G.R. No. 143439 - Alvarez vs. Ramirez

Paz M. Garcia filed an administrative complaint against the Honorable Catalino Macaraig, Jr., who had formerly served as Judge of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Laguna, Branch VI, and later became Undersecretary of Justice.
Complainant charged respondent with alleged dishonesty, grave incompetence, violation of his oath of office, and noncompliance with statutory and administrative requirements under Republic Act 296 (the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended) – particularly Sections 5, 55, and 58 – as well as Circular No. 10 of the Department of Justice.

From July 1, 1970, up to February 28, 1971, respondent allegedly did not submit his monthly reports detailing numbers of cases filed, disposed of, and pending, including specifics on the number of court sessions held and hours of daily session as required by DOJ Circular No. 10.
Respondent did not file his certificate of service (New Judicial Form No. 86, Revised 1966) covering the periods from July to December 1970 and January to February 1971, as mandated by the same rules.

Despite having taken his oath on June 29, 1970, respondent allegedly never performed any judicial functions because of failures in the administrative organization and provision of an operational court ("sala").
The failure to establish the physical court setup, including the necessary space, equipment, and supplies, is highlighted as the primary reason behind the absence of judicial output.

While allegedly not discharging his judicial duties due to nonoperational conditions in the court, respondent continued to collect his salary.
The complaint contended that collecting salary under these circumstances, along with the noncompliance with reporting requirements, constitutes both dishonesty and a violation of the respondent’s oath of office.

It was charged that respondent deliberately misrepresented his status by writing to the Secretary of Justice on June 29, 1970, stating that he was already performing his duties—even though factual performance was hampered by external administrative delays.

Respondent explained that he had taken his oath and was ready to discharge his judicial functions but encountered administrative obstacles, including delays by the Calamba Municipal Government and the provincial government in providing the court premises and necessary equipment.
The absence of an operational court and the pending release of appropriate funding and equipment were factors beyond his control.

He argued that his receipt of salary was legitimate given his confirmed appointment as judge and the simultaneous performance of his duties at the Department of Justice.
Such compensation was also justified on the ground that judges, even while preparing for their duties, are entitled to their salaries.

Respondent contended that Sections 5, 55, and 58 of the Judiciary Act and Circular No. 10 pertain only to judges actively discharging judicial functions and should not apply to a judge whose court was still under organization.
Thus, his failure to submit the required reports and certificates was not indicative of dishonesty or incompetence but rather a reflection of the premature state of his judicial assignment.

Both parties submitted evidence, including various certificates issued by officials of the Department of Justice and records pertaining to the rented office space and procurement of necessary court equipment.
The material facts, as presented by the complainant and the respondent, were largely undisputed, prompting the Court to dispose of the case without protracted proceedings.

Whether the respondent’s failure to submit the monthly reports, certificates of service, and other administrative documents constitutes a violation of Sections 5, 55, and 58 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, and the DOJ Circular No. 10.
Whether receiving judge’s salary in the absence of actual judicial proceedings or the organization of his court amounts to dishonesty or a breach of his oath of office.
Whether a judge who has not yet begun discharging judicial functions due to circumstances beyond his control can be subjected to administrative rules and reporting requirements designed for active judicial offices.
The extent to which the practice of detailing judges to perform non-judicial functions (in this case, assisting the Secretary of Justice) and the supervisory authority of the executive over the judiciary bear upon the principle of separation of powers.