G.R. No. RTJ-08-2140. October 7, 2014.
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, vs. EXECUTIVE JUDGE OWEN B. AMOR, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, DAET, CAMARINES NORTE, Respondent.

FACTS

Acting Presiding Judge Manuel E. Contreras of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Paracale, Camarines Norte filed a Memorandum dated November 23, 1999, pursuant to a verbal instruction from then Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo, accusing respondent Executive Judge Owen B. Amor of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Daet, Camarines Norte of Grave Abuse of Authority, Grave Misconduct, and Acts Inimical to Judicial Service. The allegations included: (1) On October 1, 1999, respondent impounded the tricycle of Gervin Ojeda at the Hall of Justice after a collision with his vehicle, and later berated security guards and attempted to obstruct an investigation when a certification regarding the impounding was issued; (2) In October 1999, respondent berated Acting Presiding Judge Rosita Lalwani of the MTC of Mercedes, Camarines Norte, who sought reconsideration of her detail, and instructed her to go slow in a BP 22 case because the accused was his friend; (3) On October 27, 1999, respondent personally intervened for Atty. Freddie Venida, who was charged with indirect contempt, suggesting that Judge Contreras exploit the situation for gold, and later publicly denounced Judge Contreras as abusive; (4) Respondent was habitually absent, especially on Mondays and Fridays, causing delays; and (5) Upon becoming Executive Judge, respondent ordered Clerk of Court Atty. Perfecto Loria to submit all petitions for extra-judicial foreclosures to him for scrutiny, causing delays, and instructed Atty. Loria to demand “grease money” from newspaper publishers. Respondent failed to file his comment despite several Court directives. He filed a certificate of candidacy for the 2002 Barangay Elections, resulting in his automatic resignation from service effective June 7, 2002.

ISSUE

Whether respondent should be held administratively liable for Grave Abuse of Authority, Grave Misconduct, Gross Insubordination, and Acts Inimical to Judicial Service.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court concurred with the Office of the Court Administrator’s (OCA) findings and recommendation. Respondent’s failure to file a comment despite multiple opportunities constituted a waiver of his right to defend himself and an implied admission of the allegations. The OCA found respondent guilty of: (a) grave abuse of authority for impounding the tricycle and exerting undue influence on security guards; (b) discourtesy to a fellow judge; (c) using his office to intervene for Atty. Venida in exchange for gold; (d) habitual absenteeism; and (e) causing delays in foreclosure proceedings and soliciting “grease money.” These acts constituted grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Respondent was also guilty of gross insubordination for repeatedly ignoring the Court’s directives. His automatic resignation due to his candidacy did not divest the Court of jurisdiction to determine his administrative liability, as resignation cannot evade accountability. The totality of his acts warranted the penalty of dismissal, which carries forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from public office, and cancellation of civil service eligibility. The Court adopted the OCA’s recommendation to re-docket the case as a regular administrative matter, order forfeiture of respondent’s retirement benefits, and disqualify him from reinstatement or appointment to any public office.