A.M. No. RTJ-08-2140 - Office of the Court Administrator vs. Amor

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-08-2140)

Factual Background

The complaint originated from a Memorandum dated November 23, 1999 furnished by Acting Presiding Judge Manuel E. Contreras of the Municipal Trial Court of Paracale. The Memorandum narrated five categories of misconduct allegedly committed by EXECUTIVE JUDGE OWEN B. AMOR while presiding in Daet, Camarines Norte. First, Judge Amor reportedly impounded a private tricycle brought to the Hall of Justice after an accident and thereafter purportedly exerted pressure on the security guards to suppress or retrieve a certification secured by Judge Contreras. Second, Judge Amor allegedly berated Acting Presiding Judge Rosita Lalwani when she sought reconsideration of her detail and instructed her to slow the trial of a Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 case because the accused was his friend. Third, on a purported judicial visit he allegedly intervened personally for Atty. Freddie Venida, who had been arrested for indirect contempt, and tolerated the latter’s abusive practice in exchange for gold, while sneering at Judge Contreras for not exploiting the situation. Fourth, members of the bar, prosecutors, and litigants purportedly complained of Judge Amor’s habitual absenteeism, particularly on Mondays and Fridays, which caused delay. Fifth, upon assuming the Executive Judge position he allegedly instructed the Clerk of Court to submit petitions for extrajudicial foreclosure to him for scrutiny and to solicit “grease money” from newspaper publishers under threat of blacklisting, conduct which the Clerk did not follow.

Procedural History

The Office of the Court Administrator transmitted an initial Report dated February 3, 2000 and the Court treated Judge Contreras’s Memorandum as an administrative complaint in a Resolution dated February 28, 2000, directing respondent to comment. Respondent did not file a comment despite subsequent Orders, including the Court’s show cause Order of July 2, 2001. After further noncompliance, the matter was referred to the OCA for evaluation by Resolution dated January 30, 2008. While the administrative proceedings were pending, respondent filed a certificate of candidacy for the 2002 Barangay Elections and thereby was deemed to have automatically resigned effective June 7, 2002. The OCA submitted a Memorandum dated July 25, 2008 recommending re-docketing the case as a regular administrative matter, forfeiture of retirement benefits, forfeiture of civil service eligibility, and disqualification from appointment or reinstatement to any public office.

The OCA’s Findings and Recommendation

The OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR found respondent guilty of Grave Abuse of Authority, Grave Misconduct, Acts Inimical to Judicial Service, and Gross Insubordination. The OCA concluded that respondent’s failure to file a comment, after being afforded multiple opportunities, amounted to an implied admission of the allegations. The OCA also determined that respondent unduly influenced security personnel to obstruct an investigation, berated a fellow judge, intervened improperly on behalf of a lawyer in exchange for gold, habitually absented himself, and caused delays by ordering review of extrajudicial foreclosure petitions and by attempting to solicit payments from publishers. The OCA recommended that the case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter; that respondent’s retirement benefits be forfeited; and that respondent be disqualified from reinstatement or appointment to public office and from re-employment in government-owned or controlled corporations.

The Issue Presented

The essential issue before the Court was whether EXECUTIVE JUDGE OWEN B. AMOR should be held administratively liable for Grave Abuse of Authority, Grave Misconduct, Gross Insubordination, and Acts Inimical to Judicial Service, and what penalties could be imposed in view of his automatic resignation.

The Court’s Ruling

The Court concurred with the OCA and found respondent guilty of the charged offenses. The Court held that respondent’s persistent failure to file a comment constituted a waiver of his right to defend and an implied admission of the veracity of the allegations. The Court sustained the OCA’s factual findings that respondent impounded the tricycle and exerted undue influence on security guards to obstruct inquiry; that he was discourteous to a fellow judge who asked for reconsideration of a detail; that he intervened on behalf of Atty. Venida and tolerated abusive conduct in exchange for gold; that he was habitually absent; and that he ordered the Clerk of Court to submit foreclosure petitions for his scrutiny and to demand payments from publishers. The Court further held that respondent’s continued refusal to comply with Court directives constituted gross misconduct and insubordination.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reiterated definitions and standards applied to the charges. It defined Grave Abuse of Authority as wrongful infliction by a public officer, under color of office, of bodily harm, imprisonment, or other injury, characterized by cruelty, severity, or excessive use of authority, citing prior jurisprudence. The Court explained that Misconduct requires a transgression of an established rule of action and, to warrant dismissal, must be grave, implying wrongful intention or gross negligence connected with official duties. The Court observed that grave misconduct is differentiated from simple misconduct by the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule. The Court found these elements present in respondent’s conduct. The Court also treated respondent’s failure to follow repeated Court orders to file a comment as gross insub

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-08-2140)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Office of the Court Administrator filed an administrative complaint through a Memorandum submitted by Acting Presiding Judge Manuel E. Contreras dated November 23, 1999.
The Memorandum accused Executive Judge Owen B. Amor of the Regional Trial Court, Daet, Camarines Norte, of Grave Abuse of Authority, Grave Misconduct, and Acts Inimical to Judicial Service.
The Court treated the Memorandum as an administrative complaint by Resolution dated February 28, 2000, and subsequently required respondent to file a comment.
The Court issued a show-cause Resolution dated July 2, 2001, and later referred the matter to the OCA for evaluation, report, and recommendation by Resolution dated January 30, 2008.
Respondent filed a certificate of candidacy for the 2002 Barangay Elections and was deemed to have automatically resigned effective June 7, 2002.
The OCA submitted a Report and Recommendation dated July 25, 2008 recommending re-docketing, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and disqualification from public office.

Key Factual Allegations

Respondent allegedly impounded the tricycle of one Gervin Ojeda at the Hall of Justice of Daet when Ojeda collided with the judge's vehicle and could not pay the demanded amount.
A security guard, Virginia Morico, prepared a certification of the impounding but incorrectly dated it and then took the certification to respondent's chambers and later refused to return it to Judge Contreras.
Respondent allegedly berated the Hall of Justice guards, including Morico, and attempted to influence them to conceal his acts.
Acting Presiding Judge Rosita Lalwani was allegedly berated by respondent when she sought reconsideration of her detail and was instructed by respondent to proceed slowly with a case under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 because the accused was his friend.
Respondent allegedly intervened personally on behalf of Atty. Freddie Venida, who had been arrested for indirect contempt, tolerated the latter’s abusive practice as a lawyer, and indicated that he received gold from Atty. Venida.
Lawyers, prosecutors, and litigants complained of respondent's habitual absenteeism, particularly on Mondays and Fridays, which allegedly caused delays in case disposition.
Respondent allegedly ordered Clerk of Court Atty. Perfecto Loria to submit petitions for extrajudicial foreclosure to him for scrutiny and reportedly instructed Atty. Loria to solicit grease money from newspaper publishers under threat of blacklisting.

OCAs Report and Recommendation

The OCA found respondent administratively liable as charged and recommended that the case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter.
The OCA concluded that respondent's failure to file a comment despite opportunities constituted an implied admission of the allegations.
The OCA recommended forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification from appointment to any public office, including government-owned and controlled corporations.
The OCA found respondent guilty of Gross Misconduct and Insubordination for willfully refusing to comply with the Court's directives to file his comment.
The OCA treated respondent's filing of the certificate of candidacy and resulting automatic resignation as a purported device to evade adminis