A.M. No. 265-MJ. January 22, 1988. LEONARDO B. BABATIO, Municipal Mayor, Motiong, Samar, complainant, vs. JOSE Z. TAN, former Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge of Motiong-Jiabong-San Jose de Buan, Samar, respondent.
FACTS

Respondent Judge Jose Z. Tan was ordered dismissed from service on November 26, 1981, for serious misconduct, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and disqualification from future government employment. The penalty was based on a recommendation from then Deputy Court Administrator Arturo Buena, who disagreed with the investigating judge’s suggestion of a mere reprimand. Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration. Subsequently, Deputy Court Administrator Buena re-studied the case and submitted a new recommendation to the Supreme Court to modify the dismissal to a lesser penalty. An internal Court resolution dated January 13, 1983, noted this recommendation but stated that “no vote was taken thereon for lack of material time.” This recommendation was then overlooked, and the motion for reconsideration was denied on May 31, 1983. Respondent later filed motions for clemency and, crucially, a motion seeking resolution on the Court Administrator’s unacted-upon recommendation for a modified penalty.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court could reconsider and modify the penalty of dismissal imposed on respondent judge, given the unresolved recommendation for a lesser penalty and a re-evaluation of the evidence.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court granted the motion and modified the penalty. The Court held that while the 1981 decision appeared final, it was not so factually and legally because a crucial incident—the Court Administrator’s recommendation for a lesser penalty—was never formally resolved, as confirmed by the 1983 internal resolution. This oversight kept the case within the Court’s constitutional power of supervision over court personnel and its inherent power to amend its orders for justice.
Upon re-evaluation, the Court found the charges, initiated by the Municipal Mayor, were politically motivated. The acts complained of, including alleged partisan political activity and making derogatory remarks about local officials, did not have a direct relation to the performance of judicial duties as required to constitute “serious misconduct.” Serious misconduct implies a wrongful intention and a direct relation to official duties, not mere errors or personal conflicts. The evidence did not establish that the judge’s acts were corrupt or in persistent disregard of legal rules in his judicial functions. Consequently, the extreme penalty of dismissal was not justified. The penalty was modified to suspension from November 26, 1981, until January 25, 1983, the date his successor was appointed.