Judge guilty of misconduct - A.M. No. MTJ-10-1761

A.M. No. MTJ-10-1761

"x x x.

We agree with the investigating judge and the OCA in finding respondent guilty of simple misconduct in causing the registration of the title over OCT No. P-28258 in his son’s name with the intention of defrauding a possible judgment-obligee.



The Court defined simple misconduct as follows:



Simple misconduct has been defined as an unacceptable behavior that transgresses the established rules of conduct for public officers. It is an unlawful behavior. “Misconduct in office is any unlawful behavior by a public officer in relation to the duties of his office, willful in character. It generally means wrongful, improper, unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate, or intentional purpose although it may not necessarily imply corruption or criminal intent.”4



Simple misconduct is a transgression of some established rule of action, an unlawful behavior, or negligence committed by a public officer.5 In this case, respondent knew at that time of the registration of the property that he had a pending case and that he could possibly lose the case. In order to manipulate the situation and taking advantage of his knowledge of the law, respondent caused the registration of the property in Alistair’s name with the intention of defrauding a possible judgment-obligee. Clearly, it was an improper behavior which warrants a disciplinary sanction by this Court.



Under Section 9 in relation to Section 11(B), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, simple misconduct is a less serious offense punishable by suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one month nor more than three months or a fine of more than P10,000 but not exceeding P20,000.6 Since respondent has already tendered his resignation from the judiciary effective 1 July 2009, his suspension is no longer possible. However, we modify the recommendation of the OCA that in lieu of suspension, a fine equivalent to three months salary at the time of his resignation should be imposed on respondent. Pursuant to the imposable penalty in accordance with the Rules of Court, a fine of P20,000 is in order.

x x x."