AM 96 1 05 RTC; (January, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. 96-1-05-RTC; January 28, 2003
Executive Judge Salvador S. Abad Santos, complainant, vs. Judge Salvador P. de Guzman, Jr., respondent.
FACTS
This administrative case originated from a letter-report by Executive Judge Salvador Abad Santos concerning Judge Salvador P. de Guzman, Jr. of the Makati RTC, Branch 142. Judge de Guzman decided Civil Case No. 90-659, a case for recovery of a sum of money filed by Alexander Van Twest, and later granted execution pending appeal. The core allegation was that Judge de Guzman rendered the decision and issued the execution order while he was already on detail to the RTC of Manila and his former sala in Makati had been taken over by another judge. The Court of Appeals subsequently annulled the order of execution pending appeal, finding it issued with grave abuse of discretion, a ruling affirmed by the Supreme Court. In the interim, Judge de Guzman compulsorily retired.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge de Guzman, Jr. is administratively liable for his actions in deciding the case and ordering execution pending appeal despite being detailed to another court, and if so, whether his retirement renders the case moot.
RULING
The Supreme Court found Judge de Guzman administratively liable. First, the Court ruled that the respondent’s retirement did not moot the administrative case. Jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost by the official’s separation from service, as the Court retains the power to pronounce on the respondent’s innocence or guilt to either vindicate his name or impose the proper censure.
On the merits, the Court found improper conduct. While the Court did not definitively rule on the propriety of deciding the case after his detail, it emphasized that the grant of execution pending appeal was a clear error. The Court of Appeals had correctly annulled it for lack of the required “good reasons” under the Rules. The Supreme Court noted the appellate court’s findings: there was no extreme urgency, the prevailing party had been missing for years, and other unresolved issues remained, such as the bank’s liability. The requirement of a bond by the respondent judge could not substitute for the absence of compelling reasons for immediate execution. Consequently, for this improper conduct, the Court imposed a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00).