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.

FACTS

In 1996, respondent Judge Hermin E. Arceo was dismissed from the service for gross misconduct and immorality prejudicial to the best interest of the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch of the government. The administrative case stemmed from his commission of lewd and lustful acts against complainant Atty. Jocelyn C. Talens-Dabon in October 1995. In 2012, the Court granted Arceo’s Petition for Judicial Clemency, lifting the ban against his re-employment in government service and allowing him to receive his accrued leave credits, but the grant was limited to those specific reliefs. In 2018, Arceo filed the instant Petition for Payment of Retirement Benefits, seeking the release of his forfeited retirement benefits on humanitarian grounds, citing his dire need for funds for medical expenses and basic necessities at his advanced age. He also invoked Section 3 of Republic Act No. 6683.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Judge Hermin E. Arceo is entitled to the release of his forfeited retirement benefits.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition. The Court held that Arceo is not qualified to claim benefits under RA 6683, as the law applies to officials separated not for cause (e.g., due to reorganization), whereas Arceo was dismissed for cause. The Court also declined to grant judicial clemency to release the forfeited retirement benefits. While judicial clemency is an act of mercy within the Court’s discretion, its grant depends on the unique circumstances of each case. The Court noted that Arceo had already been extended judicial clemency in 2012 by lifting his re-employment disqualification, which enabled him to work and save for retirement. Releasing the forfeited benefits would constitute excessive leniency given the severity of his infraction—sexual harassment committed just months after the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act took effect. The Court emphasized that the grant of clemency must be balanced with the need to preserve public confidence in the judiciary and uphold exacting standards of judicial conduct. The forfeiture of retirement benefits, as a sanction for a serious charge under Section 11, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court and Section 57 of the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, was thus maintained.