Judge dismissed for abandonment of office; A.M. No. 07-9-214-MTCC

A.M. No. 07-9-214-MTCC

Excerpts:

"We have ruled that the absenteeism of judges or court employees and/or their irregular attendance at work is a serious charge that may warrant the imposition of the penalty of dismissal or suspension from service.³ Frequent and prolonged leaves without permission from the Court and abandonment of office have been considered gross misconduct. Gross misconduct is a serious charge under Section 8, Rule 140 and may be punishable by dismissal from service, suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than 3 but not exceeding 6 months, or a fine of more than P20,000 but not exceeding P40,000.

In Leaves of Absence Without Approval of Judge Calderon,⁴ the Court considered Judge Calderon’s frequent and prolonged absence for almost a straight period of three years to be inexcusable. The Court concluded that Judge Calderon had habitually abandoned his sala. Judge Calderon was found guilty of gross misconduct and abandonment of office and was consequently dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all benefits.

In the present case, Judge Rabang has been absent without leave or AWOL for more than four years from the time he left for abroad in May 2007. There has been no word from him since then. Judge Rabang’s attitude betrays his lack of concern for his office. It is clear that Judge Rabang has abandoned his office and committed gross misconduct.

Judge Rabang is presumed to know his duties and responsibilities under the Code of Judicial Conduct. Rule 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a judge should administer justice impartially and without delay. Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the same Code decrees that a judge shall dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. Rule 3.09, Canon 3 further provides that a judge should organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficiant dispatch of business, and required at all times the observance of high standards of public service and fidelity.

In Yu-Asensi v. Judge Villanueva,⁵ the Court explained:

x x x the Canons of Judicial Ethics (which) enjoin judges to be punctual in the performance of their judicial duties, recognizing that the time of litigants, witnesses and attorneys are of value, and that if the judge is not punctual in his habits, he sets a bad example to the bar and tend to create dissatisfaction in the administration of justice.

The Code of Judicial Conduct decrees that a judge should administer justice impartially and without delay. A judge should likewise be imbued with a high sense of duty and responsibility in the discharge of his obligation to promptly administer justice. The trial court judges being the paradigms of justice in the first instance have, time and again, been exhorted to dispose of the court’s business promptly and to decide cases within the required period because delay results in undermining the people’s faith in the judiciary from whom the prompt hearing of their supplications is anticipated and expected, and reinforces in the minds of the litigants the impression that the wheels of justice grind ever so slowly.

Unauthorized absence and irregular attendance are detrimental to the dispensation of justice and, more often than not, result in undue delay in the disposition of cases; they also translate to waste of public funds when the absent officials and employees are nevertheless paid despite their absence.^6"