Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50057:am-07-7-17-sc-2007&amp;catid=1496&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:17:55+00:00

Document:
A.M. No. 07-7-17-SC - Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, etc.
RE: LETTER OF JUDGE AUGUSTUS C. DIAZ, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF QUEZON CITY, BRANCH 37, APPEALING FOR JUDICIAL CLEMENCY.
In a letter dated July 18, 2007, Judge Augustus C. Diaz, presiding judge of Branch 37 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, informed the Court that he is an applicant for judgeship in one of the vacant Regional Trial Court branches in Metro Manila. In connection therewith, he was interviewed by the Judicial and Bar Council on July 10, 2007. He was told to seek judicial clemency due to the fact that he was once fined P20,000 "for not hearing a motion for demolition." He claims that this lapse happened only once as a result of "oversight." He requests judicial clemency and, in particular, that he be allowed to "again be nominated to one of the vacant branches of the Regional Trial Court of Manila or in any of the cities where [his] application [is being] considered."
In a subsequent letter,1 Judge Diaz stated that he has been the presiding judge of Branch 37 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City since March 1, 1995. He expressed deep remorse for the lapse for which he was held administratively liable in Alvarez v. Diaz.2 He confessed that "[t]he stain of the penalty has taught [him] a bitter lesson" and promised to avoid the commission of the same or similar acts. He submitted himself to the judicious discretion of this Court for whatever action the Court may take on his plea for judicial clemency.
Under the said provision, Judge Diaz is disqualified from being nominated for appointment to any judicial post, until and unless his request for judicial clemency is granted.
1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation.13 These shall include but should not be limited to certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, judges or judges associations and prominent members of the community with proven integrity and probity. A subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case for the same or similar misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of non-reformation.
2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty14 to ensure a period of reformation.
5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify clemency.
In this case, Judge Diaz expressed sincere repentance for his past malfeasance. He humbly accepted the verdict of this Court in Alvarez. Three years have elapsed since the promulgation of Alvarez. It is sufficient to ensure that he has learned his lesson and that he has reformed. His 12 years of service in the judiciary may be taken as proof of his dedication to the institution. Thus, the Court may now open the door of further opportunities in the judiciary for him.
Accordingly, the letter dated July 18, 2007 of Judge Augustus C. Diaz is hereby NOTED. His request for judicial clemency is GRANTED.
1 Dated August 28, 2007.
2 A.M. No. MTJ-00-1283, 03 March 2004, 424 SCRA 213.
5 The disqualification in the second clause of Section 5, Rule 4(3) of the Rules of the Judicial and Bar Council applicable to those found guilty "in an administrative case, where the penalty imposed is at least a fine of more than P10,000" means that the person was found guilty of at least a less serious charge. Under Section 11(B), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, a less serious charge is penalized with either suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three months or a fine of more than P10,000 but not exceeding P20,000. The disqualification does not apply to someone found guilty of a light charge because under Section 11(B), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court the maximum penalty imposable in such a case shall not exceed P10,000.
6 Castillo v. Calanog, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-90-447, 16 December 1994, 239 SCRA 268.
7 Junio v. Rivera, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-91-565, 05 October 2005, 472 SCRA 69.
11 Castillo v. Calanog, Jr., supra.
12 Section 6, Article VIII, Constitution.
13 Castillo v. Calanog, Jr., supra. See also Junio v. Rivera, Jr., supra.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.