BAIKONG AKANG CAMSA, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE AURELIO D. RENDON, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, ISULAN, SULTAN KUDARAT, AND SHERIFF EDWIN G. CABUG, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 19, ISULAN…

Baikong Akang Camsa versus Judge Aurelio Rendon and Sheriff Edwin Cabug

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed by Baikong Akang Camsa against Judge Aurelio D. Rendon of the Municipal Trial Court of Isulan, Sultan Kudarat, and Sheriff Edwin G. Cabug of the Regional Trial Court of Isulan, Branch 19. The complainant charged the judge with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, gross ignorance of the law, and extortion, and charged the sheriff with gross ignorance of the law and violation of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for public officials and employees, all in connection with the execution of a judgment in a civil case for recovery of possession. The case matters for two reasons: it settles what happens to a pending administrative charge when the respondent judge dies before any investigation is conducted, and it restates the rule that death does not automatically extinguish an administrative case against a court employee who is still alive to answer.

Procedural History

The complaint, dated the eighth of April 1998, was filed with the Office of the Court Administrator. Both respondents submitted their comments denying the charges. On the nineteenth of February 2001, the daughter of the respondent judge informed the Office of the Court Administrator of her father's death on the first of February 2001 and asked for a partial release of his retirement benefits. In its memorandum of the twenty-fifth of June 2001, the Office of the Court Administrator observed that the charges were serious and the allegations conflicting, and recommended that the matter be referred to Executive Judge German Malcampo of the Regional Trial Court of Isulan, Branch 19, for investigation, report, and recommendation. The Supreme Court, by resolution of the thirteenth of August 2001, returned the case to the Office of the Court Administrator for re-evaluation in light of the judge's death and the request for partial release of benefits. On the twelfth of November 2001, the Office of the Court Administrator reiterated its recommendation to refer the matter to Executive Judge Malcampo. The case was thus resolved by the Supreme Court in its administrative jurisdiction, without any prior investigation having been conducted.

Facts

On the twenty-second of May 1997, Judge Rendon rendered a decision in a civil case entitled Philippine Evangelical Enterprises versus Baikong Akang Camsa. The court ordered the defendant to restore the plaintiff to complete possession of two parcels of land, to remove the wire fence she had erected at her own expense, to pay fifty thousand pesos as attorney's fees and ten thousand pesos as litigation expenses, to pay forty thousand pesos as exemplary damages, and to pay the costs of suit. The decision was not appealed to the Regional Trial Court and became final and executory. The plaintiff moved for execution, and a writ of execution was issued on the fifteenth of December 1997, but the sheriff failed to enforce it.

The complainant alleged that the judge then issued, on his own motion, an alias writ of execution whose contents did not conform to the dispositive portion of the decision because it included an order of demolition. She further alleged that before the decision was rendered, the judge had demanded, through a mutual friend, sixty thousand pesos in exchange for a favorable decision, and that she was able to give only thirty thousand pesos. Against the sheriff, she claimed that extraordinary force was used in enforcing the writ.

The judge denied issuing the alias writ on his own motion, insisting that he issued it upon motion of the plaintiff and that its contents conformed to the dispositive portion of the decision. He strongly disavowed demanding sixty thousand pesos or receiving thirty thousand pesos. The sheriff maintained that the enforcement was done in accordance with standard rules, that the complainant had refused to vacate the property in defiance of the writ, and that he sought the assistance of the Provincial Commander and his assistant to ensure an orderly enforcement.

Issues

• Whether or not the administrative complaint against the respondent judge should be dismissed by reason of his death before any investigation could be conducted.
• Whether or not the administrative case against the respondent sheriff should proceed despite the death of his co-respondent judge.
• Whether or not the amount withheld from the retirement benefits of the deceased judge may be released.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision. It applies the constitutional guarantee of due process, which the Court invokes in these words:

To allow an investigation to proceed against him who could no longer be in any position to defend himself would be a denial of his right to be heard, our most basic understanding of due process.

This principle governs the dismissal of the case against the deceased judge, because no investigation had yet been conducted and no finding had been made on the charges against him.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court dismissed the administrative complaint against Judge Rendon. It noted that he died while the case was still due for investigation, that factual issues had yet to be threshed out, and that no investigation had been conducted and no finding rendered by either the Office of the Court Administrator or an investigating judge. To proceed against a respondent who could no longer defend himself would deny him his right to be heard. The Court surveyed its prior rulings. In Hermosa versus Paraiso, the respondent died while the case was pending, and the Court still resolved the case so that the heirs might not be deprived of retirement benefits, dismissing it for lack of substantial evidence. In Mañozca versus Judge Domagas, the respondent judge died while the case was being evaluated, and the Court, no factual matter being in serious dispute, imposed a fine based on the record. In Apiag versus Judge Cantero, the respondent judge died while the case was being deliberated, and the Court dismissed the case, observing that a penalty would have been imposed but that, in view of his death prior to promulgation, dismissal was in order. In two judicial audit cases, the Court deemed it inappropriate to impose any sanction following the death of the respondents during the pendency of their cases. The Court distinguished the present case because here no investigation had yet taken place, so dismissal, not a fine on the record, was proper.

On the second issue, the Court held that the investigation against Sheriff Cabug should proceed, and referred the case against him to Executive Judge German M. Malcampo of the Regional Trial Court of Isulan, Branch 19, for investigation, report, and recommendation within sixty days from receipt of the records.

On the third issue, the Court recalled that in a resolution of its Second Division dated the twenty-seventh of June 2001, it had ordered the release of the judge's retirement benefits but withheld twenty thousand pesos pending the outcome of two administrative matters. Since the other matter had yet to be resolved, the retained amount should still be considered withheld.

Doctrine

First, when a respondent judge dies before any investigation of the charges against him has been conducted, the administrative case must be dismissed, because to proceed would deny him the right to be heard, which is the most basic understanding of due process. Second, death does not bar disciplinary action where the facts are already on record and no factual matter is in serious dispute, as when the Court may impose a fine based on the records; but where factual issues remain to be threshed out, dismissal is in order. Third, the death of one respondent does not affect the administrative case against a co-respondent who is still alive to answer the charges, and the investigation against the latter must proceed. Fourth, amounts withheld from a judge's retirement benefits remain withheld while a related administrative matter is still pending resolution.

Disposition

The administrative complaint against Judge Aurelio Rendon was dismissed and the administrative matter against him deemed closed and terminated, while the case against Sheriff Edwin Cabug was referred to Executive Judge German M. Malcampo for investigation, report, and recommendation within sixty days.

Remember This

Memorize the line that death before investigation means dismissal, because to investigate a man who can no longer defend himself is a denial of due process. Examiners use this case to test the effect of the death of a respondent judge on a pending administrative charge, and to test whether the case against a living co-respondent survives.