Title
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Amor
Case
A.M. No. RTJ-00-1535
Decision Date
Nov 10, 2020
Judge Owen B. Amor was found guilty of gross misconduct for soliciting and accepting money from a litigant, leading to forfeiture of retirement benefits and disqualification from government re-employment despite his resignation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-8320)

Allegations Against the Respondent

The administrative complaint filed on February 10, 2000, accused Judge Amor of violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, among others. The allegations state that on or about January 24, 2000, Judge Amor solicited and accepted PHP 400,000 from Manzano in return for dismissing his criminal cases. Three criminal charges—violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019, violation of Section 7(d) of R.A. 6713, and direct bribery—were subsequently filed against him.

Initial Court Proceedings

On March 6, 2000, the Court temporarily suspended Judge Amor from office during the proceedings of the administrative case. The investigation into the complaints was initially deferred pending the resolution of the related criminal cases against him.

Resignation and Administrative Proceedings

While the criminal cases were ongoing, Judge Amor tendered his irrevocable resignation on October 24, 2001. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) subsequently recommended that his resignation be accepted but noted that the administrative case should proceed. On March 19, 2002, the Supreme Court ordered the OCA to finalize the investigation into the administrative complaint.

Findings of the Sandiganbayan

The Sandiganbayan ultimately found Judge Amor guilty in Criminal Case No. 25797, but acquitted him in Criminal Cases Nos. 25796 and 25798 on account of a successful demurrer to evidence. His conviction for violation of Section 7(d) of R.A. 6713 was pivotal, as it confirmed his unlawful solicitation of money.

Nature of Administrative Proceedings

The Court underscored that administrative proceedings are independent from criminal cases, indicating that a finding of guilt in one does not negate findings made in another. The standard for administrative guilt remains "substantial evidence," which does not require the same level of proof as needed in criminal proceedings.

Evaluation of the Respondent's Conduct

The sufficiency of the evidence presented against Judge Amor was analyzed. Testimonies, including those of P/Supt. Manzano, provided ample evidence of Amor's solicitation during an entrapment operation carried out by the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force. The presence of marked money and video evidence further solidified the allegations against him.

Administrative Liability

Given Judge Amor's established misconduct in soliciting bribes, the OCA recommended severe penalties for his transgressions, finding him guilty of gross misconduct. The grave implications of such actions on public tru

...continue reading

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