G.R. No.: A.M. No. RTJ-11-2286 (formerly OCA IPI No. 09-3291-RTJ)
Date: February 12, 2020

Case Parties: Provincial Prosecutor Jorge D. Baculi, Complainant, v. Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen, Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Calamba City, Laguna, Respondent.

FACTS

Provincial Prosecutor Jorge D. Baculi filed administrative complaints against Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen for various offenses, including grave misconduct and conduct grossly prejudicial to the service. The core allegation was that Judge Belen, after being suspended by the Supreme Court for six months without salary or benefits in a prior administrative case (A.M. No. RTJ-09-2176), illegally received his monthly honorarium/allowance from the Office of the City Treasurer of Calamba City for June and July 2009. The Supreme Court’s suspension decision was served on or about May 25, 2009, and a motion for reconsideration was denied on July 15, 2009. Complainant Baculi presented certifications and payroll documents as evidence of the receipt of allowances totaling Php16,000.00. He argued this was illegal, fraudulent, and contrary to the “no work, no pay” principle, constituting disobedience to the Court’s lawful order. Judge Belen, in his comment, issued a general denial of all allegations. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found the complaint meritorious, concluding that Judge Belen, upon receiving the suspension order, should have refrained from accepting the allowances or voluntarily refunded them, and his failure to do so constituted dishonesty.

ISSUE

Is respondent judge administratively liable for receiving allowances from the local government during the period of his suspension?

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen guilty of dishonesty for knowingly receiving monetary allowances from local government units during his suspension period, in clear contravention of the Court’s decision suspending him without salary or benefits. His act constituted defrauding the LGUs of public funds. Dishonesty is a grave offense punishable by dismissal. However, the Court noted that Judge Belen had already been dismissed from service with forfeiture of benefits in a separate prior case (State Prosecutor Comilang v. Judge Belen). Following precedent (National Power Corporation v. Judge Adiong), where dismissal was no longer possible, the Court imposed the alternative penalty for a serious offense under Section 11, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. Judge Belen was ordered to pay a fine of Forty Thousand Pesos (Php40,000.00), to be deducted from his accrued leave credits, and to reimburse the concerned LGUs the amount of Sixteen Thousand Pesos (Php16,000.00) which he unlawfully received.