G.R. No. RTJ-16-2424, April 3, 2024
Office of the Court Administrator, Petitioner, vs. Hon. Globert J. Justalero, Presiding Judge, Branch 32, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City, and the Designated Assisting Judge of Branch 66, RTC of Barotac Viejo, Iloilo, Respondent.

FACTS

This is an administrative case against Judge Globert J. Justalero. In a Decision dated January 18, 2023, the Supreme Court found him guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedure and gross misconduct. The infractions included: (1) resolving nullity of marriage cases in violation of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (e.g., ruling without jurisdiction, disregarding the OSG’s motions, granting motions for publication after actual publication dates, and prematurely ordering collusion investigations); (2) solemnizing marriages not raffled to his sala in violation of A.M. No. 08-7-429-RTC and A.O. No. 12-2010; and (3) notarizing affidavits of cohabitation for parties whose marriages he would also solemnize, violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Considering his lack of prior administrative offenses and heavy caseload, the Court imposed a penalty of suspension from office without pay for one year. Judge Justalero was preventively suspended from September 30, 2016, until his reinstatement. He subsequently filed letters, treated as a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, seeking to have his preventive suspension period credited against his one-year penalty and to be awarded back salaries and benefits, citing equity and precedents like Re: Judge Iturralde and Office of the Court Administrator v. Floro, Jr.

ISSUE

1. Whether the period of Judge Justalero’s preventive suspension should be considered as part of the service of his one-year suspension penalty.
2. Whether Judge Justalero is entitled to back salaries, allowances, and other economic benefits for the period of his preventive suspension.

RULING

1. On the service of the penalty: The Supreme Court granted Judge Justalero’s request. The one-year suspension penalty imposed in the January 18, 2023 Decision is deemed served. The Court noted he had been under preventive suspension from September 30, 2016, until his reinstatement—a period exceeding seven years. While preventive suspension is distinct from and not part of a penalty under the law, the Court, in this instance, considered the extraordinarily long period of preventive suspension in deeming the one-year penalty served.
2. On the claim for back salaries and benefits: The Supreme Court denied Judge Justalero’s claim for back salaries, allowances, and other economic benefits for the period of his preventive suspension. The Court clarified that under the prevailing rules (Rule 140, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC), a respondent is entitled to back salaries and benefits only if they are fully exonerated from any administrative liability. Since Judge Justalero was found guilty and meted a penalty, he is not entitled to such back pay. The precedents he cited (Iturralde and Floro) were distinguished, as they involved different factual and legal circumstances not applicable to his case where guilt was established.