Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-13-2361)
Key Dates
• May 16, 2001 – Request for P1 million withdrawal from Confidential and Intelligence Fund (CIF)
• April 29, 2013 – Sandiganbayan conviction
• August 28, 2013 – Denial of motions for reconsideration and new trial by Sandiganbayan
• October 4, 2013 – OCA report recommending formal administrative complaint and preventive suspension
• November 20, 2013 – Supreme Court minute resolution re-docketing the OCA report and imposing suspension
• February 2, 2016 – Supreme Court decision dismissing respondent from service and ordering disbarment
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article VIII, Section 6 (administrative supervision over courts and personnel)
• Rule 140, Rules of Court (discipline of judges); Section 8 (serious charges), Section 11 (sanctions)
• R.A. No. 3019, Section 3(e) (corrupt practices by public officers)
• Revised Penal Code, Article 217 (malversation)
• Rule 138, Rules of Court, Section 27 (bar disciplinary grounds)
Procedural History Before the Sandiganbayan
The People filed two Informations against then Mayor Ruiz and Police Inspector Pepe Nortal: one for conspiring to secure a P1 million cash advance from the CIF for personal use (R.A. 3019, Sec. 3[e]) and another for malversation of public funds. Trial testimony and documents established that the respondent instigated and approved the entire-year withdrawal five days after losing his reelection bid, despite having existing unliquidated advances. On April 29, 2013, the Sandiganbayan First Division convicted him beyond reasonable doubt, imposed indeterminate prison terms, perpetual special disqualification, fines, and indemnity to the City of Dapitan. Motions for reconsideration and new trial were denied on August 28, 2013.
OCA’s Administrative Complaint and Preventive Suspension
Upon receipt of the Sandiganbayan decision, the OCA treated it as a formal administrative complaint under Rule 140, Section 1, recommending:
- Re-docketing as a regular administrative matter
- Furnishing the respondent a copy and requiring comment within ten days
- Preventive suspension without pay pending the administrative proceedings
On November 20, 2013, the Supreme Court Third Division:
- Re-docketed the OCA report as a formal complaint
- Required respondent’s comment
- Ordered immediate preventive suspension without pay
Respondent opposed on grounds of prematurity (convictions not yet final) and applied for optional retirement effective December 31, 2013.
Supreme Court’s Administrative Supervision
Under the 1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court holds administrative supervision over all courts and their personnel, empowered to discipline judges motu proprio or upon complaint (Rule 140, Sec. 1). Preventive suspension is inherent to ensure unhampered investigations and to protect the public from further damage when serious charges are involved.
Classification of Charges as Serious
Rule 140, Section 8 identifies serious charges including:
- Dishonesty and violations of R.A. 3019
- Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude
- Malversation (a crime involving moral turpitude)
Respondent’s Sandiganbayan convictions for R.A. 3019 violation and malversation clearly fall under these categories.
Preventive Suspension Justification
Preventive suspension is not a penalty but a measure to facilitate investigation and protect public interest. It does not impinge on the presumption of innocence. The timing of the offense (2001, before judicial appointment) and the appeal status of the criminal convictions are immaterial to this administrative power.
Optional Retirement and Jurisdiction
Respondent’s request for optional early retirement was not acted upon due to standing criminal convictions and potential accessory penalties affecting retirement eligibility. The Supreme Court retains jurisdiction over administrative complaints filed during a judge’s tenure, even if separation from service occurs later.
Scope of Administrative Liability
The administrative inquiry does not reassess the Sandiganbayan’s criminal findings but determines whether substantial evidence supports administrative charges for acts committed as Mayor. Judges may be disciplined for pre-appointment conduct. Only substantial evidence – such evidence that a reasonable mind accepts as adequate – is required in administrative proceedings.
Substantial Evidence from Testimony and Documents
• City officers (City Treasurer, Accountant, Budget Officer) testified the respondent personally intervened to release the entire-year CIF appropriation after losing elections, contrary to custom and fiscal rules.
• Police Inspector Nortal testified respondent directed him to withdraw the P1 million, that respondent received the cash, refused a receipt, and used the proceeds for personal benefit.
• Documentary proof: respondent’s signatures as approving officer on Disbursement Voucher No. 105.0105.3888, Request for Obligation Allotment, and PNB Check No. 1097358.
• Commission on Audit records confirmed the amount remained unliquidate
Case Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-13-2361)
Procedural Background
- Administrative Complaint filed by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) under A.M. No. RTJ-13-2361 (formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4144-RTJ).
- Underlying criminal Informations in the Sandiganbayan as Criminal Case Nos. 27467-68 for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and malversation of public funds.
- Sandiganbayan First Division Decision (April 29, 2013) finding Judge Ruiz guilty beyond reasonable doubt and imposing indeterminate sentences, fines, indemnity, special disqualification.
- Sandiganbayan Resolution (August 28, 2013) denying motions for reconsideration and new trial.
- OCA Report (October 4, 2013) recommending formal administrative docketing, furnishing respondent with copy, comment period, and preventive suspension without pay.
- Supreme Court Third Division Minute Resolution (November 20, 2013) re-docketing complaint, requiring comment, and ordering preventive suspension effective upon notice.
- Respondent’s Comment (January 24, 2014) asserting prematurity due to pending criminal appeal and optional retirement.
- En Banc Decision (February 2, 2016) dismissing respondent from service and disbarring him.
Factual Allegations
- Respondent, then Mayor of Dapitan City, allegedly conspired with Police Inspector Pepe Nortal to withdraw ₱1 million from the Confidential and Intelligence Fund (CIF) for personal use.
- As of December 31, 2006, respondent had four unliquidated cash advances, three from the CIF totaling ₱1,384,280.
- On May 16, 2001, respondent purportedly instigated Nortal’s request for the entire year’s CIF appropriation, despite losing re-election five days earlier.
- Testimony of City Treasurer Jose R. Torres, City Accountant Glendora Deloria, and OIC-City Budget Officer Fatima Ruda confirmed respondent’s active direction and approval of the ₱1 million advance.
- Nortal’s affidavit and testimony detailed the delivery of the cash to respondent’s office, refusal to issue receipt, and respondent’s personal use of funds.
Charges and Sandiganbayan Convictions
- Violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (granting unwarranted benefits through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross negligence).
- Malversation of public funds under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.
- Sandiganbayan’s findings:
- Respondent “instigated” and personally received the ₱1 million advance.
- Cash advance occurred in bad faith covering full-year appropriation after electoral defeat.
- Denial defense was rejected as unsupported.
- Imposed penalties:
- Indeterminate sentence of 6 year