Facts:

The case involves Ahmad Omar as the complainant against Presiding Judge Betlee-Ian J. Barraquias of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 4 in Jolo, Sulu. The events leading to this case began with a Resolution dated June 19, 2017, wherein the Supreme Court found Judge Barraquias guilty of undue delay in rendering a decision or order. As a consequence, he was penalized with a fine of P10,000.00 and received a stern warning regarding future conduct. Judge Barraquias complied with this penalty by paying the fine on August 31, 2017. Subsequently, on July 23, 2018, Judge Barraquias filed a Petition/Application for Judicial Clemency, expressing his desire to apply for a presiding judge position in any RTC in Manila. However, he was disqualified under Section 5 (2) (c), Rule 4 of the 2016 Revised Rules of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC Rules) due to the penalty he had received. In his petition, he cited threats to his life and that of his family from the Abu Sayyaf group, which ...

Facts:

Background of the Case
Judge Betlee-Ian J. Barraquias, then Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Jolo, Sulu, Branch 4, was found guilty of undue delay in rendering a decision or order. In a Resolution dated June 19, 2017, the Court imposed a fine of P10,000.00 on him, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act would result in a more severe sanction. Judge Barraquias paid the fine on August 31, 2017, in compliance with the Court's Resolution.

Petition for Judicial Clemency
On July 23, 2018, Judge Barraquias filed a Petition for Judicial Clemency, seeking to be considered for a position as a presiding judge in any RTC in Manila. He cited Section 5(2)(c) of the 2016 Revised Rules of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC Rules), which disqualifies individuals who have been fined at least P10,000.00 in an administrative case from being nominated for judicial posts unless granted judicial clemency.

Reasons for the Petition
Judge Barraquias argued that it was difficult for him to return to Jolo, Sulu, due to threats to his life and his family's safety from the Abu Sayyaf. He also claimed to have learned from his past mistakes, citing his disposal of 413 cases within one year while serving as an Acting/Assisting Judge in three courts. He sought clemency to allow him to apply for judicial positions outside Jolo, Sulu.

Supporting Documents
The Court received numerous letters of support from various individuals and organizations, including the Philippine Judges Association, Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) chapters, local government officials, and other judges, attesting to Judge Barraquias' reformation, qualifications, and exemplary character.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Remorse and Reformation: Judge Barraquias demonstrated remorse by accepting the penalty and expressing sincere repentance for his past actions. His commitment to expeditious case disposition and the absence of further infractions showed reformation.

2. Time Lapse: More than seven years had passed since the imposition of the penalty, ensuring a sufficient period for reform.

3. Age and Productive Years: At 49 years old, Judge Barraquias still had productive years ahead of him, making him a suitable candidate for judicial service.

4. Support from the Community: Numerous letters of support from reputable individuals and organizations attested to his character, qualifications, and potential for public service.

5. Payment of Fine: Judge Barraquias had fully complied with the Court's penalty by paying the P10,000.00 fine.

6. Judicial Clemency as an Act of Mercy: The Court emphasized that judicial clemency is not a right but an act of mercy granted only when merited. In this case, Judge Barraquias met the criteria, and clemency was justified to allow him to continue serving in the judiciary.