Gonzales-Austria v. Abaya, 176 SCRA 634 [1989]

 

Gonzales-Austria v. Abaya, 176 SCRA 634 [1989]

FACTS: 

I.Complainant Atty. Ligaya Gonzales-Austria (Atty. Austria) et. al. have filed a case against Judge Emmanuel M. Abaya (Judge Abaya) on the following grounds:

a.            Estafa through falsification of public or official documents, by verifying official hours rendered by a certain Anabelle Cardenas (Cardenas) who has never reported for duty, and by receiving salaries of said Cardenas through the forgery of the Cardena’s signature, thus deceiving the government and defrauding the gov’t of bug amount of money.

b.            Gross dishonesty and corruption by soliciting, demanding, receiving bribed money in exchanged for favorable resolutions and decisions from different litigations in Br. 52, where Abaya has been temporarily assigned.

c.            Illegal exaction of portion of the salaries of his subordinate Servando as part and condition of his continued employment in Br. 51, where Abaya is the presiding judge.

2. Judge Abaya has denied all the accusations against him. He says that these accusations are in retaliation of Atty Austria against (1) the administrative case that Judge Abaya has earlier filed against one of his accusers, Atty. Austria, for dishonesty and grave misconduct in having forged Judge Abaya’s signature in a probation order in a criminal case which the latter presiding and (2) for the disbarment of said Atty Austria based on the same alleged offense.

I.The case is referred to Court of Appeals Justice Oscar M. Herrera for investigation, report and recommendation. Justice Herrera find Judge Abaya and Cerdenas guilty of the charges against them and thereby recommends:

a.            FORFEITURE of retirement benefits of Judge Abaya except earned leave credits;

b.            REMOVAL of Annabelle Cardenas from office as Court Stenographer;

c.             ONE-YEAR SUSPENSION from office as Attorney of Atty. Austria

Issue: WON Judge Abaya is guilty of all the accusations imputed against him?

Ruling:  

Yes,  the court find Judge Abaya guilt of  grave and serious misconduct affecting his moral characted which would have warrented his dismissal from  the service had his resignation not been accepted. The court forfeits all of his retirement benefits except earned leave credits. Annabelle Cardenas is dimissed from office with prejudice to her reappointment to the Judiciary.

The judge is the visible representation of the law and of justice. From him, the people draw their will and awareness to obey the law. For him then to transgress the highest ideals of justice and public service for personal gain is indeed a demoralizing example constituting a valid cause for disenchantment and loss of confidence in the judiciary as well as in the civil service system.

By these acts, Judge Abaya has demonstrated his unfitness and unworthiness of the honor and requisites attached to his office.