G.R. No. A.M. No. RTJ-96-1336. June 2, 2020.
JOCELYN C. TALENS-DABON, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE HERMIN E. ARCEO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 43, SAN FERNANDO, PAMPANGA, RESPONDENT. RE: PETITION FOR PAYMENT OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS.

FACTS

This is a separate opinion in an administrative matter concerning a petition for the release of retirement benefits by the dismissed respondent, Judge Hermin E. Arceo. The ponencia (main decision) addressed this petition. The separate opinion references prior cases where the Court allowed the release of 25% of retirement benefits to administratively dismissed judges, such as Sabitsana, Jr. v. Judge Villamor, Atty. Meris v. Ofilada, and In Re: An Undated Letter… of Judge Julian C. Ocampo III. It also discusses Junio v. Judge Rivera, Jr., where judicial clemency was granted, lifting a ban from public service and authorizing the receipt of monetary benefits due to long government service, based on factors including 35 years of service, it being a first offense, sincere repentance, and deteriorating health. Respondent Judge Arceo was previously dismissed from service by a Court Resolution dated July 25, 1996, for acts related to sexual harassment, with the Court emphasizing the need for judges to possess the highest integrity. The Court later granted him judicial clemency in a November 20, 2012 Resolution, restoring his entitlement to accrued leave benefits and allowing his return to government service. He now seeks the release of 25% of his retirement benefits.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Hermin E. Arceo should be granted further judicial clemency in the form of the release of 25% of his retirement benefits.

RULING

The separate opinion votes to DENY respondent’s claim for the release of 25% of his retirement benefits. The opinion concurs with the ponencia’s denial. It reasons that the factual circumstances of the cited cases where benefits were released involved the most restrictive, compelling, and grievous circumstances, which are not present here. Respondent’s 18-year government service is considered short, his allegations of deteriorating health and medical expenses are common to aging, and his expressions of remorse are not at par with those in the Junio case, as he obstinately refused to admit guilt despite a criminal conviction and filed motions for reconsideration of his dismissal. The gravity of his criminal conviction should bar further benevolence. Judicial leniency must be strictly assessed, and granting further magnanimity would contradict the Court’s duty to promote safe working conditions and could undermine the deterrent purpose of administrative penalties. The Court had already bestowed clemency upon him in 2012, and to grant more would be unjust.