spot_img
28.4 C
Philippines
Friday, March 29, 2024

Pasay judge fired, SC penalizes 2 others

- Advertisement -

The Supreme Court has ordered the dismissal of a Pasay City regional trial court judge for ignorance of the law, while it forfeited the benefits of a retired judge and another who had been convicted the Sandiganbayan of bribery.

The SC dismissed from the judiciary Pasay City RTC Judge Jesus B. Mupas after finding him guilty of ignorance of the law and penalized him to pay a fine of P125,000 with forfeiture of his retirement and other benefits.

Retired Baguio City RTC Judge Antonio C. Reyes was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law, gross misconduct, and violations of the New Code of Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.

Since Reyes has compulsory retired, his retirement benefits were ordered forfeited. He was also perpetually barred from re-employment in government.

Former Judge Owen B. Amor of Camarines Norte RTC was been found guilty of gross misconduct. Amor has been convicted of bribery by the Sandiganbayan for demanding P400,000 in exchange for the dismissal of a case.

- Advertisement -

The high court also ordered the forfeiture of his retirement benefits and he was banned from appointment to any public office. 

“The purging of the ranks is among the top priorities of Chief Justice Diosdado M. Peralta in his Ten-Point Program which he made public when he was appointed as the 26th Chief Justice in October last year,” the SC Public Information Office said, in a statement.

“Aside from integrity, the three other core areas in the 10-Point Program are efficiency, service, and security.”

The administrative case against Mupas was initiated by the corporate officers of the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) who complained about the alleged irregular issuances by Judge Mupas of the temporary restraining orders (TROs) and writ of preliminary injunction (WPI).

“The Court held that a perusal of the reasons offered by Judge Mupas show that nowhere in any of his questioned orders did he make a pronouncement on the presence of all the requisites for the issuances of a TRO and WPI. Judge Mupas merely discussed the supposed irreparable damages or injury that may result should he not issue the injunctive reliefs prayed for,” it noted. Rey E. Requejo

The Supreme Court has ordered the dismissal of a Pasay City regional trial court judge for ignorance of the law, while it forfeited the benefits of a retired judge and another who had been convicted the Sandiganbayan of bribery.

The SC dismissed from the judiciary Pasay City RTC Judge Jesus B. Mupas after finding him guilty of ignorance of the law and penalized him to pay a fine of P125,000 with forfeiture of his retirement and other benefits.

Retired Baguio City RTC Judge Antonio C. Reyes was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law, gross misconduct and violations of the New Code of Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.

Since Reyes has compulsory retired, his retirement benefits were ordered forfeited. He was also perpetually barred from re-employment in government.

Former Judge Owen B. Amor of Camarines Norte RTC was been found guilty of gross misconduct. Amor has been convicted of bribery by the Sandiganbayan for demanding P400,000 in exchange for the dismissal of a case.

The high court also ordered the forfeiture of his retirement benefits and he was banned from appointment to any public office.

“The purging of the ranks is among the top priorities of Chief Justice Diosdado M. Peralta in his Ten-Point Program which he made public when he was appointed as the 26th Chief Justice in October last year,” the SC Public Information Office said, in a statement.

“Aside from integrity, the three other core areas in the 10-Point Program are efficiency, service, and security.”

The administrative case against Mupas was initiated by the corporate officers of the Philippine National Construction Corporation (PNCC) who complained about the alleged irregular issuances by Judge Mupas of the temporary restraining orders (TROs) and writ of preliminary injunction (WPI).

“The Court held that a perusal of the reasons offered by Judge Mupas show that nowhere in any of his questioned orders did he make a pronouncement on the presence of all the requisites for the issuances of a TRO and WPI. Judge Mupas merely discussed the supposed irreparable damages or injury that may result should he not issue the injunctive reliefs prayed for,” it noted. 

- Advertisement -

LATEST NEWS

Popular Articles