A.M. No. MTJ-04-1565, August 16, 2006
Rolando Gaspar, Complainant, vs. Judge Luisito T. Adaoag, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Gerona, Tarlac, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Rolando Gaspar, the elected Barangay Chairman of Pance, Ramos, Tarlac, was the protestee in Election Case No. 02-07 before the court presided by respondent Judge Luisito T. Adaoag. While this election protest was pending, the Supreme Court, in a Resolution dated August 4, 2003, suspended Judge Adaoag pending the final outcome of criminal proceedings against him or until further orders. Despite this suspension order, respondent judge proceeded to render a decision on November 25, 2003, in the election case, ousting Gaspar and declaring the protestant as the duly elected Punong Barangay.
In his defense, Judge Adaoag claimed he acted in good faith. He argued that the Supreme Court’s suspension order used the disjunctive “or,” which he interpreted as providing two alternatives. He believed his suspension was automatically lifted upon the dismissal of the criminal complaint by the Ombudsman, or that the Court needed to issue a further order to continue his suspension. He also stated he had written a letter to the Court on October 13, 2003, seeking clarification on his status but rendered the decision before receiving any response.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Luisito T. Adaoag is administratively liable for rendering a decision while under suspension by the Supreme Court.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found that Judge Adaoag’s interpretation of the suspension order was erroneous and constituted a willful defiance of a lawful directive. The Court’s August 4, 2003 Resolution explicitly suspended him “until further orders.” The Ombudsman’s earlier dismissal of the criminal case was provisional and without prejudice to the Court’s own administrative investigation; it did not constitute a “final outcome” that would automatically terminate the suspension. The Court noted that respondent judge had even received his payslip for October 2003 bearing a notation that he was suspended, which was clear evidence of the order’s continued effect.
His defense of good faith and misapprehension was untenable. Judges are mandated to obey the orders and resolutions of the Supreme Court promptly and completely. Effective administration of justice requires strict adherence to such directives, and a judge’s misinterpretation does not excuse non-compliance. By performing a judicial function—promulgating a decision—while under a subsisting suspension order, respondent judge committed an act of defiance. Considering he was already under indefinite suspension from a prior case, the Court tempered the penalty. It adopted the Office of the Court Administrator’s recommendation and fined him Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) with a stern warning.