What constitutes misconduct in office? Is non-payment of debt by a judge considered “gross misconduct” as to warrant his removal from office? These are the questions resolved in this case of Judge AM, the judge of a municipality in Eastern Samar.
The administrative case against Judge AM stemmed from his purchase of empty Burma sacks worth P215.80 from Mr. Go, a trader in a nearby town. After said purchase, Mr. Go filed an administrative complaint for grave misconduct in office against the judge because of the latter’s alleged failure to pay the said purchase price.
When required to answer, the judge denied the charge pointing to the original receipt returned to him by the complainant. Moreover, he invoked the legal defense that since the matter did not involve the discharge of his duties, he could not be held liable for misconduct. Judge AM also stressed that the transaction took place in another town and not in the town where he was the judge.
Complainant Go, through counsel, was given the opportunity to reply. But he did not do so.
The case was referred to the Acting Judicial Consultant (AJC). After investigation the AJC recommended that the case be dismissed outright. According to the AJC, pursuant to PD 6 Section 1 (v), willful failure to pay just debts is indeed a ground for disciplinary action. But just debts applies to (1) claims adjudicated by a court of law, or (2) claims, the existence and justness of which are admitted by the debtor (Section 19 (N) Rule XVIII B, Civil Service Rules). Judge AM’s defense that he has long settled and paid the said indebtedness as evidenced by the original receipt delivered to him by the complainant would already refute complainant’s assertions and place the money claim beyond the purview of the term “just debts”, the AJC concluded. Was the AJC correct?
Yes. Misconduct is such act or conduct as affects the performance of the duties of a public officer and not only such as affects his character as a private individual. It is necessary to separate the character of the man from the character of the officer. Misconduct, malfeasance or misfeasance warranting removal from office of an officer, must have direct relation to and be connected with the performance of official duties amounting either to maladministration or willful intentional neglect and failure to discharge the duties of the office. It is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer. In order for serious misconduct to be shown, there must be reliable evidence showing that the judicial acts complained of were corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law, or were in persistent disregard of well known legal rules. So the administrative complaint against Judge AM lacks merit and should be dismissed (Amosco vs. Magno, Adm. Matter No. 439 MJ, September 30, 1976, 73 SCRA 107).
* * *
Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call Tel. 7249445.
* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net