G.R. No. A.M. Nos. 543-MC and 1525-MJ December 19, 1981
ANGELA L. DAILAY-PAPA, complainant, vs. MUNICIPAL JUDGE BEN ALMORA, Mankayan, Benguet, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Angela L. Dailay-Papa was the permanently appointed Clerk of Court of the Municipal Court of Mankayan, Benguet, under respondent Judge Ben Almora. In August 1976, Judge Almora issued a memorandum requiring her to explain alleged repeated absences and procedural lapses. Dissatisfied with her written explanation, Judge Almora summarily dismissed her effective August 31, 1976, claiming authority under Presidential Decree No. 6. Dailay-Papa protested, asserting a violation of due process and requesting a formal investigation, which was ignored. She subsequently applied for a three-month leave to take the bar exams, which Judge Almora opposed and used to justify her separation.
Upon returning from her approved leave in December 1976, Dailay-Papa sought to resume her duties. Judge Almora refused, insisting her services had been terminated. When she retrieved her leave application from the court files to submit it directly to the Supreme Court, Judge Almora, in an extraordinary abuse of judicial power, issued a warrant for her arrest to compel the return of the document. She was arrested by a policeman on December 7, 1976, and publicly humiliated in his office before being released.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether Judge Almora committed grave abuse of authority in summarily dismissing Clerk of Court Dailay-Papa and in causing her arrest to retrieve an administrative document.

RULING

Yes, Judge Almora committed grave abuse of authority on both counts. The Supreme Court, adopting the findings of the investigating judge and the Court Administrator, ruled that Judge Almora had no power to dismiss the complainant. Under Section 6, Article X of the 1973 Constitution and pertinent presidential decrees, the exclusive authority to discipline and remove judiciary personnel, including clerks of court, is vested in the Supreme Court. Judge Almora’s unilateral dismissal was therefore void and a usurpation of this constitutional prerogative. Furthermore, his act of issuing a warrant of arrest to compel the return of a leave application constitutes a gross misuse of judicial power. A warrant of arrest is a criminal process to be issued only upon a finding of probable cause for a specific offense, not as a tool for administrative coercion or to settle a personal grievance. This act was utterly unjustified and brought the administration of justice into disrepute.
Considering his over thirty-five years of service and his recent retirement, the Court imposed a fine equivalent to two months of his salary, to be deducted from his retirement benefits, as a penalty for these two separate acts of grave abuse. The concurring opinions of Justices Teehankee and Makasiar advocated for a heavier penalty of a one-year salary fine, highlighting the gravity of the misconduct.