Fabricación con pérdida de material (I)

AND SANDIGANBAYAN

TENURE

The members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office during a good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office.

DISCIPLINING BODY IS THE SC

The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon [Sec. 11, Article VIII,

Constitution].

General rule: A judge cannot be subjected to liability – civil, criminal, or administrative – for any his official acts, not matter how erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith [Valdez v. Valera (1978)].

Ratio: A judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act

upon his own convictions, without

apprehension of personal consequences to himself.

This concept of judicial immunity rests upon consideration of public policy, its purpose being to preserve the integrity and independence of the judiciary [Pabalan v.

Guevarra (1976)].

HOW INSTITUTED

Proceedings for the discipline of judges of regular and special courts and justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan may be instituted:

(1) Motu propio by the Supreme Court; (2) Upon the verified complaint, supported

by affidavits of persons who have personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents which may substantiate said allegations; or

(3) Upon an anonymous complaint,

supported by public records of

indubitable integrity.

The complaint shall be in writing and shall state clearly and concisely the acts and omissions constituting violations of standards of conduct prescribed for judges [Sec. 1, Rule 140].

The right to institute disbarment proceedings is not confined to clients nor is it necessary that the person complaining suffered injury from the alleged wrongdoing. The procedural requirement observed in ordinary civil proceedings that only the real party-in- interest must initiate the suit does not apply in disbarment cases. Disbarment proceedings are matters of public interest and the only basis for the judgment is the proof or failure of proof of the charges [Figueros v Jimenez (2014)].

INVESTIGATION

Upon the filing of the comment of the respondent or upon the expiration of the period for such filing, which is ten days from the date of service to him of the copy of the complaint [Sec. 2, Rule 140], the SC shall:

(1) Refer the matter to the Office of the

Court Administrator (OCA) for

evaluation, report, and recommendation;

or

(2) Assign the case for investigation, report, and recommendation to:

(a) A retired member of the Supreme Court, if the respondent is a justice of the Court of Appeals and the

Sandiganbayan;

(b) A justice of the Court of Appeals, if the respondent is a judge of a Regional Trial Court or of a special court of equivalent rank; or

(c) A judge of the Regional Trial Court, if the respondent is a judge of an inferior court [Sec. 3, Rule 140].

HEARING AND TERMINATION

The investigating justice of judge shall set a day for the hearing and send notice to the parties. If the respondent fails to appear, the investigation shall proceed ex parte.

The investigating justice or judge shall terminate the proceedings:

(1) Within 90 days from the date of its commencement; or

(2) Within such extension as the Supreme Court may grant [Sec. 4, Rule 140]. REPORT AND ACTION

Within 30 days from termination, the investigating justice or judge shall submit to the Supreme Court a report containing his findings of fact and recommendation, accompanied by the evidence and pleadings filed by the parties. Such report shall be confidential and shall be for the exclusive use of the Supreme Court.

A copy of the decision or resolution of the court shall be attached to the record of the respondent in the OCA [Secs. 5 and 12, Rule 140]

The Supreme Court shall take action on the report as the facts and the law may warrant [Sec. 6, Rule 140]

AUTOMATIC CONVERSION OF

ADMINISTRATIVE CASES TO DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

Pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC,

administrative cases against justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, judges of regular and special courts, and court officials who are lawyers, shall also be considered a disciplinary action against them, if they are based on grounds which are likewise grounds for the disciplinary action of members of the bar for:

(1) Violation of the Lawyer's Oath; (2) Violation of the Code of Professional

Responsibility;

(3) Violation of the Canons of

(4) Such other forms of breaches of conduct that have been traditionally recognized as grounds for the discipline of lawyers.

The respondent is required to comment on the complaint and show cause why he should not also be suspended, disbarred or otherwise disciplinarily sanctioned as a member of the bar. Judgment in both respects may be incorporated in one decision or resolution.

EFFECT OF WITHDRAWAL OR DESISTANCE The actuations of a judge seriously affect the public interest inasmuch as they involve the administration of justice. It is for this reason that a motion to withdraw a complaint will not justify the dismissal of the administrative case against the judge.

To condition administrative actions upon the will of every complainant, who may, for one reason or another, condone a detestable act, is to strip the Supreme Court of its supervisory power to discipline erring members of the judiciary [Anguluan v. Taguba (1979)].

Complainant's desistance is not an obstacle to the taking of disciplinary action against a judge if the record reveals that he had not performed his duties properly [Espayos v. Lee (1979)].