A.M. No. P-06-2115. February 22, 2007. ANGELES MANGUBAT, Complainant, vs. JOEL FRANCIS C. CAMINO, Sheriff III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Island Garden City of Samal, Respondent.
FACTS

The Court previously found respondent Sheriff Joel Francis C. Camino guilty of neglect of duty and suspended him for two months in a Resolution dated February 23, 2006, which he received on March 20, 2006. Instead of complying, he filed a motion for reconsideration and continued reporting for work. His motion was denied in a Resolution dated June 7, 2006, received on July 20, 2006, upon which he finally ceased working and served his suspension from July 20 to September 20, 2006. Respondent requested the release of his salaries and allowances from March 2006 onward, arguing financial hardship for his family. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) noted his defiance, as administrative penalties are immediately executory, and he should have stopped working upon receiving the initial suspension order.

ISSUE

Whether respondent is entitled to the payment of his salaries and benefits for the periods he worked or was suspended, and what administrative penalty is appropriate for his defiance of the Court’s suspension order.

RULING

The Court partially granted respondent’s request but imposed a fine for his defiance. Legally, administrative penalties are immediately executory and not stayed by a motion for reconsideration. Thus, respondent’s suspension period was correctly from March 20 to April 20, 2006, making him ineligible for pay during that time. However, he became entitled to salaries for work actually performed from April 21 to July 19, 2006. For the period from July 20 to September 20, 2006, when he erroneously served his suspension, he is considered on leave without pay. While defiance of Court orders warrants severe penalties like dismissal, the Court mitigated the penalty based on humanitarian considerations, his length of service, and to avoid nullifying his official acts during the period, which would disrupt judicial proceedings. Instead of dismissal or a fine equivalent to his withheld salaries, the Court imposed a fine of ₱5,000.00, deductible from his released back salaries, and issued a stern warning. The ruling emphasizes the duty of judiciary personnel to obey Supreme Court directives promptly and without question.