Where two cases arose from two different causes of action, the penalties of suspension for both should

both be served successively. The penalty of suspension for six months shall be served successively. These two cases arose from two different causes of action and, therefore, the penalties should both be served. Moreover, in the en banc Resolution dated February 25, 1992, the Court categorically stated that in case of two or more suspensions, the same shall be served successively by the erring lawyer.

It argued that a pending ownership dispute between Sultan Sabdulah Ali Pacasum and Saripada Ali Pacasum over the shares of the Pacasum College before the Securities and Exchange Commission precludes the release of the remaining balance of the subsidy to Pacasum College under the ESC Program, which requires that any dispute must be settled first before the release could be made !he petition further stated that the "!C of #arawi City has no $urisdiction to enforce the writs of mandamus and preliminary in$unction to %APE, in its principal office in #a&ati City, since the place is outside the '(th $udicial region where it belongs Court of Appeals issued a !") en$oining the respondent $udge from enforcing the orders of %ebruary (*, (++' ,espite the !"), respondent $udge ordered the arrest of ,r -orromeo and certain %APE employees for failure to comply with his directive After evaluation of the records, the )CA found that the respondent $udge was liable for gross ignorance of the law, oppression and abuse of authority. that the respondent
RTJ-04-1863 October 22, 2004 Gross ignorance of the law Suspended for a period of 6 months without salary and benefits

RTJ-0401857 November 23, 2004 This is respondent judges third offense involving the same act, which is gross ignorance of the law Gross ignorance of the law and abuse of authority Suspended for a period of 6 months without pay

Urgent Motion for Clarification inquiring on whether the two decisions should be served simultaneously or successively Prays that should the penalties be served successively, the six months suspension in the present case be reconsidered and modified to a fine Judge Adiong also informs the Court that he has already served the penalty of six months in A M !o RTJ-04-1863 Adm Case /o 01(2 #3 is not applicable in the present case for the facts obtaining in the aforesaid case are different In the said case, the respondent $udge was found guilty of ignorance of the law with a penalty of six months suspension without pay Pending resolution of his #otion for "econsideration, he continued to perform his $udicial duties 4owever, the Collecting and ,isbursing )fficer of the Court, in

contemplation of the said decision, withheld payment of the salary of the respondent $udge for six months 5hen the motion for reconsideration was denied, six months have elapsed 6pon a Clarificatory #anifestation on whether he will still be suspended for six months but with pay since the monetary portion of the $udgment had already been satisfied when his salary for the period had been withheld from him, the Court amended the penalty to the effect that the respondent $udge is sentenced to pay a %ine equivalent to his salary for six months