Title
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Amor
Case
A.M. No. RTJ-00-1535
Decision Date
Nov 10, 2020
Judge Owen B. Amor was found guilty of gross misconduct for soliciting and accepting money from a litigant, leading to forfeiture of retirement benefits and disqualification from government re-employment despite his resignation.

Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-00-1535)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

An administrative complaint was filed by the Office of the Court Administrator (complainant) against Judge Owen B. Amor, then Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court Branch 41 in Daet, Camarines Norte. The complaint stemmed from actions alleged to have occurred on or about January 24, 2000, when Judge Amor, while performing his judicial duties, demanded FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P400,000.00) from P/Supt. Danilo C. Manzano in exchange for dismissing criminal cases pending against him. Three criminal charges were subsequently filed against the judge before the Sandiganbayan under the following counts:
  • Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), alleging undue delays and extortion.
  • Violation of Section 7(d) of R.A. 6713, for directly soliciting and accepting money from the complainant during the performance of his official duties.
  • Direct bribery, where it was charged that he agreed to dismiss the cases upon receipt of the bribery money.

Judge Amor was apprehended by the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force during an entrapment operation while receiving the money, which was later verified through video evidence and ultraviolet testing of the marked currency. Even after his resignation on October 24, 2001—while the criminal cases were still pending—the administrative complaint continued its course. Over a span of years, various resolutions and reports were submitted, including recommendations by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) that found him guilty of violating ethical standards, particularly in connection with unlawful solicitation.

Issues:

  • Whether the administrative complaint may proceed and be decided on its merits despite the respondent’s resignation, given that the misconduct occurred while in office.
  • Whether the evidentiary findings in the pending criminal cases—particularly those relating to the solicitation of money for case dismissal—provide substantial evidence to support the administrative charge of gross misconduct.
  • How the court should discipline a judge whose actions, compromising the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, continue to violate judicial conduct rules even after the cessation of his office.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.