Department of Justice, represented by Secretary Leila M. De Lima vs. Rolando G. Mislang, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 167,
A.M. No. RTJ-14-2369 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 12- 3907-RT J), February 15, 2022
Facts:
1. Judge Mislang issued 2 TROs, a writ of preliminary injunction and a status quo order, both of which did not satisfy the legal requisites for their issuance, in gross violation of clearly established laws and procedures which every judge has the duty and obligation to be familiar with.
2. The Supreme Court noted that this was not the first instance that petitioner committed a serious infraction.
3. In a Decision dated July 26, 2016, the Supreme Court found petitioner guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law.
4. The Supreme Court imposed the penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.
5. Subsequent to the promulgation of the July 26, 2016 Decision, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, as well as second, third, and fourth motions for reconsideration. The first three were denied, while the last one was noted without action. Overall, petitioner maintained his innocence, and alternatively, posited that the penalty of dismissal was not commensurate to the offense committed.
6. Notably, petitioner likewise filed a letter-request dated January 31, 2019 with the Office of the President, seeking the Executive's assistance with regard to the Court's continued inaction on his fourth motion for reconsideration.
7. A little over three (3) months later, or on September 22, 2021, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Judicial Clemency.
Issue:
Whether or not the instant petition for judicial clemency should prosper.
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
Ruling:
No. The Court ruled that, unless for extraordinary reasons, there must be a five (5)-year minimum period before "dismissal or disbarment [can] be the subject of any kind of clemency." Moreover, "allegations of those who apply for clemency must first be evaluated by this Court to find whether prima facie circumstances exist to grant the relief.
When it comes to judicial clemency, a prima-facie case may be said to exist when the petition therefor sufficiently demonstrates, on its face, that the petitioner has sincerely expressed remorse for his past infraction/s, has convincingly reformed in his or her ways, and is forthwith deserving of the relief prayed for based on the surrounding circumstances.
In this case, while the petition complied with the five (5)-year minimum period, it nonetheless failed to demonstrate a prima facie case warranting the grant of judicial clemency. To expound, records show that petitioner's clemency petition was filed last September 22, 2021, or after five (5) years from his dismissal through the Court's Decision promulgated last July 26, 2016.
Here, although the instant petition was filed after the five (5)-year minimum period as above-mentioned, the Court finds that there is a lack of prima facie showing of petitioner's genuine repentance and remorse for his past infractions.
Here, records show that not up until recently, petitioner was still insistent upon his innocence and the unfairness of his dismissal. His most recent assertion of innocence, as seen in his letter-reguest to the Court En Banc dated June 3, 2021, was made only three (3) months prior to the filing of the instant petition. Worse, he even sought the intervention of the President in a matter that is wholly within the discretion of the Judiciary. It was only in this present petition filed last September 22, 2021 that petitioner openly admitted that he was remorseful for his misdeeds and has accepted the Court's verdict of dismissal against him.
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment