G.R. No. RTJ-04-1857. July 29, 2005
Gabriel De La Paz vs. Judge Santos B. Adiong

FACTS

Judge Santos B. Adiong was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law in a prior administrative case, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1863, and was suspended for six months without salary and benefits. Subsequently, in the present case, he was again found guilty of gross ignorance of the law and abuse of authority, with an identical penalty of six months suspension without pay. Having already served the suspension in the first case, Judge Adiong filed an Urgent Motion for Clarification, questioning whether the two six-month suspension penalties should be served simultaneously or successively.
In the alternative, he prayed for the modification of the second penalty to a fine, citing several grounds. These included his admission of procedural lapses, 38 years of judicial service, potential court clogging due to his absence, his status as a family breadwinner with six children, his suffering from prostate cancer and severe gout, the tragic death of his wife from a past attack by a losing litigant, and his intention to file for optional retirement. He also invoked a precedent, Admin. Case No. 532-MJ, where a six-month suspension was reconsidered and converted to a fine.

ISSUE

Should the two separate six-month suspension penalties be served successively or simultaneously, and should the second penalty be modified to a fine?

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the penalties must be served successively, not simultaneously. The legal logic is grounded in the principle that administrative penalties arising from distinct causes of action are separate liabilities. Since the two cases involved different acts of misconduct adjudicated in separate proceedings, the sanctions are cumulative. The Court explicitly cited an en banc Resolution dated February 25, 1992, which established that in cases of two or more suspensions, they shall be served successively by the erring official.
Regarding the plea for modification to a fine, the Court denied it for lack of merit. It distinguished the cited precedent, Admin. Case No. 532-MJ. In that case, the conversion to a fine was a unique equitable remedy because the respondent judge’s salary had already been withheld for six months during the pendency of his motion for reconsideration, effectively satisfying the monetary aspect of the penalty before the motion was denied. The circumstances in Judge Adiong’s case are materially different; no similar satisfaction of the penalty had occurred. While the Court acknowledged his personal and health difficulties, these mitigating factors were insufficient to warrant a reduction or conversion of the penalty, as the infractions involved gross ignorance of the law and abuse of authority, which are serious offenses. Accordingly, Judge Adiong was ordered to serve the two six-month suspensions successively.