CASE 2016-0006: IN THE MATTER OF: ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT FOR DISHONESTY, GRAVE MISCONDUCT AND PERJURY COMMITTED BY JUDGE JAIME E. CONTRERAS (IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE THEN 4TH PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR OF LIBMANAN, CAMARINES SUR) (A.M. NO. RTJ-16-2452, 29 MARCH 2016, REYES, J.) (SUBJECT/S: DISHONESTY; GRAVE MISCONDUCT; PERJURY) (BRIEF TITLE: ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST JUDGE CONTRERAS)
DISPOSITIVE:
“WHEREFORE, Judge Jaime E. Contreras is hereby found GUILTY of DISHONESTY and is SUSPENDED from the service for one (1) year without pay, to take effect upon the finality hereof, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.”
SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:
HOW JUDGE SHOULD CONDUCT ONESELF
“Time and time again, this Court has stressed that “the behavior of all employees and officials involved in the administration of justice, from judges to the most junior clerks, is circumscribed with a heavy responsibility.”15 “As visible representation of the law, respondent judge should have conducted himself in a manner which would merit the respect of the people to him in particular and to the Judiciary in general.”16
DISHONESTY AND CORRESPONDING PENALTY
Dishonesty is considered a grave offense. It carries the maximum penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in the government service.
In OCA v. Judge Aguilar, 17 however, this Court refrained from imposing the maximum penalty based on several factors attendant to the case. The Court held:
Nonetheless, Rule IV, Section 53 of the Civil Service Rules also provides that in the determination of the penalties to be imposed, extenuating, mitigating, aggravating or alternative circumstances attendant to the commission of the offense shall be considered. Among the circumstances that may be allowed to modify the penalty are ( 1) length of service in the government, (2) good faith, and (3) other analogous circumstances.
In several jurisprudential precedents, the Court has refrained from imposing the actual administrative penalties prescribed by law or regulation in the presence of mitigating factors. Factors such as the respondent’s length of service, the respondent’s acknowledgement of his or her infractions and feeling of remorse, family circumstances, humanitarian and equitable considerations, respondent’s advanced age, among other things, have had varying significance in the determination by the Court of the imposable penalty. x x x.18”
TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.
NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.
J.A.B. Bulao & Associates 