Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 35 views

    People v. Judge Gacott, Jr.

    Uploaded by

    Mark David Dacula
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Division has the competence to administratively discipline judges for lower penalties. Specifically: 1) Section 11 of Article VIII grants the Supreme Court en banc the power to discipline lower court judges. However, only cases involving dismissal of a judge must be decided by the full Court. 2) Lesser penalties like reprimands and fines of 10,000 pesos or less can be decided by Court divisions to avoid congesting the docket with every administrative case. 3) Requiring the full Court for every administrative case would delay adjudication and subvert the constitutional mandate for expedient resolution of cases.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People v. Judge Gacott, Jr.

    Uploaded by

    Mark David Dacula
    35 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Division has the competence to administratively discipline judges for lower penalties. Specifically: 1) Section 11 of Article VIII grants the Supreme Court en banc the power to discipline lower court judges. However, only cases involving dismissal of a judge must be decided by the full Court. 2) Lesser penalties like reprimands and fines of 10,000 pesos or less can be decided by Court divisions to avoid congesting the docket with every administrative case. 3) Requiring the full Court for every administrative case would delay adjudication and subvert the constitutional mandate for expedient resolution of cases.

    Original Title

    29. People v. Judge Gacott, Jr.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Division has the competence to administratively discipline judges for lower penalties. Specifically: 1) Section 11 of Article VIII grants the Supreme Court en banc the power to discipline lower court judges. However, only cases involving dismissal of a judge must be decided by the full Court. 2) Lesser penalties like reprimands and fines of 10,000 pesos or less can be decided by Court divisions to avoid congesting the docket with every administrative case. 3) Requiring the full Court for every administrative case would delay adjudication and subvert the constitutional mandate for expedient resolution of cases.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    35 views2 pages

    People v. Judge Gacott, Jr.

    Uploaded by

    Mark David Dacula
    The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Division has the competence to administratively discipline judges for lower penalties. Specifically: 1) Section 11 of Article VIII grants the Supreme Court en banc the power to discipline lower court judges. However, only cases involving dismissal of a judge must be decided by the full Court. 2) Lesser penalties like reprimands and fines of 10,000 pesos or less can be decided by Court divisions to avoid congesting the docket with every administrative case. 3) Requiring the full Court for every administrative case would delay adjudication and subvert the constitutional mandate for expedient resolution of cases.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PEOPLE v. HON. EUSTAQUIO Z. GACOTT, JR.

    , Presiding Judge, RTC,


    Branch 47, Puerto Princesa City
    G.R. No. 116049
    July 13, 1995

    PONENTE REGALADO, J.
    FACTS: For failure to check citations of the prosecutions, the order of respondent
    RTC Judge Gacott dismissing a criminal case was annulled by the Second
    Division of the Supreme Court. Judge Gacott was also sanctioned with a
    reprimand and a fine of P10,000.00 for gross ignorance of law. He filed a
    motion for reconsideration wherein he questioned the competence of the
    Second Division of this Court to administratively discipline him.

    ISSUES: Whether the Second Division of the Supreme Court has the competence to
    administratively discipline respondent judge

    S.C. Yes. Section 11 of Article VIII clearly shows that there are actually two
    DECISION situations envisaged therein. The first clause which states that "the Supreme
    Court 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.

    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." Evidently, 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, on February 9, 1993 a Court En Banc resolution was
    adopted, entitled "Bar Matter No. 209. — In the Matter of the Amendment
    and/or Clarification of Various Supreme Court Rules and Resolutions," and
    providing inter alia: For said purpose, the following are considered en banc
    cases: 6. Cases 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 one (1) year or a
    fine exceeding P10,000.00, or both.

    This resolution was amended on March 16, 1993 and November 23, 1993,
    but the aforequoted provision was maintained.

    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. 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 the lower courts, and the very
    purpose of authorizing the Court to sit en banc or in divisions of three, five,
    or seven members.

    Only cases involving dismissal of judges of lower courts are specifically


    required to be decided by the Court en banc, in cognizance of the need for a
    thorough and judicious evaluation of serious charges against members of the
    judiciary, it is only when the penalty imposed does not exceed suspension
    of more than one year or a fine of P10,000.00, or both, that the
    administrative matter may be decided in division.

    You might also like