Sealana-Abbu v. Judge Madrono

Ruling

accordingly dismissed from the service with prejudice to reemployment in government but without forfeiture of retirement benefits. Respondent was again administratively charged in the consolidated cases of Sealana-Abbu v. Judge Madrono, A.M. No. 92-1-084-RTC and Sps. Saburnido v. Judge Madrono, A.M. No. MTJ-90-486. [4] In the first case, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Florencia Sealana-Abbu charged that respondent granted and reduced bail in a criminal case without prior notice to the prosecution. In the second case, the spouses Saburnido charged that respondent, in whose court certain confiscated smuggled goods were deposited, allowed other persons to take the goods but did not issue the corresponding memorandum receipts. Some of the goods were lost while others were substituted with damaged goods. Respondent was found guilty of both charges and his retirement benefits were forfeited. In the present case, the spouses Saburnido allege that respondent has been harassing them by filing numerous complaints against them, namely: 1. Adm. Case No. 90-0755, [5] for serious irregularity, filed by respondent against Venustiano Saburnido. Respondent claimed that Venustiano lent his service firearm to an acquaintance who thereafter extorted money from public jeepney drivers while posing as a member of the then Constabulary Highway Patrol Group. 2. Adm. Case No. 90-0758, [6] for falsification, filed by respondent against Venustiano Saburnido and two others. Respondent averred that Venustiano, with the help of his co-respondents in the case, inserted an entry in the police blotter regarding the loss of Venustiano's firearm. 3. Crim. Case No. 93-67, [7] for evasion through negligence under Article 224 of the Revised Penal Code, filed by respondent against Venustiano Saburnido. Respondent alleged that Venustiano Saburnido, without permission from his superior, took into custody a prisoner by final judgment who thereafter escaped. 4. Adm. Case No. 95-33, [8] filed by respondent against Rosalia Saburnido for violation of the Omnibus Election Code. Respondent alleged that Rosalia Saburnido served as chairperson of the Board of Election Inspectors during the 1995 elections despite being related to a candidate for barangay councilor. At the time the present complaint was filed, the three actions filed against Venustiano Saburnido had been dismissed while the case against Rosalia Saburnido was still pending. Complainants allege that respondent filed those cases against them in retaliation, since they had earlier filed administrative cases against him that resulted in his dismissal from the judiciary. Complainants assert that due to the complaints filed against them, they suffered much moral, mental, physical, and financial damage. They claim that their children had to stop going to school since the family funds were used up in attending to their cases. For his part, respondent contends that the grounds mentioned in the administrative cases in which he was dismissed