
10Rollo, p. 61.
11 524 Phil. 405 (2006).
12 Id. at 429-430.
13Rollo, pp. 98-99.
14Samson v. Judge Caballero, 612 Phil. 737, 746 (2009).
15Judge Santos, Jr. v. Mangahas, 685 Phil. 814, 821 (2012).
16Atty. Fernandez v. Judge Vasquez, 669 Phil. 619, 633 (2011).
17 666 Phil. 11 (2011).
18 Id. at 22-23.