32. People V.

Gacott
GR. 116049
March 20, 1995
By: Ralph Atmosfera
Topic: CANON 1 UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AN OBEY THE LAW
Petitioners: People
Respondents: Hon.EUSTAQUIO Z. GACOTT, JR, Arne Strom and Grace Reyes
Ponente: Regalado, J

RECIT-READY: For failure to check citations of the prosecutions, the order of

respondent RTC Judge Eustaquio Gacott Jr dismissing a criminal case was
annulled by the Supreme Court. The respondent judge was also sanctioned
with a reprimand and a fine of PHP 10k for gross ignorance of law. The
judgment was made by the Second Division of the Supreme Court.

DOCTRINE: Section 11, Article VIII of the present Constitution which reads: "The Supreme Court en banc shall have the
power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took
part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon." This provision is an expansion of and was taken from
the second sentence of Section 7, Article X of the 1973 Constitution which provided: "The Supreme Court shall have the
power to discipline judges of inferior courts and, by a vote of at least eight Members, order their dismissal."

Facts:
- On February 2, 1994, a complaint for violation of the Anti-Dummy Law (C.A. No. 108) was filed by Asst. City
Prosecutor Perfecto E. Pe against respondents Strom and Reyes. The accused filed a Motion to Quash/Dismiss the
criminal case contending that since the power to prosecute is vested exclusively in the Anti-Dummy Board under
Republic Act No. 1130, the City Prosecutor of Puerto Princesa has no power or authority to file the same.

- The prosecution filed an opposition pointing out that the Anti-Dummy Board has already been abolished by Letter of
Implementation No. 2, Series of 1972. Despite such opposition, however, respondent judge granted the motion
espousing the position that the Letter Of Implementation relied upon by the City Fiscal is not the “law” contemplated
in Article 7 of the New Civil Code which can repeal another law such as R.A. 1130.

- Thus, For failure to check citations of the prosecutions, the order of respondent RTC Judge Eustaquio Gacott Jr
dismissing a criminal case was annulled by the Supreme Court. The respondent judge was also sanctioned with a
reprimand and a fine of PHP 10k for gross ignorance of law. The judgment was made by the Second Division of the
Supreme Court.

ISSUE
(1) Whether or not the Second Division of the SC has the competence to administratively discipline respondent judge
YES

HELD/RATIO
- To support the Court’s ruling, Justice Regalado relied on his recollection of a conversation with former Chief Justice
Roberto Concepcion who was the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary of the 1986 Constitutional Commission
of which Regalado was also a member.

- The very text of the present Sec. 11, Art. VIII of the Constitution clearly shows that there are actually two situations
envisaged therein. The first clause which states that “the SC en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower
courts,” is a declaration of the grant of that disciplinary power to, and the determination of the procedure in the
 exercise thereof by, the Court en banc. It was not therein intended that all administrative disciplinary cases should be
heard and decided by the whole Court since it would result in an absurdity.

- The second clause, which refers to the second situation contemplated therein and is intentionally separated from the
first by a comma, declares on the other hand that the Court en banc can “order their dismissal by a vote of a majority
of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted therein.” In this
instance, the administrative case must be deliberated upon and decided by the full Court itself.

- Pursuant to the first clause which confers administrative disciplinary power to the Court en banc, a decision en banc is
needed only where the penalty to be imposed is the dismissal of a judge, officer or employee of the Judiciary,
disbarment of a lawyer, or either the suspension of any of them for a period of more than 1 year or a fine exceeding
P10, 000.00 or both.

- Indeed, to require the entire Court to deliberate upon and participate in all administrative matters or cases regardless
of the sanctions, imposable or imposed, would result in a congested docket and undue delay in the adjudication of
cases in the Court, especially in administrative matters, since even cases involving the penalty of reprimand would
require action by the Court en banc.

WHEREFORE, the basic and supplemental motions for reconsideration of the judgment in the case at bar are hereby DENIED.
This resolution is immediately final and executory.