A.C. No. 236-J - Rosal vs. Salvador

The case involves an administrative complaint filed by Hermilo R. Rosal against Judge Joaquin M. Salvador, a member of the Court of Industrial Relations.
The complaint alleged serious misconduct on the part of Judge Salvador arising from his handling of a case involving the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) and a pending petition for injunction (CIR Case 280 INJ.).

It was alleged that Judge Salvador purportedly influenced the employment of his son-in-law, Reynaldo Legaspi, who was appointed first as a casual and later as a permanent employee of the PCSO in 1970 and 1971, despite an ongoing petition (PCSO vs. PCSEA, et al.).
Additional charges included:

Issuing an Order in the CIR Case 280 INJ. declaring a strike illegal and stripping the respondent union officers of their employment status with the PCSO.
Neglecting or refusing to act on the Petition to Suspend Execution of the Order filed by the union officers.

The complaint asserted that these acts violated Section 3, paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) of Republic Act No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), which prohibits:

Allowing a family member to be employed by a private enterprise with pending official business before the official.
Causing undue injury or granting unwarranted benefits through manifest partiality or negligence.
Neglecting or refusing to act on matters pending before him for the purpose of obtaining a material benefit or favoring a particular party.

Denying any knowledge that his son-in-law was a casual employee of the PCSO until such information was provided later by Congressman Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr.
Stating that his decision to declare the strike illegal was fully set forth in his order, which was under reconsideration by the en banc Court of Industrial Relations.
Denying any issuance of a writ or order of execution as alleged by the complaint.

The matter was subsequently referred to Associate Justice Ramon G. Gaviola, Jr. for investigation.

His report, submitted on July 3, 1973, found no evidence that Judge Salvador caused his son-in-law’s employment.
He likewise found no basis for charging the judge with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence in the issuance of his order.

Based on the investigation, a recommendation was made to dismiss the complaint for lack of merit.

Whether Judge Joaquin M. Salvador’s facilitation—allegedly influencing the employment of his son-in-law at the PCSO—constituted a violation of Section 3, paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) of Republic Act No. 3019.
Whether the judge’s order declaring the strike illegal and his purported failure to act on the petition to suspend the execution of that order were manifestations of manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence in violation of the law.
Whether the administrative complaint, predominantly based on allegations of misconduct and perceived injustice, had sufficient evidentiary basis to sustain charges against the judge.