Cited Laws
TL;DR — Ruling
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the following recommendations are respectfully submitted, to wit: "1. In compliance with our duty to help purge the judiciary of undesirable public servant, Joseilto Guisando is hereby found to be guilty of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service. He is hereby recommended to be DISMISSED from the service without prejudice to the criminal charges filed against him; "2. As regards the rule of Atty.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the following recommendations are respectfully submitted, to wit: "1. In compliance with our duty to help purge the judiciary of undesirable public servant, Joseilto Guisando is hereby found to be guilty of Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Service. He is hereby recommended to be DISMISSED from the service without prejudice to the criminal charges filed against him; "2. As regards the rule of Atty. Marina B. Ching, it was established that she was the reason for the acts of Guisando and this she was fully aware of. However, since she has been indefinitely suspended, her suspension serves as her penalty and it is recommended that pending the filing of appropriate charges, her suspension be lifted. To afford Atty. Marina B. Ching due process, a charge for immorality and acts unbecoming of a public servant be filed against her since there are serious grounds to believe that Joselito Guisando and Atty. Marina B. Ching had an illicit relationship; and for carrying a romantic relationship with one Judge Natividad; and "3. Due to the security lapses, the security personnel concerned be subjected to disciplinary action after investigation." The records of the investigation amply support the findings of Mme. Justice Remedios Salazar-Fernando against Guisando. Indeed, Guisando has committed an act of grave misconduct. His act of bringing the explosive device to the Court shows his disregard to authority and disrespect to the institution. He has knowingly and unnecessarily placed the lives of court personnel in grave danger. The Court also agrees with the Investigating Justice that Atty. Ching herself could not be said to be faultless but, contrary to what the Investigating Justice implicitly suggests, it is not indispensable to still institute a separate charge for immorality against Atty. Ching on the alleged illicit relationship between her and Guisando. This matter has been aptly covered by the subject of the Court referral initially to Atty. Cabanilla and then to Justice Salazar-Fernando. In its resolution of 07 December 1999, the Court has so resolved to docket the report of DCA Elepaño on the "grenade-throwing incident" of 06 December 1999 as an administrative complaint against both Joselito Guisando and Atty. Marina Ching. The report links to the incident, and as being the offshoot thereof, the alleged illicit relationship between Atty. Ching and Guisando. In the course of the investigation conducted by Justice Salazar-Femando, Atty. Ching, along with several others, personally appeared and testified for and on her behalf. Indeed, in compliance with the Court's resolution of 11 September 2001, Atty. Ching filed a manifestation that she was willing to submit the case for immorality against her on the basis of the investigation of Justice Salazar-Fernando and her additional comment, dated 03 September 2001, submitted to the Court. Given this background, the Court deems it inappropriate
), Nicomedes V. Natanauan, Jr. (
A.M. No. 2019-04-SC
CaseA.M. SB -13-20-P [Formerly A.M. No. 12-29-SB-P] - RIA PAMELA B. ABULENCIA AND BLESSIE M. BURGONIO, COMPLAINANTS, VS. REGINO R. HERMOSISIMA, SECURITY GUARD II, SHERIFF AND SECURITY DIVISION, SANDIGANBAYAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
A.M. No. 12-29-SB-P
CaseA.M. No. P-06-2158 (Formerly OCA I.P.I No. 01-1036-P) - JUDGE DOMINGO C. SAN JOSE, JR., COMPLAINANT, VS. ROBERT T. CAMURONGAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library
A.M. No. P-06-2158