Baculi vs. Belen

A judge’s deliberate receipt of monetary allowances from a local government unit during a suspension without salary or benefits constitutes dishonesty, a grave offense punishable by dismissal; where the respondent has been previously dismissed and the penalty of dismissal can no longer be imposed, a fine of ₱40,000.00 under Section 11, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court may be levied against accrued leave credits, and the judge must reimburse the sums unlawfully received.

In an earlier administrative case, A.M. No. RTJ‑09‑2176, the Supreme Court suspended Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Calamba City, Laguna, for six months without salary or benefits for gross ignorance of the law. The decision was served on or about May 25, 2009; a motion for reconsideration was denied on July 15, 2009. Despite the suspension, Judge Belen received his monthly allowance from the Office of the City Treasurer of Calamba City for June and July 2009. Provincial Prosecutor Jorge D. Baculi discovered the payments, reported them to the city mayor and the Chief Justice, and filed administrative complaints.

• Prior Suspension: In A.M. No. RTJ‑09‑2176, the Supreme Court suspended Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen, presiding judge of RTC Branch 36, Calamba City, Laguna, for six months without salary or benefits for gross ignorance of the law. The decision was served on or about May 25, 2009; a subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied on July 15, 2009.

• Receipt of Allowances During Suspension: Despite the suspension, Judge Belen received his monthly allowance (honorarium) from the Office of the City Treasurer of Calamba City for the months of June and July 2009, as attested by a certification from that office. A special power of attorney authorized one Eliodoro J. Logo to collect the sums on his behalf. The total amount received was Php16,000.00.

• Complainant’s Actions: Provincial Prosecutor Jorge D. Baculi learned of the payments and wrote to the mayor of Calamba City and then Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno to report the irregularity. On October 22, 2009, he filed a verified complaint charging Judge Belen with violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, grave misconduct, disrespect and disobedience to the April 20, 2009 decision, disbarment, contempt, and conduct grossly prejudicial to the interest of the government service. A verified “New/Additional Complaint” dated October 28, 2009 was subsequently filed, attaching payroll excerpts, the special power of attorney, and copies of correspondence with the provincial governor.

• Respondent’s Defense: Judge Belen issued a general denial through a letter received by the OCA on June 17, 2010, maintaining that he had not committed any illegal, unlawful, or invalid acts and was not guilty of behavior contrary to law, orders, rules, or his judicial oath.

• OCA Findings: The OCA found that Prosecutor Baculi sufficiently proved Judge Belen’s illegal receipt of benefits. It noted that upon receiving the suspension decision, Judge Belen should have refrained from accepting the allowances; if the paying offices were unaware of the suspension, he should have voluntarily refunded the amount. The OCA recommended that Judge Belen be found guilty of dishonesty and dismissed from service with forfeiture of retirement and all other benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency.

• Prior Dismissal from Service: On June 26, 2012, the Court decided State Prosecutor Comilang v. Judge Belen, 689 Phil. 134 (2012), dismissing Judge Belen from the service with forfeiture of all benefits, save accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in the government. This dismissal was in effect when the present decision was rendered.

• General Denial: Judge Belen countered that he had not committed any illegal, unlawful, or invalid acts and was not guilty of any behavior contrary to law, orders, rules, or his oath as an RTC judge.
• Procedural Objection: He opposed submission of the case for decision on the pleadings and moved for consolidation with other pending administrative complaints filed by Prosecutor Baculi, claiming they involved similar causes of action and defenses and arose from the same incidents, and that consolidation was necessary for a judicious understanding of the matters. The motion was denied.

• Dishonesty: Whether Judge Belen’s receipt of monthly allowances from the local government during his suspension without salary or benefits constituted dishonesty warranting administrative liability.

• Dishonesty: Judge Belen’s act of receiving his monthly allowances despite notice of his suspension constituted dishonesty. Dishonesty, as defined in jurisprudence, is “a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray.” By knowingly accepting money not due to him, respondent judge defrauded the local government units of public funds. Under civil service rules, a government employee is not entitled to monetary benefits, including leave credits, during the period of suspension without pay. As a judge, respondent was expected to exhibit more than cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules, and his contravention of the Court’s explicit suspension order was aggravated by the paltry sum involved, which he should have foregone or immediately refunded rather than risk disobeying a lawful order and tarnishing the dignity of his office. Dishonesty is a grave offense that carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of retirement benefits, save accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from re-employment. However, because Judge Belen had already been dismissed from service in a prior case (State Prosecutor Comilang v. Judge Belen), the penalties of dismissal and suspension were no longer feasible. Pursuant to National Power Corporation v. Judge Adiong and the sanctions enumerated in Section 11, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, the appropriate punishment was the maximum fine of Php40,000.00, to be deducted from his accrued leave credits. In addition, Judge Belen was ordered to reimburse the local government units the Php16,000.00 he unlawfully received.

• Dishonesty defined — Dishonesty is “a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray.” This definition, drawn from Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Indar, 685 Phil. 272 (2012), was applied to characterize the judge’s intentional receipt of unauthorized allowances as fraudulent and deceitful conduct.

• Suspension without pay — effect on benefits — Under Section 56(d) of the old Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (CSC Resolution No. 991936), a government employee is not entitled to any monetary benefits, including leave credits, during the period of suspension. The rule was applied to underscore that Judge Belen had no legal right to the allowances he collected.

• Imposition of a fine when dismissal no longer possible — Where a respondent has already been dismissed from service in a separate case and the penalties of dismissal or suspension are therefore unavailable, the Court may impose the maximum fine authorized for a serious offense under Section 11, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court—₱40,000.00—to be deducted from accrued leave credits, and may additionally order restitution of amounts unlawfully received. (National Power Corporation v. Judge Adiong, 670 Phil. 21 (2011); Cañada v. Judge Suerte, 570 Phil. 25 (2008); Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Indar, 725 Phil. 164 (2014).)

• “Members of the judiciary should conduct themselves in such a manner as to be beyond reproach and suspicion, and free from any appearance of impropriety in their personal behavior, not only in the discharge of their official duties but also in their everyday life.” (Quoting Legaspi v. Judge Garrete, 312 Phil. 783, 805 (1995)) — The standard against which judicial conduct is measured.

• “Dishonesty is ‘a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray.’” (Citing Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Indar, 685 Phil. 272, 287-288 (2012)) — The definition relied upon to conclude that Judge Belen’s acts were dishonest.

• “The seriousness of respondent's offense lies in the fact that as a judge, he was ‘expected to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules and to apply them properly in all good faith.’” (Quoting Yu, Jr. v. Mupas, A.M. No. RTJ-17-2491, July 4, 2018) — Explains why judicial office aggravates the violation.

• Legaspi v. Judge Garrete, 312 Phil. 783 (1995) — Cited for the principle that judges must at all times be beyond reproach.

• Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Indar, 685 Phil. 272 (2012) — Provided the controlling definition of dishonesty.

• State Prosecutor Comilang v. Judge Belen, 689 Phil. 134 (2012) — The prior case in which Judge Belen had already been dismissed; this made dismissal unavailable in the present case.

• National Power Corporation v. Judge Adiong, 670 Phil. 21 (2011) — Precedent for imposing a fine instead of dismissal when the respondent has already been dismissed from service; applied directly to justify the ₱40,000.00 fine.

• Cañada v. Judge Suerte, 570 Phil. 25 (2008) and Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Indar, 725 Phil. 164 (2014) — Additional cases where the Court imposed the maximum fine after a prior dismissal.

• Section 56(d), Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (CSC Resolution No. 991936, September 14, 1999) and its counterpart in the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service — Mandates that a government employee is not entitled to monetary benefits, including leave credits, during the period of suspension. This provision rendered Judge Belen’s receipt of his allowance illegal.

• Section 11, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court — Enumerates sanctions for a serious charge: (1) dismissal with forfeiture of benefits and disqualification; (2) suspension of more than three but not exceeding six months; or (3) a fine of more than ₱20,000.00 but not exceeding ₱40,000.00. The third sanction was imposed in lieu of dismissal.

Peralta, C.J. (Chairperson), Caguioa, and Lopez, JJ., concur. J. Reyes, Jr., on leave.

N/A (no dissenting opinion was registered; the decision was unanimous among the participating members of the First Division).