People v Gacott

Digest Author: Des Ico People vs Gacott, Jr. Petition: Resolution Petitioner: People of the Phil. Respondent: Eustaquio Gacott, Jr. – presiding judge, RTC, Puerto Princesa City; Arne Strom, and Grace Reyes Ponente: J. Regalado Date: 13 July 1995 Facts:  For failure to read the text of the cited LOI No. 2 (abolishing the Anti-Dummy Board) of the prosecution, the order of the respondent dismissing the criminal case was annulled by SC.  Respondent was sanctioned with a reprimand and a fine of 10,000php for gross ignorance of law.  Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration dated 1 April 1995 o He also begged with humility that the spreading of the Decision on his personal records be reconsidered. (spreading of a decision is an official procedure and requirement in the Court!)  He also filed a supplemental motion for reconsideration dated 26 April 1995.  Copies of the basic motion and supplemental motions were furnished by him to the Chief Justice, JBC, SolGen, DOJ Sec, OMB, among others. (copies should only be furnished to the adversed party!) Pertinent laws/provisions: ARTICLE VIII SECTION 11 1987 CONSTITUTION

Issues: 1. WON respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion to quash the criminal case. 2. WON the Second Division of the SC has competence to administratively discipline respondent judge. Ruling: 1. Yes 2. Yes Ratio Decidendi: Motions Denied 1. Respondent did not even bother to read the cited LOI of the prosecution. a. He should be reminded that courts are duty bound to take judicial notice of all the laws of the land. b. The error could have been entirely avoided were it not for his irresponsibility in the performance of duties. 2. Court of 2nd Division assured that SC validly and solemnly raffled the case to Mr. Justice Bidin of the 3rd Division who was later transferred to the 2nd Division.

Digest Author: Des Ico a. No rule that parties be informed that a case has been transferred to another division as respondent would want. (Reason: conceal identity of the ponente) Respondent invokes the second sentence of Sec 11 Article 8 of 1987 Consti in questioning competence of the 2nd Div. (please check the Constitution  ) a. The 1st clause of the section: “SC en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts,”  “En Banc” was used because all internal procedural, admin matters, and ceremonial functions are decided by or conducted in the Court en banc.  The clause is a declaration of the grant of disciplinary power to , and the determination of the procedure in the exercise thereof by, the Court en banc.  But it was not intended that administrative disciplinary cases should be heard and decided by the whole Court since it would result to absurdity. nd b. The 2 clause of the section which is intentionally separated by a comma: “order their dismissal by a vote of Majority of the Members who took part in the delibs on the issues in the case and voted therein.”  Declares that admin cases must be deliberated and decided by the full Court itself. c. Pursuant to 1st clause, Court en banc resolution was adopted which require en banc decision only where the penalty to be imposed is the dismissal of a judge, officer or employee of 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 10,000 or both.  Because to require the entire Court to deliberate in all admin cases would result in a congested docket and undue delay in the adjudication of cases in the Court. d. Court also promulgated Circular No. 2-89  A decision or reso of a Division of the Court when concurred by majority of members who took part in the delibs is a decision or reso of the SC. (Section 4 par 3 Article 8 1987 Consti)