This document summarizes an administrative case filed against Judge Joseph Cedrick O. Ruiz by the Office of the Court Administrator. The judge was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law and malversation. He argued the administrative case was premature since his criminal convictions were not yet final. However, the Supreme Court ruled that as the highest court with administrative supervision over all courts, it has the power to institute disciplinary proceedings against judges based on the Rules of Court. It placed the judge under preventive suspension due to the seriousness of the charges against him, which include malversation and graft, until a final decision is reached.
Original Description:
Office of the Court Administrator, Complainant, V. Presiding Judge Joseph Cedrick o. Ruiz
Original Title
Office of the Court Administrator, Complainant, V. Presiding Judge Joseph Cedrick o. Ruiz
This document summarizes an administrative case filed against Judge Joseph Cedrick O. Ruiz by the Office of the Court Administrator. The judge was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law and malversation. He argued the administrative case was premature since his criminal convictions were not yet final. However, the Supreme Court ruled that as the highest court with administrative supervision over all courts, it has the power to institute disciplinary proceedings against judges based on the Rules of Court. It placed the judge under preventive suspension due to the seriousness of the charges against him, which include malversation and graft, until a final decision is reached.
This document summarizes an administrative case filed against Judge Joseph Cedrick O. Ruiz by the Office of the Court Administrator. The judge was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law and malversation. He argued the administrative case was premature since his criminal convictions were not yet final. However, the Supreme Court ruled that as the highest court with administrative supervision over all courts, it has the power to institute disciplinary proceedings against judges based on the Rules of Court. It placed the judge under preventive suspension due to the seriousness of the charges against him, which include malversation and graft, until a final decision is reached.
13-4144-RTJ], February 02, 2016 respondent posited that the administrative complaint against him is premature because his OFFICE OF THE COURT Sandiganbayan convictions in Criminal Case Nos. ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, 27467 and 27468 are not yet final. The respondent v. PRESIDING JUDGE JOSEPH CEDRICK O. also stated that he went on leave of absence after his RUIZ, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH Sandiganbayan conviction, and had submitted his 61, MAKATI CITY, Respondent. application for optional retirement on May 27, Facts: 2013. The respondent thus argued that there was no more need to suspend him from office because he This is an administrative complaint filed by the should be considered already retired from Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) against government service" when he received on January respondent Judge Joseph Cedrick O. Ruiz, Presiding 9, 2014, a copy of the Court's November 20, 2013 Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch Resolution. 61, Makati City. Issue: This administrative case traces its roots to the Informations for violation of Section 3(e) of Whether or not the administrative case against him Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019 and malversation of is premature because his criminal convictions by the public fund filed by the People of the Philippines Sandiganbayan are not yet final. against the respondent judge before the Held: No Sandiganbayan. The Informations essentially alleged that the respondent, then the City Mayor of Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution Dapitan City, had conspired with Police Inspector grants the Supreme Court administrative Pepe Nortal to facilitate the latter's withdrawal of supervision over all courts and their personnel. This P1 million from the Confidential and Intelligence grant empowers the Supreme Court to oversee the Fund (CIF) and, thereafter, used this amount for his judges' and court personnel's administrative (the respondent's) personal benefit. compliance with all laws, rules, and regulations, and to take administrative actions against them if they The Sandiganbayan's First Division found the violate these legal norms. respondent guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. The Sandiganbayan accordingly In the exercise of this power, the Court has imposed the following penalties on the respondent: promulgated rules of procedure in the discipline of (a) the indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and judges. Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, one (1) month, as minimum, to eight (8) years, as as amended by A. M. No. 01-8-10-SC, provides: maximum, in Criminal Case No. 27467 for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019; (b) the SECTION 1. How instituted. Proceedings for the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one discipline of Judges of regular and special courts (1) day of reclusion temporal minimum, as and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the minimum, to eighteen (18) years and one (1) day Sandiganbayan may be instituted motu proprio by of reclusion temporal maximum, as maximum, in the Supreme Court or upon a verified complaint, Criminal Case No. 27468 for malversation; and (c) supported by affidavits of persons who have perpetual special disqualification. The court also personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or ordered him to pay a P950,000.00 fine; and by documents which may substantiate said P950,000.00 as indemnity to the City of Dapitan. allegations, or upon an anonymous complaint, supported by public records of indubitable integrity. The complaint shall be in writing and shall state 4. Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or clearly and concisely the acts and omissions order as determined by a competent court in constituting violations of standards of conduct an appropriate proceeding; prescribed for Judges by law, the Rules of Court, or the Code of Judicial Conduct. 5. Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude; Based on this rule, disciplinary proceedings against sitting judges and justices may be instituted: 6. Willful failure to pay a just debt; (a) motu proprio, by the Court itself; (b) upon 7. Borrowing money or property from lawyers verified complaint, supported by the affidavits of and litigants in a case pending before the persons with personal knowledge of the facts court; alleged, or by documents substantiating the allegations; or (c) upon anonymous complaint 8. Immorality; supported by public records of indubitable integrity. 9. Gross ignorance of the law or procedure; It was pursuant to this power that the Court - on its own initiative -ordered the re-docketing of the 10. Partisan political activities; and OCA's report as a formal complaint against the respondent and as a regular administrative matter 11. Alcoholism and/or vicious habits, (emphasis for the Court's consideration. The Court likewise supplied) possesses the power to preventively suspend an The respondent's convictions by the Sandiganbayan administratively charged judge until a final decision for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and is reached, particularly when a serious charge is for malversation of public funds confirm that the involved and a strong likelihood of guilt exists. This administrative charges for which he may be found power is inherent in the Court's power of liable are serious charges under Section 8(2) of Rule administrative supervision over all courts and their 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended. personnel as a measure to allow unhampered formal Malversation is likewise considered as a serious investigation. It is likewise a preventive measure to charge since it is a crime involving moral turpitude. shield the public from any further damage that the While the term moral turpitude does not have one continued exercise by the judge of the functions of specific definition that lends itself to easy and ready his office may cause. application, it has been defined as an act of In the present case, we placed the respondent under baseness, vileness, or the depravity in the preventive suspension because he is alleged to have performance of private and social duties that man committed transgressions that are classified as owes to his fellow man or to society in general. serious under Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Notably, jurisprudence has categorized the Court, which provides: following acts as crimes involving moral turpitude: SEC. 8. Serious charges. - Serious charges include: abduction with consent, bigamy, concubinage, smuggling, rape, attempted bribery, profiteering, 1. Bribery, direct or indirect; robbery, murder, estafa, theft, illicit sexual relations with a fellow worker, violation of Batas Pambansa 2. Dishonesty and violations of the Anti- Blg. 22, intriguing against honor, violation of the Graft and Corrupt Practices Law (R.A. Anti-Fencing Law, violation of the Dangerous No. 3019); Drugs Act, perjury, forgery, direct bribery, 3. Gross misconduct constituting violations of frustrated homicide, adultery, arson, evasion of the Code of Judicial Conduct; income tax, barratry, blackmail, bribery, duelling, embezzlement, extortion, forgery, libel, making believe that the respondent is responsible for the fraudulent proof of loss on insurance contract, misconduct complained of, even if such might not mutilation of public records, fabrication of be overwhelming or even preponderant. That the evidence, offenses against pension laws, perjury, respondent committed acts constituting seduction under the promise of marriage, estafa, malversation or violations of the Anti-Graft and falsification of public document, and estafa thru Corrupt Practices Act should be adjudged in the falsification of public document. The court said that same manner that other acts classified as serious malversation - considering its nature - should not be charges under Rule 140 (such as bribery, categorized any differently from the above listed immorality, gross misconduct, dishonesty, and crimes. The act of embezzling public funds or partisan political activities) should be weighed — property is immoral in itself; it is a conduct clearly through substantial evidence. Expressed from the contrary to the accepted standards of justice, point of view of criminal law, evidence to support a honesty, and good morals. conviction in a criminal case is not necessary in an administrative proceeding like the present case. On the issue of Administrative Liability. In the present proceedings, the court function is limited to The Sandiganbayan, in considering the respondent's the determination of whether substantial evidence guilt in the criminal case before it, gave full exists to hold the respondent administratively liable probative value to the testimonies of Fatima Ruda for acts he is alleged to have committed while he (OlC-City Budget Officer), Jose R. Torres (OlC- was still the mayor of Dapitan City. In this City Treasurer), Glendora Deloria (City determination, it is immaterial that the respondent Accountant), and Pepe Nortal (Police Inspector of was not yet a member of the Judiciary when he the Dapitan City Police). allegedly committed the acts imputed to him; judges may be disciplined for acts committed prior to their Considering the nature and extent of the appointment to the judiciary. Our Rules itself respondent's transgressions, the court finds the recognizes this situation, as it provides for the imposition of the supreme administrative penalty of immediate forwarding to the Supreme Court for dismissal to be appropriate. The people's confidence disposition and adjudication of charges in the judicial system is founded not only on the against justices and judges before the IBP, competence and diligence of the members of the including those filed prior to their appointment to bench, but also on their integrity and moral the judiciary. It need not be shown that the uprightness. And the also said We would violate respondent continued to do the act or acts this standard and unduly tarnish the image of the complained of; it is sufficient that the evidence on Judiciary if we allow the respondent's continued record supports the charge/s against the respondent presence in the bench. We would likewise insult the through proof that the respondent committed the legal profession if we allow him to remain within imputed act/s violative of the Code of Judicial the ranks of legal professionals. Conduct and the applicable provisions of the Rules We emphasize that judges should be the of Court. embodiment of competence, integrity, and The court also reiterates that only substantial independence, and their conduct should be above evidence is required to support the conclusions in reproach. They must adhere to exacting standards of administrative proceedings. Substantial evidence is morality, decency, and probity. A magistrate is that amount of relevant evidence which a judged, not only by his official acts, but also by reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify his private morality and actions. Our people can a conclusion. The standard of substantial is only look up to him as an upright man worthy of satisfied when there is reasonable ground to judging his fellow citizens' acts if he is both qualified and proficient in law, and equipped with Sec. 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by the the morality that qualifies him for that higher plane Supreme Court on what grounds. — A member of that standing as a judge entails. the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any In Conrado Abe Lopez v. Judge Rogelio S. deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in Lucmayon, we ruled that: such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the of his conviction of a crime involving moral conduct of a judge must be free of a whiff of turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he impropriety not only with respect to his is required to take before the admission to practice, performance of his judicial duties, but also to his or for a wilfull disobedience of any lawful order of behavior outside his sala as a private a superior court, or for corruptly or willful individual. There is no dichotomy of morality: a appearing as an attorney for a party to a case public official is also judged by his private without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting morals. The Code dictates that a judge, in order to cases at law for the purpose of gain, either promote public confidence in the integrity and personally or through paid agents or brokers, impartiality of the judiciary, must behave with constitutes malpractice. propriety at all times. As we have recently In Bengco v. Bernardo, we ruled that it is not sound explained, a judge's official life cannot simply be judicial policy to await the final resolution of a detached or separated from his personal existence. criminal case before a complaint against a lawyer The conduct of judges, official or otherwise, must may be acted upon; otherwise, this Court will be always be beyond reproach and must be free from rendered helpless to apply the rules on admission to, any suspicion tainting him, his exalted office, and and continuing membership in the legal profession the Judiciary. A conduct, act,- or-omission during the whole period that the criminal case is repugnant to the standards of public accountability pending final disposition, when the objectives of the and which tends to diminish the people's faith and two proceedings are vastly disparate. Disciplinary confidence in the Judiciary, must invariably be proceedings involve no private interest and afford handled with the required resolve through the no redress for private grievance. They are imposition of the appropriate sanctions imposed by undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public law and by the standards and penalties applicable to welfare and to save courts of justice from persons the legal profession. unfit to practice law. The attorney is called to Administrative Matter No. 02-9-02-SC (which took answer to the court for his conduct as an officer of effect on October 1, 2002) provides that an the court. administrative case against a judge of a regular WHEREFORE, premises considered, Judge court based on grounds which are also grounds for Joseph Cedrick O. Ruiz is hereby DISMISSED the disciplinary action against members of the Bar FROM THE SERVICE with forfeiture of all shall be considered as disciplinary proceedings benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with against such judge as a member of the Bar. It also prejudice to reemployment in the Government or states that judgment in both respects may be any of its subdivisions, instrumentalities, or incorporated in one decision or resolution. agencies including government-owned and - Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, on the controlled corporations. As a consequence of this other hand, provides that a lawyer may be removed ruling, Judge Ruiz is likewise or suspended from the practice of law, among declared DISBARRED and STRICKEN others, for conviction of a crime involving moral FROM the roll of attorneys. turpitude: