Case Digest (A.M. No. R-710-RTJ)
Facts:
Filomeno R. Negado v. Judge Manuel E. Autajay, A.M. No. R-710-RTJ, May 21, 1993, the Supreme Court En Banc, Narvasa, C.J., writing for the Court.
Complainant Filomeno R. Negado, a practicing lawyer, filed an administrative complaint on July 10, 1986 against respondent Judge Manuel E. Autajay, then Presiding Judge of Branch 13, Regional Trial Court, Carigara, Leyte. At the time of resolution Judge Autajay had retired; his application for retirement was approved by the Court on March 12, 1992, but payment of his retirement benefits was deferred pending final adjudication of this administrative case and another (A.M. No. RTJ-91-747). By Resolution dated July 21, 1992 the Court authorized release of most retirement funds except P50,000 retained to answer for possible monetary liability.
A.M. No. RTJ-91-747 was dismissed by the Court on May 26, 1992. After issues were joined in this administrative matter, the case was referred on September 20, 1992 to Hon. Justice Jesus M. Elbinias of the Court of Appeals for investigation and report; Justice Elbinias completed the investigation and submitted his Report following an opportunity for both parties to present evidence.
Negado charged Judge Autajay with eight violations: (1) corrupt practices, (2) impropriety, (3) abuse of discretion, (4) dishonesty, (5) lack of integrity, (6) incompetence, (7) ignorance of the law, and (8) favoritism. The Investigating Justice found that complainant’s evidence failed to establish the accusations by even a simple preponderance of evidence.
The investigative record showed that the alleged bribery/dishonesty rested mainly on an affidavit of one Antonio Oledan that a caretaker named “Junior” had delivered fish and told Oledan the items were “regalo” for Judge Autajay; “Junior” was not produced to testify. An affidavit of Materno Torredes alleged lack of “delicadeza” and attendance at social affairs with persons who had cases before the judge, but lacked specifics (names, time, place) and appeared to be rumor and conclusion. Documents from four civil cases and an affidavit by Raquel Pamanian were offered to show abuse of discretion, incompetence and ignorance; the Investigating Justice concluded any errors were at most judicial errors of judgment or jurisdiction, correctable on a...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did complainant establish, by the required proof, the administrative charges of corrupt practices, impropriety, abuse of discretion, dishonesty, lack of integrity, incompetence, ignorance of the law, and favoritism against Judge Autajay?
- Can alleged errors in judicial rulings that are reviewable on appeal constitute administrative liability for ignorance or bad faith?
- Should the retirement and gratuity benefits withheld from Judge Autajay be released following the d...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)