Scribd
Upload
316 views2 pages

246-People v. Gacott

The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that only the Court en banc, not a division thereof, has the power to administratively discipline judges of lower courts under Section 11, Article VIII of the Constitution. Specifically, the Court held that (1) the first clause of Section 11 grants the disciplinary power to the Court en banc; and (2) only cases involving dismissal of judges must be decided by the full Court, while cases with penalties less than one year suspension or a fine of P10,000 can be decided in division. The motion for reconsideration filed by Judge Gacott, who was reprimanded and fined P10,000 by a division, was denied.

Uploaded by

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

246-People v. Gacott

The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that only the Court en banc, not a division thereof, has the power to administratively discipline judges of lower courts under Section 11, Article VIII of the Constitution. Specifically, the Court held that (1) the first clause of Section 11 grants the disciplinary power to the Court en banc; and (2) only cases involving dismissal of judges must be decided by the full Court, while cases with penalties less than one year suspension or a fine of P10,000 can be decided in division. The motion for reconsideration filed by Judge Gacott, who was reprimanded and fined P10,000 by a division, was denied.

Uploaded by

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

People v.

Gacott
G.R. No. 116049 | Regalado, J. | July 13, 1995
Tenure of Justices/ Judges

DOCTRINE:

RELEVANT FACTS
The Second Division of the Supreme Court resolved to reprimand Judge Estaquio Z. Gacott of the Regional
Trial Court in Palawan and fine him with P10,000 for gross ignorance of the law. In this motion for reconsideration,
he questions the competence of the Second Division to administratively discipline him. He claims that the clause
“The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a
vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted
thereon” of Section 11, Article VIII of the Constitution means that only the full Court, not a division thereof, can
administratively punish him.

ISSUE
Whether or not only the Court en banc can administratively discipline judges of the lower court- YES

RATIO DECIDENDI
Yes, the Court en banc can administratively discipline judges of the lower court. As stated in the second sentence of
Section 11, Article VIII, “The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or
order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the
issues in the case and voted thereon.”

The very text of Section 11 of Article VIII clearly shows that there are actually two situations envisaged therein. The
first clause which states that "the Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts,"
is a declaration of the grant of that disciplinary power to, and the determination of the procedure in the exercise
thereof by, the Court en banc. It was not therein intended that all administrative disciplinary cases should be heard
and decided by the whole Court since it would result in an absurdity. The second clause declares that the Court en
banc can "order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations
on the issues in the case and voted therein." In this instance, the administrative case must be deliberated upon and
decided by the full Court itself.

Pursuant to the first clause which confers administrative disciplinary power to the Court en banc, on February 9,
1993 a Court En Banc resolution was adopted, entitled "Bar Matter No. 209. — In the Matter of the Amendment
and/or Clarification of Various Supreme Court Rules and Resolutions," (see notes for the provision)

Although, only cases involving dismissal of judges of lower courts are specifically required to be decided by the
Court en banc, in cognizance of the need for a thorough and judicious evaluation of serious charges against
members of the judiciary, it is only when the penalty imposed does not exceed suspension of more than one year or
a fine of P10,000.00, or both, that the administrative matter may be decided in division.

RULING
WHEREFORE, the basic and supplemental motions for reconsideration of the judgment in the case at bar are hereby
DENIED. This resolution is immediately final and executory.

SO ORDERED.

|1
Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano, Padilla, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza and
Francisco, JJ., concur.

NOTES
For said purpose, the following are considered en banc cases:
xxx xxx xxx
6. Cases where the penalty to be imposed is the dismissal of a judge, officer or employee of the Judiciary,
disbarment of a lawyer, or either the suspension of any of them for a period of more than one (1) year or a fine
exceeding P10,000.00, or both.

|2

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy