G.R. No.: A.M. No. 93-7-428-MTC October 13, 1993
Case Parties: RE: INQUIRY ON THE APPOINTMENT OF JUDGE ENRIQUE A. CUBE

FACTS

1. Judge Enrique A. Cube was appointed Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 22, Manila, on May 31, 1993.
2. The Judicial and Bar Council later received information that he had previously been dismissed as Assistant Fiscal of Pasay City.
3. Records from the Department of Justice showed that an administrative case for gross misconduct and dereliction of duty was filed against Fiscal Enrique A. Cube by Secretary of Justice Vicente Abad Santos for failure to prosecute a criminal case, leading to its dismissal with prejudice. He was found guilty, and on September 27, 1972, the President signed Administrative Order No. 341 removing him from office.
4. In his 1992 application for a judicial appointment, Cube filled out a Personal Data Sheet. In response to Question No. 25, which asked: “Have you ever been retired, dismissed, forced to resign from any employment for reason other than lack of funds or dropped from the rolls?” he answered: “Optional under RA 1145 effective 1996.”
5. Republic Act No. 1145 is the law creating the Philippine Coconut Administration and does not pertain to retirement. Cube’s Service Record did not indicate employment with this agency.
6. When required to comment, Judge Cube argued that his 1972 removal was “without prejudice,” meaning he remained qualified for government service, as evidenced by his subsequent appointments to other government positions and his optional retirement. He claimed he answered the questions in good faith, believing that since he had optionally retired and had no pending cases, the terms “dismissed or forced to resign” were not applicable to him.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Enrique A. Cube committed dishonesty by concealing his prior dismissal from the public service in his application to the Judiciary, rendering him unfit for judicial office.

RULING

The Supreme Court EN BANC ruled against Judge Cube.
1. The Court found his explanation to be a “clever evasion” that failed to satisfactorily justify his non-disclosure of his dismissal for gross misconduct as an Assistant Fiscal. He deliberately suppressed this relevant fact.
2. The Court held that no amount of circumlocution could alter the fact that he was dismissed from public service and purposely did not disclose this in his bio-data form, misleading the Judicial and Bar Council into believing he had a clean record.
3. The circumstance that his dismissal was “without prejudice” and his subsequent appointments to other positions were deemed immaterial. The crucial point was his concealment of the removal order.
4. Citing Court Administrator vs. Estacion (181 SCRA 33), the Court emphasized that prospective judicial appointees must apprise the appointing authority of every matter bearing on their fitness, including circumstances reflecting on integrity and probity. Concealment of such vital facts is proof of lack of qualifications.
5. By concealing his previous dismissal, Judge Cube committed an act of dishonesty that rendered him unfit for appointment to and retention in the Judiciary.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
Judge Enrique A. Cube of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila is DISMISSED with prejudice to his reappointment to any position in the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and with forfeiture of all retirement benefits. This decision is immediately executory.