SC lifts RTC judge disqualification

The Supreme Court partially granted the petition for judicial clemency filed by a former Regional Trial Court judge, lifting his disqualification for reemployment in any branch, agency, or instrumentality of the government, that include government-owned and controlled corporation.

The High Court partially granted the petition of former Judge Ramon S. Caguioa, presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City, Branch 74 as it denied the request of reinstatement as RTC judge and the consideration of the dismissal as suspension without pay with his retirement benefits as a judge be fully restored.

The decision issued by the SC was dated 23 August 2022 and published 16 September 2022.

To recall, Caquioa was slapped with three administrative cases alleging that respondent committed gross ignorance of the law, manifest partiality and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

The complaint stemmed from respondent’s issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, which enjoined the implementation of Section 6 of Republic Act 93345 that subjected the applicants in Civil Case No. l 02-0-05, an action for declaratory relief entitled “Indigo Distribution Corp. Inc. v. The Hon. Secretary of Finance,” to the payment of sin taxes and excise taxes on tobacco and alcohol products.

This came after the judge issued of a writ of preliminary injunction, which enjoined the implementation of a customs personnel order issued by the Commissioner of Customs and approved by the Secretary of Finance.

In the subject CPO, the applicant, Andres Salvacion, then the District Collector of the Port of Subic, was reassigned to the port of Cagayan de Oro and another customs officer was designated as Acting District Collector of Subic.

Complainant Charles T. Bums Jr. charged respondent with grave misconduct for the latter’s issuance of a writ of execution in favor of the adverse party in Civil Case for recovery of ownership and possession over several parcels of land, placing the adverse party in possession of the said properties.

The court, in its 26 June 2009 Decision, found respondent guilty in all the administrative cases and was suspended from office without pay for three months.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *