This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2005-10-12 |
DAVIDE, JR., C.J. |
||||
| This is not the first time that a respondent in an administrative case dies during the pendency thereof. In some cases, the death occurred either before the respondent could submit a comment on the complaint,[12] before an investigation could be conducted, or before the investigating judge or the OCA could make a finding on the culpability of the respondent.[13] In Apiag v. Cantero,[14] the investigation against the respondent judge for gross misconduct had already been terminated, and the investigating judge and the OCA had already made a finding on the charge and recommended respondent's suspension and dismissal from the service, respectively; but the respondent died while his case was being deliberated upon by the Court. In all these instances, the Court ordered the dismissal of the cases and did not see it fit to impose a penalty on the respondents. | |||||
|
2003-01-22 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| "It might also be noteworthy that in A.M. No. 97-9-283-RTC (Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, Bangued Abra)[6] and A.M. No. 98-3-119-RTC (Judicial Audit Report, Regional Trial Court, Branches 21, 35 & 36 and Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branches 1 & 2, Santiago City; Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, Ilagan, Isabela; Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, Cabarroguis, Quirino and Municipal Trial Court, Cauayan & Echague, Isabela)[7], the Court deemed it inappropriate to impose any sanction following the death of the respondents during the pendency of their cases. In A.M. No. 97-9-283-RTC, it was shown that Judge Francisco Villacorta failed to decide cases pending before his court as so reflected by the judicial audit and confirmed by the OCA. Respondent Villacorta died before he could submit any explanation. The Court did not see it fit to still impose any disciplinary action on the respondent judge. In A.M. No. 98-3-119-RTC, Judge Efren Lamorena of RTC, Santiago City, Branch 36, was directed to explain the delay on the resolution of cases pending before his sala. Judge Lamorena was able to submit his comment but, soon after, he suffered a stroke which caused his death. The OCA in its memorandum to the Court did not recommend any administrative sanction on Judge Lamorena for 'humanitarian reasons.' The Court there agreed." | |||||
|
2002-02-19 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| "However, we also cannot just gloss over the fact that he was remiss in attending to the needs of his children of his first marriage - children whose filiation he did not deny. He neglected them and refused to support them until they came up with this administrative charge. For such conduct, this Court would have imposed a penalty. But in view of his death prior to the promulgation of this Decision, dismissal of the case is now in order."[5] It might also be noteworthy that in A.M. No. 97-9-283-RTC (Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, Bangued Abra)[6] and A.M. No. 98-3-119-RTC (Judicial Audit Report, Regional Trial Court, Branches 21, 35 & 36 and Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branches 1 & 2, Santiago City; Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, Ilagan, Isabela; Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, Cabarroguis, Quirino and Municipal Trial Court, Cauayan & Echague, Isabela)[7], the Court deemed it inappropriate to impose any sanction following the death of the respondents during the pendency of their cases. In A.M. No. 97-9-283-RTC, it was shown that Judge Francisco Villacorta failed to decide cases pending before his court as so reflected by the judicial audit and confirmed by the OCA. Respondent Villacorta died before he could submit any explanation. The Court did not see it fit to still impose any disciplinary action on the respondent judge. In A.M. No. 98-3-119-RTC, Judge Efren Lamorena of RTC, Santiago City, Branch 36, was directed to explain the delay on the resolution of cases pending before his sala. Judge Lamorena was able to submit his comment but, soon after, he suffered a stroke which caused his death. The OCA in its memorandum to the Court did not recommend any administrative sanction on Judge Lamorena for "humanitarian reasons." The Court there agreed. | |||||
|
2002-02-19 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| "However, we also cannot just gloss over the fact that he was remiss in attending to the needs of his children of his first marriage - children whose filiation he did not deny. He neglected them and refused to support them until they came up with this administrative charge. For such conduct, this Court would have imposed a penalty. But in view of his death prior to the promulgation of this Decision, dismissal of the case is now in order."[5] It might also be noteworthy that in A.M. No. 97-9-283-RTC (Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, Bangued Abra)[6] and A.M. No. 98-3-119-RTC (Judicial Audit Report, Regional Trial Court, Branches 21, 35 & 36 and Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branches 1 & 2, Santiago City; Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, Ilagan, Isabela; Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, Cabarroguis, Quirino and Municipal Trial Court, Cauayan & Echague, Isabela)[7], the Court deemed it inappropriate to impose any sanction following the death of the respondents during the pendency of their cases. In A.M. No. 97-9-283-RTC, it was shown that Judge Francisco Villacorta failed to decide cases pending before his court as so reflected by the judicial audit and confirmed by the OCA. Respondent Villacorta died before he could submit any explanation. The Court did not see it fit to still impose any disciplinary action on the respondent judge. In A.M. No. 98-3-119-RTC, Judge Efren Lamorena of RTC, Santiago City, Branch 36, was directed to explain the delay on the resolution of cases pending before his sala. Judge Lamorena was able to submit his comment but, soon after, he suffered a stroke which caused his death. The OCA in its memorandum to the Court did not recommend any administrative sanction on Judge Lamorena for "humanitarian reasons." The Court there agreed. | |||||