A.M. No. RTJ-10-2219, August 01, 2017

A.M. No. RTJ-10-2219, August 01, 2017 is a decision 2017 made by the Supreme Court.
Judge fined for 3mos. worth of salary deducted from his retirement benefits.
==Case Details==
*Office of the Court Administrator Vs. Retired Judge Pablo R. Chavez, et al./Re: Undated anonymous letter complaint against the Presiding Judge, Clerk of Court and Court Stenographer fo teh Regional Trial Court, Branch 87, Rosario, Batangas
*A.M. No. RTJ-10-2219, August 01, 2017
*Justice xxx
*http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2017/august2017/RTJ-10-2219.pdf
*http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2017/august2017/RTJ-10-2219_velasco.pdf
*xxx
==Issue==
*We hold that Judge xxx's claims of acting in good faith and being a victim of the betrayal of Atty. xxx and his court staff do not excuse him from liability.
*Be that as it may, the presence of mitigating circumstances which should be appreciated in favor of Judge Chavez warrants the reduction of the penalty to be imposed on him.
==Info==
"Judge xxx's excuse, that upon learning of the irregularities being committed by his court personnel, he immediately acted with haste and instructed xxx to turn over the money, is specious and unconvincing. His admission that he had no knowledge regarding the anomalies going on in his court underscores his inefficiency and incompetence. It clearly demonstrates a lack of control expected of a judge exercising proper office management."
"In previous cases, we have also imposed lesser penalties in the presence of these mitigating circumstances. This is consistent with precedent where we refrained from imposing the actual administrative penalties prescribed by law or regulation in the presence of mitigating factors. Indeed, while we are duty-bound to sternly wield a corrective hand to discipline our errant employees and to weed out those who are undesirable, we also have the discretion to temper the harshness of its judgment with mercy."
We apply to Judge Chavez the mitigating circumstances of: 
* (1) remorse in committing the infractions; 
* (2) length of government service; 
* (3) first offense; and 
* (4) health and age. 
These humanitarian considerations will mitigate Judge xxx's penalty and remove him from the severe consequences of the penalty of dismissal and forfeiture of his retirement benefits. Taking into account these mitigating circumstances, together with the aggravating circumstance of being guilty of the lesser offense of undue delay in rendering decisions, we impose the penalty of fine equivalent to three months of Judge xxx's last salary.
==Decision==
WHEREFORE, we PARTIALLY GRANT the motion for reconsideration filed by respondent retired Judge xxx. The Decision dated March 7, 2017 is MODIFIED. Respondent retired Judge xxx is ordered to pay a FINE equivalent to THREE MONTHS of his last salary, deductible from his retirement benefits.
==Trivia==
*RRACCS Section 48, Rule X
Category:Decisions 2017
Category:August 2017
Category:OCA