Sacked Albay judge accepts SC decision

LEGAZPI CITY — "I respect and bow down to the Supreme Court decision with prejudice to my humble request for a little understanding and consideration."

Thus said Tabaco City Regional Trial Court Judge Arnulfo Cabredo, whom the High Court has dismissed from the judiciary for releasing P31.45 million worth of suspected smuggled rice last year.

Finding Cabredo guilty of grave misconduct, the tribunal forfeited all his benefits, excluding accrued leave credits, and barred him from being re-employed in any government agency.

"The penalty is quite harsh (but) I will abide by the Supreme Court decision," he told The STAR in a phone interview.

He said he has been in government service for the past 30 years and that the administrative case was his first.

"I just hope and pray for a little understanding as human beings err sometimes," said Cabredo, adding that he would appeal the tribunal’s ruling against him.

The High Court assailed the judge of Tabaco City RTC Branch 15 for issuing an order allowing the release of 35,000 sacks of suspected smuggled rice which lawyer Winston Florin, deputy Customs collector at the Tabaco sub-port, ordered seized on Sept. 3, 2001.

President Arroyo herself led justice and Customs officials in filing charges against Cabredo on Aug. 15 last year. She said the move was in line with her crusade against "hoodlums in robes."

When he issued the order, Cabredo said he was "guided by honesty and good faith." Proof of this, he said, was his request for the rice shipment’s consignees, Antonio Chua Jr. and Carlos Carillo, to post a P31.45 million bond "equivalent to the value of the goods so that the government will not be on the losing end."

The Supreme Court, however, ruled that Cabredo was not supposed to issue the order under the Rules of Court.

It said the issuances of TROs (temporary restraining orders) and writs of preliminary injunction against the Bureau of Customs may arouse suspicions of "considerations other than the strict merits" of the cases.

"Gross ignorance of the law is the disregard of basic rules and settled jurisprudence. Failure to know the basic principles is an inexcusable offense. (Cabredo’s) actuation in this case is tantamount to grave misconduct," the High Court said.