Title
Court Administrator vs. Magtibay
Case
A.M. No. R-254-MTJ and 88-1-2807-MCTC
Decision Date
May 9, 1988
Judge Ricardo Magtibay dismissed for gross misconduct, dishonesty, and willful disobedience after concealing suspension and continuing judicial duties despite orders.
court administrator
magtibay
gross misconduct

Case Summary (A.M. No. R-254-MTJ and 88-1-2807-MCTC)

Factual Background

The record traced the administrative complaints to events that began while respondent Magtibay was still a practising lawyer. On December 2, 1982, Magdalena G. Udarbe filed an administrative charge against him for gross negligence in the defense of her client, misappropriation of client’s funds, and charging attorney’s fees for services not actually rendered and/or grossly disproportionate to services. That complaint was docketed as Administrative Case No. 2489 at the Bar Office of the Court.

Subsequently, respondent was appointed as Judge of the MCTC of Maragondon and Ternate, Cavite. He took his oath on December 16, 1983 and began rendering service on December 22, 1983. On August 1, 1984, the Court’s First Division resolved in Administrative Case No. 2489 to refer the case to the Office of the Solicitor General for investigation, report, and recommendation, and to suspend Atty. Magtibay from the practice of law throughout the Philippines effective from notice. The resolution did not impose a definite period, and the Court characterized it as a preventive suspension, as there was no prescribed duration and the matter was referred to the OSG for further evaluation.

Afterward, the Court received communications from local officials. On November 13, 1984, Cavite Provincial Governor Juanito R. Remulla, by indorsement, forwarded to the Court a letter of Maragondon Mayor Telesforo A. Unas, who sought advice from then Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando on whether respondent’s suspension from law practice also suspended him from performing the functions of presiding judge of the MCTC.

Prior Supreme Court Resolutions and Development of the Administrative Charges

Acting on the letter, the Court en banc, in a resolution dated February 5, 1985, resolved (a) to consider Judge Ricardo Magtibay suspended from office for the duration of his suspension from the practice of law, effective immediately, and (b) to direct the Office of the Court Administrator to initiate additional administrative charges against him for conduct unbecoming of a judge due to his alleged lack of candor to the Supreme Court for failing to report his suspension in Administrative Case No. 2489 and for allegedly misrepresenting facts in his Personal Data Sheet for Judges.

In compliance, the Acting Court Administrator instituted a complaint charging respondent with “Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge and Misrepresentation in Filling Up his Personal Data Sheet for Judges.” Thereafter, the Court also received reports that respondent continued discharging his judicial functions despite his earlier suspension from office. Acting on the new complaints and the resulting reports, the Court issued a further resolution on February 2, 1988 in Administrative Matter No. 88-1-2807, which reiterated the framework of respondent’s suspension and assessed his continued performance of duties notwithstanding an injunction.

In that February 2, 1988 resolution, the Court explained that in the en banc resolution of February 5, 1985 in Administrative Matter No. 84-11-4789 MTC, respondent was considered suspended from judicial office for the duration of his indefinite suspension from the practice of law ordered by the First Division on August 1, 1984 in Administrative Case No. 2489. The Court further noted that respondent remained in the Judiciary after the reorganization concluded on January 30, 1987 but had not submitted his oath of office. Nevertheless, he assumed his post on February 23, 1987, performed functions at Maragondon-Ternate, and later also acted at the MCTC at Indang-Mendez, Cavite after being designated twice weekly beginning May 27, 1987.

The Court recorded that, on June 16, 1987, respondent was categorically ordered by the Office of the Court Administrator to desist from discharging the duties of judge because of his subsisting suspension. On December 11, 1987, Executive Judge Almario revoked the prior designation. Yet the Court found from the statistics records that between February 1987 and December 1987 respondent decided thirty-six (36) cases in his regular sala, including four (4) cases after receiving the OCA directive on July 18, 1987. Additionally, respondent decided sixteen (16) cases at the Indang-Mendez MCTC between June 1987 and October 1987 with knowledge of the injunction.

Because of these findings, the February 2, 1988 resolution ordered that respondent be suspended from the office of the MCTC and be directed to cease discharging the functions of the judge until further orders, on pain of criminal prosecution. It also ordered him to show cause within a non-extendible ten (10)-day period why he should not be removed and/or disbarred for willful and continued defiance of the February 5, 1985 en banc resolution and of the June 16, 1987 directive. It further ordered clerks of court and personnel to desist from recognizing him as judge or carrying out or implementing his decisions and orders.

Proceedings Before the Office of the Court Administrator and Respondent’s Answer

On March 8, 1988, the Office of the Court Administrator submitted its report pursuant to the directive in Administrative Matter No. R-254-MTJ. The report framed the complaints as charging respondent with conduct unbecoming of judge, dishonesty, and lack of candor toward the Supreme Court, anchored on the following grounds: failure to report his suspension from the practice of law; misrepresentation in filling up his Personal Data Sheet; and continued performance of judicial duties as judge despite the suspension.

In his answer, respondent asserted that although the Court’s resolution of August 1, 1984 suspended him from the practice of law, he continued performing judicial duties in good faith and to the best of his ability. He claimed he had relied on advice from a former assemblyman who believed the suspension related to acts as trial counsel in a case involving facts prior to his appointment and thus should not bar judicial performance. Respondent also contended that he assumed the Court’s records would reflect his suspension and that, if improper, the Court would have advised him accordingly.

Respondent also denied malicious misrepresentation in the Personal Data Sheet. He explained that he suffered a “grievous mental lapse” when he saw the terms acquittal, dismissal, or penalty imposed. He claimed a genuine belief that the question did not apply because there had been no acquittal, dismissal, or penalty imposed. He further emphasized that the question was in Form P-401, the information sheet for judges issued by the Supreme Court.

The Court Administrator’s report, as adopted by the Court in its reasoning, addressed the specific misrepresentation charge. The form asked whether the applicant had ever been administratively charged, requiring full details including acquittal, dismissal, or penalty imposed. Respondent placed “N.A.” on the space opposite the question “have you ever been administratively charged?”, equating “N.A.” with “not applicable.” The report stated that the truth was that Administrative Case No. 2489 was pending before the Court at the time he answered. The Court Administrator found respondent’s explanation to be inadequate. It concluded that the question plainly called for an affirmative answer because Administrative Case No. 2489 was pending, and that respondent deliberately concealed a pertinent fact.

The report likewise addressed respondent’s conduct while the administrative matters were ongoing. It noted that respondent wrote a letter on August 7, 1985 to then Chief Justice Felix Makasiar seeking advice on the possibility of resigning as MCTC judge. The Chief Justice advised him not to resign and instructed him to await the termination of the investigation in the BAR Division and the administrative complaint in the Office of the Court Administrator, as reflected in an August 27, 1985 resolution. Nevertheless, the report concluded that the administrative evaluation could proceed because the issues in the BAR Office case were different, with the latter case focusing more on conduct as a judge than as a law practitioner.

The Parties’ Contentions and the Core Administrative Issues

The Court Administrator’s report distilled the administrative issues into two main categories. First was respondent’s alleged lack of candor and dishonesty arising from his alleged failure to disclose his pending administrative case in the Personal Data Sheet for Judges and his alleged failure to report his suspension. Second was respondent’s alleged willful defiance of the Court’s earlier resolutions and directives by continuing to perform judicial functions despite the effect of the suspension from the practice of law and the corresponding suspension from office for its duration.

Respondent’s positions, as set out in his answer, were essentially that he believed he could continue as judge in good faith, and that his Personal Data Sheet answer resulted from a mental lapse and an honest belief that the question did not apply until a particular outcome, such as acquittal, dismissal, or penalty, had occurred. He also implied that he would have acted differently had the Court advised him after checking its records.

Legal Basis and Reasoning of the Court

The Court adopted and expanded upon the Court Administrator’s factual findings. It found that respondent had been suspended from the practice of law by a resolution dated August 1, 1984 in Administrative Case No. 2489, and that the Court’s en banc resolution dated February 5, 1985 had considered him suspended from judicial office for the duration of that suspension. It emphasized that respondent’s continued performance of judicial duties occurred even after the Court Administrator issued a directive on June 16, 1987 to desist discharging judicial functions because of his subsisting suspension.

On the issue of misrepresentation and lack of candor, the Court Administrator’s report—treated as persuasive findings by the Court—rea

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms