A.M. No. RTJ-00-1530; February 4, 2002
DR. EDGARDO ALDAY, MERCEDES FAVIS, MARNA VILLAFUERTE, and CHRISTOPHER GARCIA, complainants, vs. JUDGE ESCOLASTICO U. CRUZ, JR., Regional Trial Court, Makati City, Branch 58, respondent.

FACTS

This is a follow-up administrative case arising from a prior decision where respondent Judge Escolastico U. Cruz, Jr. was suspended for one year and fined for conduct grossly prejudicial to the service after threatening complainants with a gun during a traffic altercation. The Court’s March 14, 2001 decision, received by the judge on March 22, 2001, ordered the suspension to be “immediately executory.” Despite this clear directive, it was reported by Executive Judge Leticia P. Morales that Judge Cruz continued to discharge his judicial duties and functions after the date he received notice. Consequently, the Court voided all orders and decisions he issued during the suspension period and required him to show cause why he should not be penalized for disobedience.
In his explanation, Judge Cruz argued he believed he did not have to serve the suspension immediately, as doing so would render the decision final and foreclose further recourse, and that it might constitute abandonment of his office. He claimed he continued working to prevent his docket from reaching unmanageable limits and that he relinquished his office only after his motion for reconsideration was denied. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) investigated and recommended dismissal from service.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Escolastico U. Cruz, Jr. is guilty of grave misconduct for his deliberate refusal to obey the Supreme Court’s immediately executory suspension order.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Judge Cruz guilty of grave misconduct and ordered his dismissal from service. The Court emphasized that administrative penalties, such as suspension, are immediately executory upon receipt of the decision or resolution imposing them. The filing of a motion for reconsideration does not stay the execution of the order. The Court’s prior ruling in Development Bank of the Philippines v. Judge Angel S. Malaya explicitly settled this principle. As a judge, respondent is held to a high standard of legal knowledge and is expected to be familiar with such jurisprudence. His claimed “honest misappreciation” of the legal import of the decretal clause is unacceptable. By willfully disregarding the directive, he demonstrated defiance of the Court’s authority and undermined the administration of justice. Such deliberate disobedience constitutes grave misconduct, which under Civil Service rules warrants dismissal even for a first offense. The penalty of dismissal is immediately executory, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits (except accrued leaves) and disqualification from reemployment in any government agency. The Court also ordered the OCA to review and nullify all judicial actions he undertook during his unauthorized tenure.