A.M. No. 2499-CCC (OCA-101) January 30, 1982
Raymundo G. Garcia, complainant, vs. Judge Amante Q. Alconcel of the Circuit Criminal Court of Manila, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Raymundo G. Garcia, the former executive dean of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP), filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Amante Q. Alconcel. The complaint stemmed from the Judge’s decision acquitting Isabelo T. Crisostomo, the former PUP President, in three criminal cases for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. In the dispositive portion of his decision, Judge Alconcel ordered Crisostomo’s reinstatement to his former position and the payment of back salaries and benefits accrued during his suspension, pursuant to Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 . Garcia alleged that this order violated the said law, the Constitution (as President Marcos had already appointed a permanent PUP President), and the Revised Penal Code, as the judgment was allegedly unjust and actuated by malice.
The complaint also implicated Atty. Benjamin M. Subida, Garcia’s counsel, for using offensive and disrespectful language in a reply to the Judge’s comment. Subida’s pleadings contained vulgar expressions deriding the respondent Judge and the judicial process. The Court required Subida to comment on why he should not be disciplined for contempt, but he failed to comply with the resolution.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether Judge Amante Q. Alconcel committed an administrative offense in his decision ordering the reinstatement and payment of back salaries to an acquitted accused. A secondary issue concerns the propriety of the conduct of Atty. Benjamin M. Subida.

RULING

The Court dismissed the administrative charges against Judge Alconcel for lack of merit. The legal logic is clear: the Judge’s order for reinstatement and payment of back salaries was a direct and mandatory consequence of Crisostomo’s acquittal under Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 . The law explicitly provides that an acquitted accused “shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which he failed to receive during suspension, unless in the meantime administrative proceedings have been filed against him.” Judge Alconcel correctly applied this provision. Furthermore, he had already clarified in a subsequent order that the entitlement was conditional and denied a motion for execution because administrative proceedings were pending and a new appointee was in place, showing judicial prudence. The charge of rendering an unjust judgment was baseless, as errors, if any, are not administrative liabilities unless proven to be deliberate and in bad faith, which was not established.
Regarding Atty. Subida, the Court found him guilty of contempt and severely censured him. A lawyer’s duty is to uphold the dignity of the courts and maintain respect for judicial officers. Subida’s use of offensive, vulgar, and insolent language in his pleadings constituted gross misconduct and a breach of judicial decorum, degrading the administration of justice. His failure to comply with the Court’s directive to comment aggravated his contempt. The offensive portions of his reply were ordered stricken from the record.