Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-98-1426)
Facts:
Manuel C. Rafols, Jr. and Lolita B. Rafols v. Judge Teodoro A. Dizon, A.M. No. RTJ-98-1426, January 31, 2006, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam.The Administrative Matter began with a March 24, 1998 letter from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, South Cotabato–Sarangani–General Santos City Chapter, transmitting a joint affidavit by Manuel C. Rafols, Jr. and Lolita B. Rafols (dated March 3, 1998) and corroborating affidavits alleging that respondent Judge Teodoro A. Dizon, presiding judge of RTC Branch 37, General Santos City, demanded money in exchange for a favorable decision in Civil Case No. 6209; the letter urged an administrative investigation of Judge Dizon and of Atty. Ricardo G. Barrios, Jr. The matter was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for action.
Senior Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez recommended that the complaint be docketed, that respondent be furnished the attachments and directed to answer within ten days, that respondent be preventively suspended pending investigation, that Judge Abednage O. Adre be designated acting presiding judge, and that the Office of the Bar Confidant investigate Atty. Barrios. The Court approved these recommendations in an October 21, 1998 resolution. Mrs. Aurora Dizon later wrote the Court that respondent had suffered an ischemic stroke and asked that the suspension be lifted; the Court referred the matter to the OCA, which, after evaluation, recommended denial of the lifting and assistance in seeking disability retirement forms—recommendations the Court approved in March 1999.
Respondent filed a comment on May 11, 1999; the Court noted it and, by resolution, referred the case to Court of Appeals Associate Justice Wenceslao I. Agnir, Jr. for investigation, report and recommendation, later assigning the task to Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. of the Court of Appeals. The investigatory proceedings included documentary submissions and live testimony. Atty. Barrios gave contradictory written statements—an affidavit exonerating respondent and a later letter to the NBI/PNP repudiating that affidavit and admitting respondent had asked for and received money. Complainants and several family members and a newspaperman testified, recounting meetings at the East Royal Hotel, subsequent visits, and transfers of money totaling P130,000 (with an original demand of P150,000 alleged). Defense witnesses included Jaime Quizan, a court utility worker who testified he drove for respondent and denied certain movements, and respondent himself, who denied the allegations.
Investigating Justice Sabio found the complainants’ testimony credible and corroborated, noted Atty. Barrios’ inconsistent statements, and recommended dismissal as the ordinary penalty for the offense, but—taking into account respondent’s serious illness, apparent initiation of the extortion by the complainants’ counsel, the absence of other complaints, and respondent’s prolonged preventive suspension without pay—recommended compassionate treatment in the form of allowing respondent to retire (including disability retirement) and ordering restitution to complainants. The OCA, however, agreed on the facts but recommended dismissal with forfeiture of benefits, except leave credits, and disqualification from re-employment. After reviewing the records, the Court found the accusations proved a...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the complainants prove that Judge Teodoro A. Dizon demanded and received money in consideration of a favorable decision, such that the administrative charge of bribery and gross misconduct is established?
- If established, what penalty should be imposed on Judge Dizon and what other actions, if any, s...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)