G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-87-79 / A.C. No. 3040 December 2, 1991
Leonila A. Vistan, complainant, vs. Judge Ruben T. Nicolas, Municipal Trial Court, Pandi, Bulacan, respondent.

FACTS

The consolidated cases originated from a complaint filed by Leonila A. Vistan against Judge Ruben T. Nicolas. The complaint alleged that respondent Judge, while still a sitting member of the judiciary, actively campaigned for an elective public office. This conduct formed the basis for both an administrative case for misconduct and a disbarment case for violation of the ethical standards applicable to members of the bar and bench.
In a Decision dated September 13, 1991, the Supreme Court found Judge Nicolas guilty of gross misconduct. The Court imposed the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any government entity. The Court also ordered his disbarment. Judge Nicolas subsequently filed a Motion for Reconsideration.

ISSUE

The primary issue for reconsideration was whether the penalties of dismissal with forfeiture of benefits and disbarment should be modified.

RULING

The Supreme Court, acting on the Motion for Reconsideration, amended its prior Decision. The Court maintained its finding of gross misconduct for a judge holding himself out as a candidate for an elective office while still on the Bench, which is a clear violation of judicial ethics and decorum. However, the Court modified the penalties based on humanitarian considerations, noting that respondent Judge was due for compulsory retirement on December 17, 1991, merely a few weeks after the resolution.
In A.C. No. 3040 (the disbarment case), the prayer for disbarment was denied. Instead, the Court severely censured Atty. Nicolas for his gross misconduct. In A.M. No. MTJ-87-79 (the administrative case), the penalty of dismissal from the service with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch, agency, or instrumentality was upheld. Crucially, the Court allowed him to enjoy all accrued vacation and sick leave benefits earned during his government service, setting aside the prior order for their forfeiture. The legal logic balances the need to uphold the integrity of the judiciary by imposing a severe administrative sanction (dismissal with a re-employment ban) against the equitable mitigation of the financial penalties due to his imminent retirement, while a separate censure suffices for his ethical lapse as a lawyer.