A.M. No. RTJ-17-2486, September 8, 2020
RE: INVESTIGATION REPORT ON THE ALLEGED EXTORTION ACTIVITIES OF PRESIDING JUDGE GODOFREDO B. ABUL, JR.

FACTS

This administrative case involves a Motion for Reconsideration filed by Bernardita Abul, the surviving spouse of the late Judge Godofredo B. Abul, Jr. Judge Abul was the subject of an investigation for alleged extortion activities. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found him guilty of violating Canons 2, 3, and 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, amounting to grave misconduct. However, Judge Abul passed away on August 5, 2017, prior to the Court’s Decision dated September 3, 2019, which adopted the OCA’s findings. The Court, applying precedent, ruled that his death did not oust it of jurisdiction and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, excluding accrued leaves. In her Motion, Mrs. Abul argues that the administrative case should be dismissed due to her husband’s death, or, alternatively, that his benefits should not be forfeited for humanitarian reasons, suggesting instead a fine.

ISSUE

Whether the death of Judge Abul during the pendency of his administrative case warrants its dismissal or a modification of the penalty of forfeiture of retirement benefits.

RULING

The Motion for Reconsideration is denied. The Court, through Justice Carandang’s dissenting opinion, upholds the ruling that death does not automatically terminate administrative proceedings or absolve the respondent of liability. Jurisprudence establishes that the Court retains jurisdiction over an administrative case even if the respondent dies during its pendency, provided the investigation was substantially completed and the respondent was afforded due process. The primary objective is to preserve the integrity of the judiciary, a public interest that transcends the individual’s death. The Court recognizes only limited exceptions for dismissal: (1) a violation of the right to due process, (2) the presence of exceptional equitable or humanitarian circumstances, and (3) the nature of the penalty. Here, an investigation was concluded before Judge Abul’s demise, and he was given the opportunity to be heard, satisfying due process. Furthermore, no compelling humanitarian grounds exist to justify clemency, especially considering that Judge Abul had been previously sanctioned and warned by the Court in a prior case for similar lapses in judicial conduct. The gravity of the offense of grave misconduct, committed by a judge previously reprimanded, justifies the imposed penalty of dismissal and forfeiture of benefits to uphold the exacting standards of the judiciary.