AM 91; (October 1975) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-91 October 30, 1975
Judge Manuel D. Ballelos, complainant, vs. Rodolfo A. Rejuso, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Judge Manuel D. Ballelos of the Municipal Court of Monreal, Masbate, filed administrative charges against his clerk-stenographer, respondent Rodolfo A. Rejuso, on August 10, 1972. This action occurred three days after respondent complied with a subpoena duces tecum from the Masbate Court of First Instance, submitting court records for a criminal case where the judge himself was the accused. The judge personally served the complaint, set an investigation for August 21, 1972, and rejected respondent’s request for postponement and for the judge to inhibit himself.
Instead of proceeding with a proper investigation, complainant submitted unilateral findings of guilt to the Department of Justice, recommending dismissal. The Department referred the case to the CFI Executive Judge for investigation by the clerk of court. Before the scheduled hearing, complainant informed the investigator that he had already summarily dismissed respondent on October 23, 1972, citing the charges, alleged refusal to resign per a Letter of Instruction, and for “being notoriously undesirable.” Complainant then failed to appear at the subsequent investigation.
ISSUE
Whether Judge Ballelos acted with grave abuse of authority in summarily dismissing respondent Rejuso and in filing administrative charges against him.
RULING
The Supreme Court found the judge’s actions to be vindictive, arbitrary, and a gross abuse of power. The administrative charges were filed in retaliation for respondent’s lawful compliance with a subpoena in the criminal case against the judge. The summary dismissal was an unwarranted usurpation of the disciplinary authority vested in the Department of Justice, not in an individual judge. The Court approved the investigating clerk of court’s report, which found the charges unmeritorious.
The Court noted that disciplinary action against the judge was rendered moot by the acceptance of his resignation. Regarding respondent, his summary dismissal, though carried out, was declared void for lack of authority. The Court ordered his immediate reinstatement to his former position, subject only to standard physical fitness requirements, setting aside the unlawful dismissal.