People of the Philippines vs. Hon. Eustaquio Gacott, Jr., Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court Branch 47 of Puerto Princesa City, Arne Strom and Grace Reyes

246SCRA52 [July 13, 1995] En Banc, Regalado, J.:

Motion for reconsideration of a decision of the Second Division of the Supreme Court

Facts:

Respondent Judge Eustaquio Gacott, Jr. dismissed Criminal Case No. 11529 but the Supreme Court annulled his order which was complemented with reprimand and fine of P 10,000.00 for gross ignorance of the law. On April 1995, He filed a motion for reconsideration and a supplemental motion for reconsideration dated April 26, 1995.

Issue:

Whether the Second Division of this Court has competence to administratively discipline him

Ruling:

The Supreme Court held that to require the entire Court to deliberate upon and participate in all administrative cases, regardless of the sanctions, imposable or imposed, would result in a congested docked and undue delay in the adjudication of cases in the Court. This would subvert the Constitutional injunction for the Court to adopt a systematic plan to expedite the decision or resolution of cases or matters pending in the Supreme Court or lower courts and the very purpose of authorizing the Court to sit en banc or in divisions of three, five or seven members. Therefore, the Second Division of this Court has competence to administratively discipline Judge Gacott.

Adjudication:

The motion for reconsideration was denied.

People of the Philippines vs. Hon. Eustaquio Gacott, Jr., Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court Branch 47 of Puerto Princesa City, Arne Strom and Grace Reyes

246SCRA52 [July 13, 1995] En Banc, Regalado, J.:

Motion for reconsideration of a decision of the Second Division of the Supreme Court

Facts:

Respondent Judge Eustaquio Gacott, Jr. dismissed Criminal Case No. 11529 but the Supreme Court annulled his order which was complemented with reprimand and fine of P 10,000.00 for gross ignorance of the law. On April 1995, He filed a motion for reconsideration and a supplemental motion for reconsideration dated April 26, 1995.

Issue:

Whether judges has tenure of office

Ruling:

The Court en banc can “order their dismissal by vote of a majority of the members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted therein”. Thus, in the instant case, the administrative case must be deliberated upon and decided by the full court itself.

Adjudication:

The motion for reconsideration was denied.

Prudential Bank vs. Judge Jose P. Castro and Atty. Benjamin Grecia

158SCRA647 [March 15, 1988] En Banc, Per Curiam

Administrative case in the Supreme Court

Facts:

Atty. Gracia filed a petition for “Redress and Exoneration and for voluntary Inhibition” praying that the decision and resolution of the denial of the motion for reconsideration of the said decision be set aside and now one entered by this Court dismissing the Administrative complaint and Exoneration.

Issue:

Whether there was consultation of the Court

Ruling:

The Supreme Court held that formal certification is not required being a per curiam decision. If it were required, it is beyond doubt that the conclusions of the Court in its decision were arrived at after consultation and deliberation. The signatures of the members who actually took part in the deliberations and voted attest to that. Being a per curiam decision, there is no ponente although any member of the Court may be assigned to write the draft. In such case, a formal certificate is not required.

Adjudication:

The petition was denied for lack of merit