Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-08-2140)
Key Dates
The relevant incidents occurred primarily in October 1999, with the official complaint filed on November 23, 1999. Subsequent court resolutions took place from February 2000 until the final resolution on October 7, 2014.
Applicable Law
The 1987 Philippine Constitution, along with relevant laws pertaining to the conduct of judges and administrative complaints, serves as the legal framework for this case.
Allegations Against Respondent
The allegations against Respondent Owen B. Amor include grave abuse of authority, grave misconduct, and acts inimical to judicial service based on multiple incidents. First, he unlawfully impounded a tricycle belonging to Gervin Ojeda, exerting undue pressure on court personnel by influencing the issuance of a certification related to this incident. Second, he displayed verbal abuse toward Judge Rosita Lalwani while she sought reconsideration regarding a reassignment, alleging laziness among judges. Third, under the guise of a judicial visit, he intervened in favor of Atty. Freddie Venida, who faced contempt charges, suggesting a corrupt relationship involving gifts of gold in exchange for tolerance of professional misconduct.
Patterns of Misconduct
Judges and other personnel reported Respondent Amor's habitual absenteeism, particularly on Mondays and Fridays, which led to case delays contrary to principles of speedy trial. Furthermore, upon assuming his role as Executive Judge, he directed Clerk of Court Atty. Perfecto Loria to submit petitions for extra-judicial foreclosures directly to him, effectively stalling processes and requesting illegal "grease money" from publishers.
Failure to Respond to Complaint
The OCA's Report noted that despite numerous opportunities extended by the Court for Respondent to comment on the allegations, he continually failed to do so. This noncompliance was interpreted as an implicit admission of the charges against him, thereby strengthening the case for his administrative liability.
Findings of the OCA
The OCA ultimately determined that the respondent was guilty of grave abuse of authority, grave misconduct, gross insubordination, and acts inimical to judicial service. These findings were supported by the pattern of behavior exhibited by Respondent Amor, including his refusal to comply with Court directives and his conduct diminishing public trust in the judiciary.
Implications of Respondent's Resignation
Although Respondent Amor had filed a Certificate of Candidacy for the 2002 Barangay Elections, resulting in his automatic resignation from service, the Court maintained its jurisdiction over the administrative proceedings against him. Resignation cannot be utilized as a mechanism to escape administrative accountability.
Resolution of the Court
The Court concurred with the OCA'
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-08-2140)
Introduction
- The case involves a memorandum filed by Acting Presiding Judge Manuel E. Contreras against Executive Judge Owen B. Amor, accusing him of grave abuse of authority, grave misconduct, and acts inimical to judicial service.
- The memorandum was prompted by the verbal instruction of then Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo.
Allegations Against Respondent
Incident of Impounding:
- On October 1, 1999, Judge Amor impounded the tricycle of Gervin Ojeda after an accident caused by Ojeda's failure to pay for damages incurred.
- The impounding was recorded in the Guardas Logbook, and Judge Contreras secured a certification from Security Guard Virginia Morico, which inadvertently contained an incorrect date.
- Judge Amor berated the security guards for issuing the certification, leading to attempts to conceal the incident.
Misconduct Towards Fellow Judges:
- In late October 1999, when Judge Rosita Lalwani sought reconsideration regarding her stationing, Judge Amor accused her of laziness and instructed her to slow down the trial of a case involving a friend.
Improper Judicial Intervention:
- On October 27, 1999, Judge Amor visited Judge Contreras under the guise of a judicial visit to intervene on behalf of Atty. Freddie Venida, who faced charges for contempt.
- Judge Amor’s actions indicated a willingness to tolerate Atty. Venida's abusive practices in exchange for gold.
Habitual Absenteeism:
- Numerous complaints were lodged against Judge Amor for his habitual absenteeism, particularly on Mondays and Fridays, causing delays in judicial proceedings.
Manipulation of Court Processes:
- As Executive Judge, Judge Amor ordered the Clerk of Court to scrutinize petitions for extra-judicial foreclosures, resulting in procedu