A.M. No. RTJ-13-2361 [Formerly OCA IPI No.

In his comment dated January 24, 2014, the

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: