IN RE: JUDGE QUITAIN JBC No. 013, August 22, 2007

FACTS:

Judge Jaime Vega Quitain was appointed Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 10, Davao City. Subsequent thereto, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received confidential information that administrative and criminal charges were filed against Judge Quitain in his capacity as then Assistant Regional Director, National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) and as a result of which he was dismissed from the service. The Deputy of Court Administrator (DCA) required Judge Quitain to explain the alleged misrepresentation and deception he committed before the JBC.

Judge Quitain denied having committed any misrepresentation before the JBC. Respondent explained that during the investigation of his administrative case by the NAPOLCOM Ad Hoc Committee, one of its members suggested to him that if he resigns from the government service, he will no longer be prosecuted; that following such suggestion, he tendered his irrevocable resignation from NAPOLCOM; that he did not disclose the case in his PDS because he was of the honest belief that he had no more pending administrative case by reason of his resignation; that his resignation amounted to an automatic dismissal of his administrative case considering that the issues raised therein became moot and academic; and that had he known that he would be dismissed from the service, he should not have applied for the position of a judge since he knew he would never be appointed.

The court contends that Judge Quitain deliberately did not disclose the fact that he was dismissed from the government service. At the time he filled up and submitted his Personal Data Sheet with the Judicial and Bar Council, he had full knowledge of the subject administrative case, as well as Administrative Order No. 183 dismissing him from the government service.

ISSUES:

1. WON the resignation of the judge renders the administrative proceedings against him moot and academic.

2. WON the judge be excused of his omission in the PDS.

HELD:

1. No. Respondents contentions utterly lack merit. As a member of the Bar, he should know that his resignation from the NAPOLCOM would not obliterate any administrative liability he may have incurred, much less, would it result to the automatic dismissal of the administrative case filed against him. The acceptance of his resignation is definitely without prejudice to the continuation of the administrative case filed against him. If such would be the case, anyone charged administratively could easily escape from administrative sanctions by the simple expedient of resigning from the service.

Verily, the resignation of Judge Quitain which was accepted by the Court without prejudice does not render moot and academic the instant administrative case. The jurisdiction that the Court had at the time of the filing of the administrative complaint is not lost by the mere fact that the respondent judge by his resignation and its consequent acceptance without prejudice by this Court, has ceased to be in office during the pendency of this case. The Court retains its authority to pronounce the respondent official innocent or guilty of the charges against him.

2. No. Respondent is guilty of dishonesty. Dishonesty means disposition to lie, cheat or defraud; unworthiness; lack of integrity. The court cannot overemphasize the need for honesty and integrity on the part of all those who are in the service of the Judiciary. They have often stressed that the conduct required of court personnel, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk of court, must always be beyond reproach and circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility as to let them be free from any suspicion that may taint the Judiciary. The court condemns, and will never countenance any conduct, act or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice, which would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary.

DECISION:

WHEREFORE, in view of our finding that JUDGE JAIME V. QUITAIN is guilty of grave misconduct which would have warranted his dismissal from the service had he not resigned during the pendency of this case, he is hereby meted the penalty of a fine of P40,000.00. It appearing that he has yet to apply for his retirement benefits and other privileges, if any, the Court likewise ORDERS the FORFEITURE of all benefits, except earned leave credits which Judge Quitain may be entitled to, and he is PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from reinstatement and appointment to any branch, instrumentality or agency of the government, including government-owned and/or controlled corporations.