A.M. No. 07-7-17-SC

Judge Augustus C. Diaz, presiding judge of Branch 37 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, submits a letter dated July 18, 2007, requesting judicial clemency in connection with his application for a judgeship in one of the vacant Regional Trial Court branches in Metro Manila.
Prior to this, he was interviewed by the Judicial and Bar Council on July 10, 2007, where he was informed to seek judicial clemency due to a past administrative lapse.

In the case of Alvarez v. Diaz, Judge Diaz was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law for his conduct on two motions:

Granting a motion for execution that was fatally defective because the defendant was not given adequate notice.
Favorably ruling on a motion for demolition without providing proper notice and hearing, which additionally constituted grave abuse of authority.

As a consequence of these lapses, he was fined P20,000 under administrative proceedings.

Section 5, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Judicial and Bar Council mandates disqualification of any applicant for a judicial post if, among other grounds, they have been found administratively liable with a penalty exceeding a fine of P10,000—unless judicial clemency is granted.
This rule was directly implicated in Judge Diaz’s situation, rendering him ineligible for nomination until he received clemency.

In his subsequent communication, Judge Diaz expressed deep remorse for his lapse, describing the penalty as a bitter lesson and promising to avoid similar errors in the future.
He highlighted:

His tenure as the presiding judge at Branch 37 since March 1, 1995.
His overall dedication and service record spanning 12 years in the judiciary, which he presented as evidence of his commitment to the institution.

The Supreme Court emphasized the need to maintain the integrity of the judiciary, noting that a judge must be the visible representation of the rule of law and justice.
Guidelines set forth include:

Proof of remorse and reformation via testimonials and certifications from reputable members of the legal community.
An adequate lapse of time following the penalty to ensure genuine reformation.
Considerations of the applicant’s age and potential for continued productive public service.
A demonstration of promise through intellectual aptitude, legal acumen, and contributions to legal scholarship.

These criteria provided the framework within which the Court evaluated Judge Diaz’s request for clemency.

Whether Judge Diaz’s prior administrative lapse—including the P20,000 fine for failing to properly consider a motion for demolition—renders him permanently ineligible for nomination to judicial posts under the disqualification provisions of Section 5, Rule 4 of the Judicial and Bar Council.
Whether the evidence of remorse, the significant lapse of time since the imposition of the penalty, and his extensive service record are sufficient to justify granting judicial clemency.
Whether the granting of clemency, under the stipulated guidelines, appropriately balances the need to sanction judicial misconduct and preserve public confidence in the judiciary.