DIGEST: COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. EXECUTIVE JUDGE OWEN B. AMOR

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. EXECUTIVE JUDGE OWEN B. AMOR, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, DAET, CAMARINES NORTE, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2140 . October 7, 2014 (Formerly A.M. No. 00-2-86-RTC)

Facts:

In the Memorandum which he submitted pursuant to the verbal instruction of then Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo, Judge Contreras reported on the alleged acts of respondent, as follows:

First, Respondent impounded the tricycle of a certain Gervin Ojeda. when the latter bumped the former’s vehicle and was unable to pay the amount demanded for the incurred damages.

1.    When Judge Contreras called the attention of SG Morico of the wrong date, the latter took the certification and went straight to respondent’s chambers. After leaving the chambers, SG Morico became "belligerent and discourteous" and refused to return the certification to Judge Contreras.

2.    Thus, Judge Contreras sought the assistance of Judge Sancho Dames and 2nd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Leo Intia in order to retrieve the aforesaid certification from SG Morico, but to no avail.

3.    Thereafter, Judge Contreras learned that respondent had berated the guards of the Hall of Justice, including SG Morico, for issuing the certification, and that SG Morico and Head Guard Quintin Fernandez tried to conceal the alleged acts of grave abuse of authority by respondent.

Second, Judge Lalwani called respondent to seek reconsideration of her detail to another station. Respondent then berated Judge Lalwani and accused her of being lazy and abusive like the other judges of Camarines Sur who were also detailed at Camarines Norte. Further, respondent instructed Judge Lalwani to go slow with the trial of a BP 22 case as the accused therein was his friend.

Third, respondent visited Judge Contreras at the latter’s and personally intervened for one Atty. Freddie Venida (Atty. Venida), who was previously arrested and charged with indirect contempt. Respondent then told Judge Contreras that he does not mind Atty. Verida’s abusive practice as he gives him gold. udge Contreras rejected respondent’s indecent overtures,

Etc.

respondent continued to ignore the said directives, the Court issued a Resolution.

Meanwhile, respondent filed his certificate of candidacy (COC) for the 2002 Barangay Elections, resulting in his automatic resignation from the service 

Issue:

Whether respondent’s   failure to comment on the administrative complaint despite being given an opportunity to do so is tantamount to an admission of the truth of the allegations against him

Held:

Yes. In the instant case, the OCA correctly found respondent guilty of the charges against him. As aptly pointed out, respondent’s failure to file a comment despite all the opportunities afforded him constituted a waiver of his right to defend himself. In the natural order of things, a man would resist an unfounded claim or imputation against him. It is generally contrary to human nature to remain silent and say nothing in the face of false accusations. As such, respondent’s silence may thus be construed as an implied admission and acknowledgement of the veracity of the allegations against him.Hence, the Court upholds the OCA’s findings that respondent: (a) abused his authority in impounding the tricycle and exerted undue influence on the security guards of the Hall of Justice in his attempt to obstruct the investigation of Judge Contreras; (b) was discourteous in dealing with a fellow judge when the latter was merely asking for reconsideration of her detail to another station; (c) used his office and position to intervene in behalf of Atty. Venida and tolerated the latter’s abusive practice as a lawyer in exchange for gold; (d) was habitually absent; and (e) gave orders to Atty. Loria to submit all petitions for extra-judicial foreclosures to him which resulted in delays in the proceedings and asked the latter to demand "grease money" from newspaper publishers in order not to be blacklisted.