G.R. No. A.M. No. R-254-MTJ and 88-1-2807-MCTC May 9, 1988
THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs. HON. RICARDO M. MAGTIBAY, respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case consolidates complaints against respondent Ricardo Magtibay. Before his judicial appointment, he was charged as a lawyer in Administrative Case No. 2489 for gross negligence, misappropriation of client funds, and charging excessive fees. The Court’s First Division, by Resolution dated August 1, 1984, suspended him from the practice of law and referred the case to the Solicitor General for investigation. He was subsequently appointed Judge of the MCTC of Maragondon and Ternate, Cavite, in December 1983. In a Resolution dated February 5, 1985, the Court En Banc ruled that his suspension from the practice of law also suspended him from his judicial office, effective immediately. The Court also directed the Court Administrator to file an administrative case against him for conduct unbecoming a judge, citing his failure to report his suspension and a misrepresentation in his Personal Data Sheet.
Despite the 1985 suspension order, reports indicated Judge Magtibay continued to perform judicial functions. Following the 1987 judicial reorganization, he was retained but had not submitted his new oath. He nevertheless assumed his post and even decided cases in his regular sala and in another MCTC where he was inadvertently designated. The Office of the Court Administrator issued a directive on June 16, 1987, ordering him to desist, which he ignored, deciding multiple cases thereafter. This led to a February 2, 1988 Resolution ordering his immediate suspension and requiring him to show cause.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Ricardo M. Magtibay should be held administratively liable for gross misconduct.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of gross misconduct and dismissed him from service. The legal logic is anchored on the fundamental standards of integrity, candor, and obedience required of a member of the judiciary. First, his act of concealing the pending administrative case in his Personal Data Sheet by answering “N.A.” to the question of whether he had ever been administratively charged constituted a deliberate misrepresentation and a glaring lack of candor toward the Court. This dishonesty alone betrays a character flaw unfit for judicial office.
Second, and more egregiously, his willful and continued defiance of the Court’s lawful orders demonstrated gross misconduct. The Court En Banc’s 1985 Resolution clearly suspended him from office. His subsequent reassumption of duties and continued performance of judicial functions after the 1987 reorganization, and even after receiving the Court Administrator’s specific directive to desist in June 1987, constituted a direct contempt of the Supreme Court’s authority. His claimed “good faith” and “grievous mental lapse” were rejected as flimsy excuses. Such persistent disobedience is tantamount to usurpation of authority and shows a blatant disrespect for the judicial system he was sworn to uphold. This pattern of deceit and defiance rendered him totally unfit to remain a judge. The dismissal is without prejudice to the resolution of the pending disbarment case.