Title
Alday vs. Cruz, Jr.
Case
A.M. No. RTJ-00-1530
Decision Date
Feb 4, 2002
Judge Cruz was suspended for misconduct but continued judicial duties, claiming misunderstanding; Supreme Court dismissed him, voided all actions during suspension.
Font Size:

Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-00-1530)

Facts:

  1. Initial Suspension Order: On March 14, 2001, the Supreme Court suspended Judge Escolastico U. Cruz, Jr., for one year and imposed a P50,000 fine for conduct grossly prejudicial to the service. This was due to a complaint filed by Dr. Edgardo Alday, Mercedes Favis, Marna Villafuerte, and Christopher Garcia, who accused him of threatening them with a gun during a traffic altercation.
  2. Failure to Comply with Suspension: Despite receiving the suspension order on March 22, 2001, Judge Cruz continued to perform his judicial duties. This was reported by Executive Judge Leticia P. Morales of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati City, in a letter dated August 1, 2001.
  3. Voiding of Orders and Decisions: On September 18, 2001, the Supreme Court voided all orders, decisions, and issuances made by Judge Cruz during his suspension period (after March 22, 2001).
  4. Show Cause Order: The Court ordered Judge Cruz to explain why he should not be cited for contempt or penalized for disregarding the suspension order.
  5. Judge Cruz’s Explanation: In his September 26, 2001, explanation, Judge Cruz claimed he misunderstood the suspension order, believing it was not immediately executory. He argued that immediate compliance would have rendered the decision final and abandoned his office.
  6. OCA Investigation: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended Judge Cruz’s dismissal for grave misconduct, citing his deliberate defiance of the Court’s suspension order.

Issue:

  1. Whether Judge Cruz’s continued performance of judicial duties during his suspension constitutes grave misconduct.
  2. Whether Judge Cruz’s explanation for his actions is valid and sufficient to justify his non-compliance with the suspension order.
  3. Whether the penalty of dismissal is appropriate for Judge Cruz’s actions.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court found Judge Escolastico U. Cruz, Jr., GUILTY of grave misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. He was ordered DISMISSED from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits (except accrued leaves) and barred from reemployment in any government branch or instrumentality. The Court also declared all orders, decisions, and issuances made by Judge Cruz during his suspension period NULL and VOID.

Ratio:

  1. Immediate Effect of Suspension Orders: Administrative penalties, including suspension, are immediately executory upon receipt of the decision. Filing a motion for reconsideration does not stay the execution of the suspension order.
  2. Judges’ Duty to Comply with Court Orders: Judges are expected to have a thorough understanding of the law and jurisprudence. Ignorance or misapprehension of the law is not a valid defense, especially for a judge.
  3. Grave Misconduct: Judge Cruz’s deliberate refusal to comply with the suspension order constitutes grave misconduct, warranting the supreme penalty of dismissal. This is consistent with Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 30, s. 1989, which imposes dismissal for grave misconduct even for a first offense.
  4. Preservation of Judicial Integrity: The Court emphasized that directives issued by the Supreme Court must be obeyed without delay to ensure the effective and efficient administration of justice. Judge Cruz’s defiance undermined the integrity of the judiciary.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.