Title
IN RE: Marcelo G. Garcia
Case
A.M. No. RTJ-88-246
Decision Date
May 15, 1991
Judge Garcia, dismissed in 1990, unlawfully reassumed office, rendering judicial acts null and void due to lack of authority and bad faith.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 163109)

Petitioner and Respondent

The petitioner in this case is Vicente C. Buenavista, Jr., who initiated the administrative complaint against Judge Garcia. The respondent is Judge Marcelo G. Garcia himself, who has contested the terms of his dismissal and attempted to reclaim his position.

Key Dates

  • July 19, 1990: The Supreme Court found Judge Garcia guilty of serious misconduct and dismissed him from the service.
  • December 6, 1990: Judge Garcia announced in Branch 51 his intention to reassume office starting December 10, 1990.
  • December 14, 1990: Executive Judge Sabas R. Acosta formally inquired into Garcia's authority to assume duties, leading to further action against Garcia.

Applicable Law

The case is governed by the administrative rules of the judicial system under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which outlines the conditions under which a judge may be removed from service and the implications of such a dismissal.

Judgment and Allegations

In a prior decision, Judge Garcia was found guilty of various charges, including gross ignorance of the law. Following this ruling, he was dismissed from service with the forfeiture of retirement benefits. Despite this, he attempted to return to his judicial role starting on December 10, 1990, arguing the existence of a motion for reconsideration regarding his dismissal.

Unauthorized Acts and Court's Response

During the period from December 10 to 14, 1990, Judge Garcia engaged in judicial activities, including deciding several criminal cases, which culminated in the acquittal of defendants in serious crimes. His actions were undertaken without any legal authority due to the finality of his dismissal. Inquiries made by the acting judge and the Executive Judge to ascertain the validity of his reassumption of office led to confirmation that Garcia had no legal basis for his actions.

Notification and Responsibility

The Supreme Court made multiple attempts to inform Judge Garcia of his dismissal, but these efforts were thwarted due to his absence. Despite this lack of direct communication, evidence indicated that Garcia was aware of his dismissal by October 30, 1990, as evidenced by a motion filed by his counsel acknowledging the judgment had been decided.

Findings of Malice and Bad Faith

The Court concluded that Judge Garcia's attempts to assume office were executed in bad faith, as he failed to prudently confirm his legal standing post-dismissal. His defense centered on a misinterpretation of his status, which the Court found insufficient and indicative of his disregard for judicial processes.

Resolution and Directions

The resolution unequivocally declared all judicial acts conducted by Judge Garcia du

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.