G.R. No. MTJ-02-1395. February 19, 2002
Baikong Akang Camsa, complainant, vs. Judge Aurelio D. Rendon, Municipal Trial Court, Isulan, Sultan Kudarat, and Sheriff Edwin G. Cabug, Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Isulan, Sultan Kudarat, respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Baikong Akang Camsa charged Judge Aurelio D. Rendon with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and gross ignorance of the law, and Sheriff Edwin Cabug with gross ignorance of the law and violation of ethical standards. The charges stemmed from the execution of a judgment in a civil case for ejectment and damages decided in favor of Philippine Evangelical Enterprises. Complainant alleged that after the decision became final, respondent judge issued an alias writ of execution motu proprio which included an order of demolition not found in the original dispositive portion. She further accused the judge of demanding P60,000.00 for a favorable decision, of which she gave P30,000.00. Against the sheriff, she claimed the use of extraordinary force during enforcement.
Respondent judge denied the allegations, explaining the alias writ was issued upon motion and conformed to the decision, and he disavowed any monetary demand. Respondent sheriff maintained enforcement was standard and that he sought police assistance only because complainant refused to vacate the property. During the pendency of the administrative case, respondent judge died on February 1, 2001, prompting a request from his daughter for the release of his retirement benefits.

ISSUE

Whether the administrative case against the deceased judge should proceed and be resolved, and whether the case against the sheriff should continue.

RULING

The administrative case against Judge Aurelio D. Rendon is dismissed due to his death. The Court’s legal logic is anchored on fundamental due process. At the time of his death, no formal investigation had been conducted, and the factual issues raised in the complaint remained unresolved and contested. To proceed with an investigation where the respondent judge can no longer defend himself would constitute a denial of his right to be heard. The Court, citing precedents like Hermosa vs. Paraiso and Apiag vs. Judge Cantero, consistently holds that the death of a respondent pending administrative proceedings necessitates the dismissal of the case, as no disciplinary action can be imposed posthumously without a prior completed investigation and finding of liability. Consequently, the case against him is deemed closed and terminated.
Regarding the retirement benefits, the Court notes that a separate resolution had already ordered the release of his benefits but withheld P20,000.00 pending the outcome of this and another administrative matter. Since this case is now dismissed, the withheld amount pertains only to the other pending case. In contrast, the administrative complaint against Sheriff Edwin Cabug survives. As he is alive and the allegations against him require factual determination, the case is referred to Executive Judge German M. Malcampo for a formal investigation, report, and recommendation.