FACTS:
Two administrative complaints and four charges
of “serious misconduct and gross disregard of law” were formulated against
Judge Alfredo Catolico. The first complaint concerned that of the
naturalization of 50 naturalized citizens which the the respondent declared the
oath taking of the petitioners null and void. The second and third complaints
which relate to respondent’s dismissal of the cases which have not been tried
for more than thirty days and refusal to recognize not only the authority of
the Court to authorize the continuation of the corresponding proceedings but
also the personality of the Clerk of this Court to transmit to him the
pertinent resolutions of the Court. The fourth complaint regarding the respondents
alleged bias and prejudice either in his questioning of the witnesses or in
acquitting the accused. Respondent claims that all his impugned
actuations were motivated by his desire to comply with the rules and the law
and, most of all, the best interests of justice which require the speedy and
expeditious disposition of cases. Respondents plead that “if at all there was
any error committed it is of the mind rather than the heart”
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent acted with
“serious misconduct and gross disregard of law” in the four complaints charged
against him.
RULING:
For the obvious reason that all the facts
involved in the first three complaints relate to matters of record in the
proceedings in this Court in which respondent had been duly heard, no further
administrative proceedings were held after respondent filed his answer.
In the first charge, the Court has, in a way,
admonished the respondent, adding that they “should not lose the proper
judicial perspective, and should see to it that in the execution of their sworn
duties they do not overstep the limitations of their power as laid down by
statute and by the rules of procedure”
With reference to the second and third charges
of the Secretary, the Court had already reprimanded respondent for his offense
for his refusal to “apply the law” as interpreted by the tribunal.
Anent the fourth charge, the report of the
investigator is to the effect that the actuations of respondent complained of
by Mrs. Olaes were not due to any improper or personal motive and were just the
result of the innocuous eccentricities and odd ways and ideas of respondent
which could not be categorized as serious misconduct nor deserving of any
heavier sanction than admonition.
While the Court was awaiting said report,
however, in a letter dated April 17, 1975, respondent informed the Court that
His Excellency, President Ferdinand E. Marcos had accepted his resignation
effective January 11, 1974, “without prejudice to his receiving whatever rights
he may be entitled to under the retirement and other existing laws.” Premises
considered, and in line with the established policy regarding similar
situations wherein the President has accepted resignations without prejudice to
the grant of legally possible retirement benefits thus rendering administrative
cases pending against the official concerned, moot and academic, the Court
resolved to DISMISS the cases against respondent.
No comments:
Post a Comment