Scribd
Upload
15 views2 pages

Reinvindicator

Uploaded by

D G
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
15 views2 pages

Reinvindicator

Uploaded by

D G
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

LEONEN, J.

Death, be not proud, though some have called thee Mighty and dreadful, for thou art not so; For
those whom thou think 'st thou dost overthrow Die not, poor Death, nor yet canst thou kill me. From
rest and sleep, which but thy pictures be, Much pleasure; then from thee much more must flow, And
soonest our best men with thee do go, Rest of their bones, and soul's delivery. Thou art slave to
fate, chance, kings, and desperate men, And dost with poison, war, and sickness dwell, And poppy
or charms can make us sleep as well And better than thy stroke; why swell 'st thou then? One short
sleep past, we wake eternally And death shall be no more; Death, thou shaft die. Holy Sonnets:
Death, Be Not Proud

By John Donne

Death is a far graver and more powerful judgment than anything that this Court has jurisdiction to
render.

Hence, when the respondent in a pending administrative case dies, the case must be rendered
moot. Proceeding any further would be to violate the respondent's fundamental right to due process.
Should it be a guilty verdict, any monetary penalty imposed on the dead respondent's estate only
works to the detriment of their heirs. To continue with such cases would not punish the perpetrator,
but only subject the grieving family to further suffering by passing on the punishment to them.

This Court resolves the Administrative Complaint1 against Judge Liberty O. Castaneda (Judge
Castaneda), then the judge of the Regional Trial Court of Paniqui, Tarlac, Branch 67. She was sued
by Sharon Flores-Concepcion (Concepcion), whose marriage the judge had nullified without her
even knowing about it.

In particular, Concepcion claimed that in November 2010, she received a July 30, 2010 Decision2 in
Civil Case No. 459-09, declaring her marriage to Vergel Concepcion as void ab initio. The Decision
surprised her as she did not know that her husband had filed any petition.3 She added that neither
she nor her husband was a resident of Paniqui.4 Seeking answers, Concepcion went to Branch 67
on December 8, 2010, and there discovered that, based on the records, no hearing was conducted
on the case at all.5

Thus, Concepcion filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment6 on January 19, 2011 before the same
court.7 Due to this incident, she also filed an Complaint-Affidavit8 against Judge Castaneda.

On June 29, 2011, the Office of the Court Administrator directed the judge to comment, but she
failed to comply despite notice.9

In 2012, as this case was pending, Judge Castaneda was dismissed from the service in another
case, Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Liberty O. Castañeda.10 There, she was found
guilty of dishonesty, gross ignorance of the law, gross misconduct, and incompetency for, among
others, disposing of nullity and annulment marriages with "reprehensible"11 haste. This Court
forfeited her retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and barred her from reemployment in
any government branch or instrumentality, including government-owned and controlled
corporations.12

Given her dismissal, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended that Concepcion's
Complaint be dismissed.13 However, this Court later resolved to return this administrative matter to
the Office of the Court Administrator to reevaluate the case on its merits.14
In its July 7, 2015 Memorandum,15 the Office of the Court Administrator found that Judge
Castaneda willfully and contumaciously disregarded the "laws and rules intended to preserve
marriage as an inviolable social institution and safeguard the rights of the parties."16 It found that the
judge hastily resolved the nullity case despite several glaring procedural defects. Moreover, it noted
her "act of defiance"17 in refusing to submit a comment despite a directive. It stated that while the
judge had since been dismissed from service, penalties could still be imposed since this Complaint
had been filed before the 2012 ruling.18 It noted that a judge's lack of moral fitness may likewise be
basis for disbarment.19

The Office of the Court Administrator recommended the following:

1. the instant administrative complaint be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter


against respondent Judge Liberty O. Castaneda, former Presiding Judge, Branch 67, RTC,
Paniqui, Tarlac;

2. respondent Judge Castaneda be found GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law for which
she would have been DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE with forfeiture of her retirement
benefits, except leave credits, if any, and disqualified from reinstatement or
appointment to any public office, branch or instrumentality of the government, including
government-owned or controlled corporations had she not been previously dismissed
from the service in a Decision dated 9 October 2012 in A.M. No. RTJ-12-2316; and

3. respondent Judge Casta[n]eda be likewise DISBARRED for violation of Canons 1 and


11 and Rules 1.01 and 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and her name
be ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.20 (Emphasis in the original)

While the Memorandum was pending with this Court, Judge Castaneda died on April 10, 2018 from
acute respiratory failure.21

The sole issue here is whether or not the death of respondent Judge Liberty O. Castaneda warrants
the dismissal of the Administrative Complaint lodged against her.

In the 2019 case of Re: Investigation Report on the Alleged Extortion Activities of Presiding Judge
Godofredo B. Abul, Jr.,22 this Court initially held that the respondent's death will not extinguish a
pending administrative case, since this Court is not ousted from its jurisdiction by the mere fact that
the respondent had ceased to hold public office. Thus, the respondent in Re: Judge Abul was found
guilty of gross misconduct, and all his benefits, excluding accrued leaves, were forfeited.

On reconsideration, howe

You might also like