Re: Judge Calderon

A.M. No. 98-8-105-MTC (January 26, 1999)

Judge Eric T. Calderon was dismissed for gross misconduct due to unapproved absences.

Facts:

This administrative matter arose from the findings of the Office of the Court Administration (OCA) regarding Judge Eric T. Calderon of the Municipal Trial Court of Calumpit, Bulacan, who incurred multiple unapproved leaves of absence. The OCA issued a memorandum on September 30, 1997, requiring Judge Calderon to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for his absences, which were documented as follows:

  • August 8 to September 8, 1995: Vacation Leave (no medical certificate; no clearance)
  • September 12 to October 13, 1995: Vacation Leave (no clearance)
  • February 22 to May 21, 1996: Sick Leave (no medical certificate)
  • February 8 to 21, 1997: Sick Leave (with medical certificate)
  • March 13 to 30, 1997: Sick Leave (with medical certificate)
  • April 2 to May 2, 1997: Sick Leave (with medical certificate)
  • May 3 to 31, 1997: Leave without indication of type (with medical certificate)
  • June 1 to 30, 1997: Sick Leave (with medical certificate)
  • July 1 to 31, 1997: Sick Leave (with medical certificate)
  • August 1 to 31, 1997: Sick Leave (with medical certificate)

The OCA noted that Judge Calderon’s absences from February 22, 1996, onward were not covered by any approved leave. In response, Judge Calderon submitted a letter on November 19, 1997, providing explanations and supporting documents for his absences, including medical certificates and applications for leave. He claimed that his prolonged absences were due to a lingering illness of malignant hypertension.

The OCA conducted an evaluation and recommended that Judge Calderon be declared absent without leave (AWOL) and that his position be declared vacant. The records indicated that prior to February 8, 1997, Judge Calderon had a history of approved leaves, but after that date, he had numerous absences without approval. Notably, he was designated as an assisting judge in Makati from February 21 to March 11, 1997, during which he reported for work regularly.

Despite his claims of illness, the OCA found inconsistencies in his medical documentation. The medical certificates submitted were primarily from his personal physician, an orthopedic doctor, and did not convincingly support his claims of malignant hypertension. A subsequent medical evaluation by the Court’s physician contradicted his claims, diagnosing him with diastolic hypertension stage 1 instead.

Legal Issues:

  1. Whether Judge Calderon’s absences without approved leave constituted gross misconduct and abandonment of office.
  2. Whether the medical documentation provided by Judge Calderon sufficiently justified his prolonged absences.

Arguments:

  • Petitioner (OCA): The OCA argued that Judge Calderon’s frequent and prolonged absences without proper approval were inexcusable and detrimental to the administration of justice. They contended that his explanations lacked merit and that his medical documentation was insufficient to justify his absences. The OCA recommended serious sanctions, including dismissal from service.

  • Respondent (Judge Calderon): Judge Calderon defended his absences by asserting that he had submitted the necessary medical certificates and applications for leave. He claimed that his illness was legitimate and that he had been unable to report for work due to his condition. He sought to demonstrate that his absences were justified and that he had complied with the requirements for leave.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The court found Judge Calderon guilty of gross misconduct and abandonment of office. It held that his frequent absences without leave were unjustifiable and that his explanations were not credible. The court noted that the medical documentation provided was inadequate, particularly since it was primarily from an orthopedic doctor rather than specialists in internal medicine or cardiology. The court emphasized the importance of a judge's duty to be present and available to dispense justice, stating that Judge Calderon’s actions had caused significant disservice to litigants and undermined the integrity of the judiciary.

The court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which allows for the presumption of negligence or misconduct based on the circumstances of the case. It concluded that Judge Calderon’s habitual absence from his court duties warranted severe disciplinary action, including dismissal from service with forfeiture of benefits and prejudice to re-employment in any government position.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  1. Judges are expected to maintain a high standard of professionalism and dedication to their duties, and frequent absences without justifiable cause can lead to serious disciplinary action.
  2. The adequacy of medical documentation is crucial in justifying prolonged absences due to illness, and reliance on non-specialist medical opinions may not suffice.
  3. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can be invoked in cases of judicial misconduct where the circumstances clearly indicate gross incompetence or neglect of duty.