AM RTJ 17 2486 CAguioa (Digest)

A.M. No. RTJ-17-2486, September 8, 2020
Re: Investigation Report on the Alleged Extortion Activities of Presiding Judge Godofredo B. Abul, Jr., Branch 4, Regional Trial Court, Butuan City, Agusan Del Norte

FACTS

An administrative complaint was filed against Judge Godofredo B. Abul, Jr. for alleged extortion from detainees in exchange for favorable judicial action. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) investigated and found him liable for grave misconduct, recommending a fine of P500,000.00 to be deducted from his retirement gratuity. While the case was pending review by the Supreme Court, Judge Abul was murdered. In a September 3, 2019 Decision, the Court, despite his death, found him administratively liable and ordered the forfeiture of all his retirement and allied benefits, except accrued leaves. Judge Abul’s wife, herself a victim of the shooting and now without income, pleaded for the release of his benefits to support the family and fund their son’s medical education. A Motion for Reconsideration was subsequently filed.

ISSUE

Whether the death of a respondent in an administrative case prior to its final resolution mandates the ipso facto dismissal of the case.

RULING

The Court, in the instant Resolution, granted the Motion for Reconsideration and dismissed the administrative case against the late Judge Abul. The majority opinion, penned by Justice Hernando, established a new jurisprudential rule that the death of a respondent before final resolution necessitates dismissal. This ruling is anchored on the constitutional rights to due process and the presumption of innocence, which the majority extends to administrative proceedings. The logic posits that since an accused in a criminal case is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, a respondent in an administrative case, which requires only substantial evidence, must enjoy the same presumption. Therefore, death before final judgment precludes a finding of guilt, warranting dismissal.
Justice Caguioa, in his Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, concurs with the dismissal of the case against Judge Abul but dissents from the new general rule established by the majority. He argues that the death of a respondent should not automatically cause dismissal, as jurisdiction, once acquired, continues until final resolution. He contends that the dismissal of a criminal case upon the death of the accused is rooted in the principle of personal criminal liability, not the presumption of innocence. For administrative cases, he analogizes the situation to civil proceedings, where the death of a party does not automatically extinguish the action, especially when the objective is to preserve the integrity of public service. He submits that the general rule of non-dismissal should prevail to allow the Court to clear its name of unfit personnel, but he agrees with the dismissal in this specific instance based on exceptional humanitarian considerations for Judge Abul’s surviving family.