The only issue in this case is whether or not the trial court may be compelled by a writ of mandamus to issue a writ of execution for the enforcement of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 31820.
The petition is meritorious.
SECOND DIVISION
A.M. No. RTJ-99-1519 June 27, 2000
(Formerly OCA IPI No. 97-438-RTJ)
GREGORIO LIMPOT LUMAPAS, complainant,
vs.
JUDGE CAMILO E. TAMIN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MOLAVE, ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR, BRANCH 23, respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
QUISUMBING, J.:
Before us is an administrative complaint, for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, filed against the Honorable Camilo E. Tamin, presiding judge of Branch 23 of the Regional Trial Court, Molave, Zamboanga del Sur. In said complaint, it was also alleged inter alia that respondent "displayed an unusual interest, despite of the censure or reproof by the Court of Appeals," such that the decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 7, 1997, in CA-G.R. SP No. 41099 granting the Writ of Mandamus prayed for by petitioner and ordering respondent court [presided by Judge Tamin] to issue the writ of execution in petitioner's favor, was not executed by respondent.1âwphi1.nêt
The antecedent facts, as summarized by the Office of the Court Administrator, are as follows:
A certain Guillermo Lumapas died single and intestate on April 8, 1965. He left a parcel of land covered by OCT No. P-157 registered in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Zamboanga del Sur on April 21, 1953. The complainant [Gregorio Limpot Lumapas], claiming to be the only son and heir of the deceased Guillermo Lumapas, succeeded in obtaining OCT No. 06-151 over the same parcel of land on August 20, 1985 by virtue of Cadastral Decree No. 190636, Cad. Case No. N-3, Cad. Record No. N-10 dated October 31, 1984 by substituting his name in the stead of Guillermo Lumapas in the cadastral proceedings.
Complainant filed a complaint for Recovery of Possession/Ownership over the said parcel of land against Alan U. Lumapas, et al., nephews and nieces of the deceased Guillermo, in RTC, Branch 25, Molave, Zamboanga del Sur presided over by the respondent docketed as Civil Case No. 90-20.015(2631). On the other hand, Alan Lumapas and his co-defendants also filed a complaint for Recovery of the same parcel of land against Gregorio Limpot Lumapas, et al., in the same court, docketed as Civil Case No. 90-20,025(2993). These two (2) cases were consolidated, and on February 12, 1991, the respondent rendered a judgment declaring that the complainant is the son of the deceased Guillermo Lumapas and his sole heir, and ordered the Register of Deeds of Zamboanga del Sur to cancel OCT-RP-157 in the name of Guillermo Lumapas and deal with said land as registered only under OCT-0-6-151 in the name of Gregorio Limpot Lumapas.
Alan Lumapas and his co-heirs appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, and on February 28, 1994, the Court of Appeals promulgated a judgment declaring that Gregorio Lumapas has not sufficiently proved that he is the son of Gregorio Lumapas but he has the right of possession over lot 4329 (subject of Civil Cases Nos. 90-20,015 and 90-20,025) . . ."1
In its decision promulgated February 28, 1994, in CA G.R. CV No. 31820, the Court of Appeals awarded complainant the conditional right of possession to the land in litigation, dependent upon the validity of his title to be determined in an appropriate proceeding.2
On March 13, 1995, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP No. 31820 became final and executory.3 Consequently, complainant filed a motion for execution but respondent judge denied the motion in an order dated December 6, 1995, explaining in this wise:
Gregorio Limpot has been declared by the Honorable Court of Appeals to be not the legal heir of Guillermo Lumapas.
x x x x x x x x x
. . . Gregorio Limpot has no legal right to use the surname "Lumapas" without the consent of the putative father. "Gregorio Limpot-Lumapas" is therefore, a non-entity in so far as the law is concerned for there is in fact no such person existing.
Inasmuch as Gregorio Limpot, the movant is not a legal heir of Guillermo Lumapas, therefore, he has no legal authority or personality to act for and in behalf of Gregorio Limpot-Lumapas, the non-existing person to whom the Honorable Court of Appeals has awarded the possession of the land in litigation. He is a mere pretender who should not be allowed to benefit from his illegal manuevers (sic). He is a complete stranger in so far as the estate of Guillermo Lumapas is concerned.4
Because of respondent judge's denial to issue a writ of execution on a final and executory judgment, complainant filed a Petition for Mandamus docketed as CA G.R. SP No. 41099 with the Court of Appeals, which issued the writ on July 7, 1997. Respondent judge, instead of obeying or implementing the writ, filed a motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals. The motion was denied.
Meanwhile, in view of the judgment of the Court of Appeals reversing the decision of the Regional Trial Court, the Lumapas heirs, defendants in the civil cases cited above, filed another case on June 18, 1996, this time, a petition for the cancellation of complainant's OCT. The case was also filed before RTC, Branch 23, presided over by respondent judge. This case was docketed as SPL Case No. 96-50,022. On July 9, 1996, complainant moved for the inhibition of respondent judge, believing him to have already prejudged the case in favor of his opponents. Respondent judge denied the motion.
Complainant then filed a petition for prohibition and/or disqualification before this Court, which remanded the same to the Court of Appeals, therein docketed as CA. G.R. SP No. 43507.
However, before the Court of Appeals resolved the petition for prohibition, respondent judge set for pre-trial the petition for cancellation of the OCT. Complainant moved for its postponement but respondent judge denied it. Complainant was subsequently declared in default on March 11, 1997. His motion to set aside the order of default was likewise denied.
On July 23, 1997, respondent rendered his judgment in SPL Case No. 96-50,022, in which he reversed his decision in the consolidated Civil Cases No. 90-20,015 (2631) and No. 90-20,025 (2993).
On September 4, 1997, the Court of Appeals denied on technical grounds, complainant's petition for prohibition. The motion for reconsideration was also denied on January 19, 1998, for being moot and academic. By that time, respondent judge had already rendered his decision in SPL Case No. 96-50,022 in favor of the Lumapas heirs.
Complainant filed the present complaint on September 11, 1997, alleging that respondent judge knowingly rendered an unjust judgment in SPL Case No. 96-50,022 since, in the earlier consolidated cases concerning the same subject matter, respondent judge had already ruled in favor of complainant.
In his reply, respondent judge justified his refusal to issue a writ of execution for Civil Cases No. 90-20,015 (2631) and No. 90-20,025 (2993) on the ground that the Court of Appeals reversed his decision in those cases, thus making it of no force and effect. He further averred that his decision in SPL Case No. 96-50,022 is in accordance with law and supported by the evidence.
In its report dated November 8, 1999, the OCA stated that complainant failed to sufficiently establish that respondent knowingly rendered an unjust judgment in SPL Case No. 96-50,022. It recommended that the charge of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment be dismissed. However, the OCA pointed out that respondent judge, indeed, erred when he refused to issue a writ of execution even after the CA decision became final and executory. The OCA observed that respondent judge had the temerity to disregard the writ of mandamus issued by the CA. For this, the OCA recommended that respondent judge be fined in the amount of P10,000.00.
We agree with the OCA that complainant failed to present substantial evidence that respondent knowingly rendered an unjust judgment in SPL Case No. 96-50,022. For such a charge to prosper, complainant must prove that the judgment is patently contrary to law or is not supported by the evidence and made with deliberate intent to perpetrate an injustice.5 None of these elements is present in this case.
We also agree with the OCA that it was error for respondent to refuse to issue the writ of execution of the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 31820 which awarded conditional right of possession to complainant. His refusal to issue said writ is without sufficient justification. The issuance of a writ of execution is a ministerial duty on the part of the court, after a judgment becomes final and executory, and leaves no room for the exercise of discretion.6 In this case, the decision of the Court of Appeals concerning complainant's right of possession over the property subject of the litigation in the RTC became final and executory on March 13, 1995. Respondent was duty bound to grant complainant's petition filed on December 6, 1995, for the issuance of the writ.
A writ of mandamus lies to compel the issuance of a writ of execution.7 The writ of mandamus is one commanding a tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person that or who unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or unlawfully excludes another from the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which such other is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.8 Mandamus literally means "we command."9 Again, respondent had no option but to obey the writ. Refusal to obey it is clearly a violation of the order of, and a manifest disrespect towards, a court of superior jurisdiction.
The OCA recommended that respondent judge be fined in the amount of P10,000.00. However, we find this amount inappropriate under the circumstances, there being previous administrative cases 10 decided against respondent judge, with a stern warning that a repetition thereof or similar act or offense shall be dealt with more severely. Thus, we increase the fine to twenty thousand (P20,000.00) pesos.
WHEREFORE, for refusing to fulfill a ministerial duty and to obey an order issued by a superior court, respondent Judge Camilo E. Tamin, presiding judge of Branch 23, Regional Trial Court, Molave, Zamboanga Del Sur, is ordered to pay a fine of P20,000.00. He is further warned that a commission of the same or similar offense in the future will be dealt with even more severely.1âwphi1.nêt
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, Mendoza, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 Report of the Office of the Court Administrator, pp. 1-2.
2 CA Decision, p. 8.
3 CA Amended Decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 41099, p. 3.
4 Order of December 6, 1995, pp. 1-2.
5 De la Cruz v. Concepcion, 235 SCRA 597, 603 (1994).
6 Toledo-Banaga v. Court of Appeals, 302 SCRA 331, 343 (1999).
7 Toledo-Banaga v. Court of Appeals, supra.
8 RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, Sec. 3; Angchangco, Jr. v. Ombudsman, 268 SCRA 301, 304 (1997).
9 Black's Law Dictionary 866 (5th ed., 1979).
10 Alcantara vs. Judge Camilo E. Tamin, 243 SCRA 549 (1995) Re: Rufino Aloot; Ariosa vs. Judge Tamin, A.M. No. RTJ-92-798; Barinaga vs. Judge Tamin, 226 SCRA 206 (1993).
EN BANC
A.M. No. RTJ-99-1519 June 26, 2003
GREGORIO LIMPOT LUMAPAS, Complainant,
vs.
JUDGE CAMILO E. TAMIN, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 23, 9th Judicial Region, Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
Because of the obstinate refusal of respondent Judge Camilo E. Tamin of the Regional Trial Court of Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, Branch 23, to issue a writ of execution of the final and executory judgment in CA-G.R. CV No. 31820, complainant Gregorio Limpot Lumapas charged respondent of grave abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law.1 Complainant also averred that the respondent’s action is in defiance of this Court’s Resolution in A.M. No. RTJ-99-1519, dated June 27, 20002 where this Court ordered the respondent to pay a fine for failing to fulfill the ministerial duty of issuing a writ of execution in CA-G.R. CV No. 31820 and to obey the writ of mandamus issued by the Court of Appeals ordering him to issue a writ of execution. The dispositive portion of our Resolution in Lumapas v. Tamin reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, for refusing to fulfill a ministerial duty and to obey an order issued by a superior court, respondent Judge Camilo E. Tamin, presiding judge of Branch 23, Regional Trial Court, Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, is ordered to pay a fine of P20,000.00. He is further warned that a commission of the same or similar offense in the future will be dealt with even more severely.
SO ORDERED.3
Complainant averred that following this Court’s denial on September 13, 20004 of the respondent’s motion for reconsideration,5 he filed with the trial court on September 19, 2000 another motion for execution6 of the decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 31820. As previously mentioned, the respondent denied the motion by Order7 dated September 22, 2000.
In his Comment,8 the respondent challenged this Court’s jurisdiction to entertain the instant Complaint. According to him, what is essentially involved is a question of law because it calls for an interpretation of the complainant’s right. The administrative complaint being an original action, to entertain it is against the settled rule that a judicial matter involving a question of law cannot be raised to the Supreme Court through an original action but only through either appeal or certiorari pursuant to Section 5(2)(e)9 of Article VIII of the Constitution. He contended that a division of the Supreme Court has no constitutional jurisdiction to impose disciplinary sanction upon judges of lower courts.10
Also, respondent judge claimed that the Court of Appeals awarded to the complainant only a conditional right of possession to the land in question, conditioned upon the validity of his title to be determined in an appropriate proceeding. Since the complainant had yet to institute the proper proceedings in court to determine the validity of his title to the land in question, the issuance of a writ of execution was premature. According to the respondent, the situation poses a dilemma for him. On one hand, if he issues the writ of possession before the complainant has complied with the suspensive condition imposed in the Court of Appeals decision, he would be liable for illegally issuing the writ of possession. On the other hand, if he does not issue the writ of possession, the Office of the Court Administrator would prosecute the instant administrative case.11
Finally, the respondent asserted that the instant administrative case had placed him in double jeopardy.12
By Resolution13 dated September 17, 2001, this Court resolved to treat this matter as a supplementary complaint and referred this matter to Court of Appeals Justice Conchita Carpio Morales (now a member of this Court) for investigation, report and recommendation.
On January 9, 2002, the parties submitted the case for decision on the basis of the record and the verbal manifestation of the respondent that he is invoking the defense of double jeopardy.14
In her report,15 Justice Carpio Morales found the respondent liable for grave abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law. She recommended that respondent be suspended for six (6) months without pay. We are in agreement with her recommendation, except as to the penalty to be imposed.
As hereafter discussed, the penalty appears less than commensurate to the administrative offenses found. At the outset, respondent’s insistence that the present administrative case may only be brought to this Court by appeal or certiorari deserves scant consideration. It must be rejected outright for being baseless.
This administrative matter involves the exercise of the Court’s power to discipline judges. It is distinct from its power of appellate review under Section 5, paragraph 2(e). An administrative case is not a continuation or an appeal from the main case, and it involves different issues although the two cases may have arisen from related facts. Administrative cases are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare, i.e., to maintain the faith and confidence of the people in the government and its agencies and instrumentalities.
When this Court acts on complaints against judges or any personnel under its supervision, it acts as personnel administrator, imposing discipline and not as a court judging justiciable controversies.16 In this case the issue is whether the respondent should be held administratively liable for his continued refusal to perform a ministerial duty and to obey the lawful order of a superior court, not whether the complainant is entitled to the land in question or to its possession-the issues in CV No. 31820. Hence, what is involved is not this Court’s power to review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari final judgments and orders of lower courts in cases involving only questions of law. The present administrative case does not call for the exercise of this Court’s appellate jurisdiction.
Likewise unmeritorious is the respondent’s insistence that this Court’s previous Resolution in A.M. No. RTJ-99-1519, is not valid. He challenges this Court’s jurisdiction to impose disciplinary sanctions, through one of its Divisions. Such effrontery on the part of respondent only reveals ignorance of precedents with regard to administrative powers of this Tribunal.
In People v. Hon. Gacott, Jr.,17 this Court made the following pronouncements:
…[T]he very text of the present Section 1118 of Article VIII clearly shows that there are actually two situations envisaged therein. The first clause which states that "the Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts," is a declaration of the grant of that disciplinary power to, and the determination of the procedure in the exercise thereof by, the Court en banc. It was not therein intended that all administrative disciplinary cases should be heard and decided by the whole Court since it would result in an absurdity, as will hereafter be explained.
The second clause, which refers to the second situation contemplated therein and is intentionally separated from the first by a comma, declares on the other hand that the Court en banc can "order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted therein." Evidently, in this instance, the administrative case must be deliberated upon and decided by the full Court itself.
Pursuant to the first clause which confers administrative disciplinary power to the Court en banc, on February 9, 1993 a Court En Banc resolution was adopted, entitled "Bar Matter No. 209. - In the Matter of the Amendment and/or Clarification of Various Supreme Court Rules and Resolutions," and providing inter alia:
For said purpose, the following are considered en banc cases:
xxx
6. Cases where the penalty to be imposed is the dismissal of a judge, officer or employee of the Judiciary, disbarment of a lawyer, or either the suspension of any of them for a period of more than one (1) year or a fine exceeding P 10,000.00, or both.
xxx
This resolution was amended on March 16, 1993 and November 23, 1993, but the aforequoted provision was maintained.
Indeed, to require the entire Court to deliberate upon and participate in all administrative matters or cases regardless of the sanctions, imposable or imposed, would result in a congested docket and undue delay in the adjudication of cases in the Court, especially in administrative matters, since even cases involving the penalty of reprimand would require action by the Court en banc. This would subvert the constitutional injunction for the Court to adopt a systematic plan to expedite the decision or resolution of cases or matters pending in the Supreme Court or the lower courts, and the very purpose of authorizing the Court to sit en banc or in divisions of three, five, or seven members. (Underscoring supplied).
In his attempt to muddle and confuse the final and executory decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 31820, the respondent relies on the penultimate paragraph in said decision, which states as follows:
What we are saying is that, although appellee has not sufficiently proved his filiation to the late Guillermo Lumapas, the fact that he has a legal title over the subject land entitles him to the possession thereof, pending the final determination of the validity of the title issued to him in an appropriate proceeding.19
In Edwards v. Arce,20 this Court has clarified that the dispositive portion is the only portion of a judgment which becomes the subject of execution. Here, the dispositive portion of the CA decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 31820 is unequivocal and requires no interpretation as regards the absolute and unconditional nature of the complainant’s right of Possession over the subject lot. The dispositive portion reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED and a new one entered as follows:
(1) Declaring that Gregorio Lumapas has not sufficiently proved that he is the son of Guillermo Lumapas;
(2) Declaring Gregorio [Lumapas] to have the right of possession over lot 4329; and,
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.21 (Underscoring supplied).
Clearly therefore, the complainant has the right of possession pending the determination of the validity of his title. Moreover, it is absurd to recognize the right of possession of the complainant and in the same stroke makes it dependent on a determination of the validity of his title. Lastly, respondent’s interpretation, which would render nugatory the complainant’s right to possession, is no longer called for.
The respondent’s invocation of double jeopardy is likewise unavailing. The instant administrative case involves the respondent’s second refusal to issue the writ of execution, hence with distinct sanction. That the respondent was administratively punished in this Court’s previous Resolution dated June 27, 2000, for refusing to perform a ministerial act will not shield him from another instance of administrative discipline in the present case.
Finally, the respondent’s fear that the adverse party in CA-G.R. CV No. 31820 would administratively charge him for illegally issuing the writ of possession if he issues a writ of possession in favor of the complainant is baseless, at most merely speculative. He invents a false dilemma from an erroneous premise.
Coming now to the question of the respondent’s administrative liability, this Court finds the imposition of administrative penalties proper. It is the respondent’s ministerial duty to issue the writ of execution following the finality of the CA decision in CA-G.R. CV No. 31820, and after the CA issued in a separate case, a writ of mandamus ordering the issuance of said writ of execution. As this Court stated in its Resolution dated June 27, 2000, respondent had no option but to obey the writ of mandamus issued by the CA and to issue the writ of execution, its refusal to obey being "a clear violation of the order of, and a manifest disrespect towards, a court of superior jurisdiction." This directive notwithstanding, up to now the respondent has obstinately refused to issue a writ of execution.1âwphi1
It is hardly necessary to remind respondent that judges should respect the orders and decisions of higher tribunals, much more the Highest Tribunal of the land from which all other courts should take their bearings.22 A resolution of the Supreme Court is not to be construed as a mere request, nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately or selectively.23 If at all, this omission not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in respondent’s character; it also underscores his disrespect of the Court’s lawful orders and directives which is only too deserving of reproof.24
The delay in the execution of the Court of Appeals’ decision despite its having attained finality as early as March 13, 1995 works great injustice to the complainant. It is an injustice that this Court cannot countenance. Indeed, it is frustrating for the complainant to be declared that he possesses the legal right to occupy a piece of land and have that same right trampled upon by respondent. If the people believe that they cannot expect justice from the courts, they might be driven to take the law into their own hands, and disorder and perhaps chaos might be the result.25 Courts exist to promote justice.26 The adage that justice delayed is justice denied finds particular application in this case. We have often said that every officer or employee in the judiciary is duty-bound to obey the orders and processes of this Court without the least delay and to exercise at all times a high degree of professionalism.27
Indifference or defiance to the Court’s orders or resolutions may be punished with dismissal, suspension, or fine as warranted by the circumstances.28 Gross ignorance of the law is also punishable by: (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 and controlled corporations; (2) suspension from office without pay and other benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or (3) a fine of more than P20,000 but not exceeding P40,000 under Section 11,29 Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. Under the present circumstances, we find that the recommendation of the Investigating Justice needs to be upgraded. Having been previously warned, respondent judge deserves the ultimate administrative penalty, i.e. dismissal from the service.
WHEREFORE, for refusing to fulfill a ministerial duty and for disobedience to an order issued by a superior court, as well as for gross ignorance of the law, respondent Judge Camilo E. Tamin, Branch 23 of the Regional Trial Court of Molave, Zamboanga del Sur, is ordered DISMISSED from the service, with forfeiture of all benefits due him except for accrued leave benefits, if any. He is also declared DISQUALIFIED from employment in any position in the government service including government-owned or controlled corporations. He is hereby ordered to VACATE his sala upon receipt of this decision, which is effective immediately.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Austria-Martinez, J., on leave.
Footnotes
1 Rollo, pp. 225-226.
2 Lumapas v. Tamin, 334 SCRA 391 (2000).
3 334 SCRA 397.
4 Rollo, pp. 205-206.
5 Id. at 193-197.
6 Id. at 227-231.
7 Id. at 233-234.
8 Id. at 213-221.
9 SEC. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
10 Rollo, p. 216.
11 Id. at 218-220.
12 Id. at 281.
13 Id. at 247-248.
14 Id. at 281-282.
15 Id. at 285-299.
16 Icasiano, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 95642,28 May 1992, 209 SCRA 377, 383.
17 316 Phil. 85, 94-96 (1995).
18 Sec. 11. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.
19 Rollo,p. 100.
20 98 Phil. 688, 692 (1956).
21 Supra, note 19.
22 Guerrero v. Judge Deray, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1466, 10 December 2002, p. 7.
23 Josep v. Judge Abarquez, 330 Phil. 352, 359 (1996).
24 Supra, note 22.
25 In re Sotto, 82 Phil. 595, 602 (1949).
26 Cuaresma v. Enriquez, A.M. No. MTJ-91-608, 20 September 1995, 248 SCRA 454, 459.
27 Martinez v. Zoleta, A.M. No. MTJ-94-904, 29 September 1999, 315 SCRA 438, 449.
28 Guerrero v. Deray, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1466, 10 December 2002, p. 8.
29 SEC. 11. Sanctions. - A. If the respondent is guilty ofa 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 exceeding six (6) months; or
3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.
B. If the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed:
1. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or
2. A fine of more than P 10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00
C. If the respondent is guilty of a light charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed:
1. A fine of not less than P1,000.00 but not exceeding P10,000.00 and/or
2. Censure;
3. Reprimand;
4. Admonition with warning.
No comments:
Post a Comment