A.M. No. RTJ-07-2063, RTJ-07-2064, RTJ-07-2066. August 23, 2022.
Republic of the Philippines, Commissioner of Customs, and Charles T. Burns, Jr., Complainants, vs. Judge Ramon S. Caguioa, Respondent.

FACTS

Three consolidated administrative complaints were filed against Judge Ramon S. Caguioa. In A.M. No. RTJ-07-2063, the Republic, through the OSG, charged him with gross ignorance of the law, manifest partiality, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for issuing a writ of preliminary injunction that enjoined the implementation of a tax law (R.A. No. 9334) in a declaratory relief case. In A.M. No. RTJ-07-2064, the Commissioner of Customs similarly charged him for issuing an injunction against a Customs Personnel Order involving the reassignment of a district collector. In A.M. No. RTJ-07-2066, a private complainant charged him with grave misconduct for issuing a writ of execution that placed the adverse party in possession of disputed properties.
In a Decision dated June 26, 2009, the Court found Judge Caguioa guilty. For the misconduct in A.M. No. RTJ-07-2066, he was suspended for three months. For gross ignorance of the law and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service in the two other cases, he was dismissed from service with forfeiture of retirement benefits. His motion for reconsideration was denied with finality. Subsequently, he filed several pleadings, including a 2010 letter pleading for judicial clemency and reinstatement, which were denied. Over a decade later, in 2021, he filed a formal Petition for Judicial Clemency.

ISSUE

Whether judicial clemency should be granted to former Judge Ramon S. Caguioa, thereby reinstating him to the judiciary, crediting his dismissal period as suspension, and restoring his retirement benefits.

RULING

The Court DENIED the petition for judicial clemency. Judicial clemency is an act of mercy that must be cautiously granted, requiring the confluence of several guiding principles: (1) proof of remorse and reformation; (2) a showing of promise and potential for public service; (3) length of time since the offense and dismissal (at least five years); (4) the age of the petitioner; (5) recognition by the Court of the petitioner’s contributions; (6) assurance of non-repetition of the offense; and (7) the petitioner’s current reputation in the community. The Court found that Judge Caguioa failed to satisfy these stringent requirements.
While he expressed remorse and claimed reformation through private law practice and pro bono work, the Court found his proofs insufficient. His actions demonstrated a profound disregard for settled legal principles, particularly in issuing injunctions against the implementation of a national tax law and an internal administrative order, which constituted gross ignorance of the law—a serious offense that eroded public confidence in the judiciary. The passage of time alone does not merit clemency. The Court emphasized that the grant of clemency must not undermine the integrity of the judicial system or diminish the seriousness of the misconduct. His dismissal was a necessary consequence of acts prejudicial to the administration of justice. Restoring him would send a wrong signal and trivialize the gravity of his offenses. Therefore, the penalty of dismissal with forfeiture of benefits, except accrued leave credits, stands.