Judicial Clemency

What is Judicial Clemency?

Clemency, is an act of mercy removing any disqualification, should be
balanced with the preservation of public confidence in the courts. The Court
will grant it only if there is a showing that it is well merited. Proof of
reformation and showing of potential and promise are indispensable. (Re:
Letter of Judge Augustus Diaz. 533 SCRA 534)

Judicial clemency is not a privilege or a right that can be availed of at any

time, as the Court will grant it only if there is a showing that it is merited.
Verily, clemency, as an act of mercy removing any disqualification, should
be balanced with the preservation of public confidence in the courts.
(Concerned Lawyers of Bulacan vs Villalon-Pornillos, A.M. No. RTJ-09-
2183, February 14, 2017)

Basis for Judicial Clemency

Article VIII, Section 5, (5) of the 1987 Constitution provides:

"Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of

constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts,
the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal
assistance to the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a
simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not
diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure
of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective
unless disapproved by the Supreme Court."

Section 5, Rule 4 of the Rules of the Judicial and Bar Council provides:
SEC. 5. Disqualification. - The following are disqualified from being
nominated for appointment to any judicial post or as Ombudsman or
Deputy Ombudsman:
1. Those with pending criminal or regular administrative cases;
2. Those with pending criminal cases in foreign courts or
tribunals; and
3. Those who have been convicted in any criminal case; or in
an administrative case, where the penalty imposed is at least
a fine of more than P10,000, unless he has been granted
judicial clemency.
To whom is it applicable?

Judicial Clemency is given to members of the bar, who seeks to be

given compassion by the Court to resume his or her previous status
prior to suspension, or even disbarment. Here, there must be a showing
of clear remorse of the petitioner of his previous actions.

What are the guidelines in resolving requests for judicial clemency?

In Re: Letter of Judge Augustus Diaz. 533 SCRA 534, the Court lays down
the following guidelines in resolving requests for judicial clemency:

1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall include

but should not be limited to certifications or testimonials of the
officer(s) or chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, judges
or judges associations and prominent members of the community with
proven integrity and probity. A subsequent finding of guilt in an
administrative case for the same or similar misconduct will give rise to
a strong presumption of non-reformation.

2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to
ensure a period of reformation.

3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has
productive years ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving
him a chance to redeem himself.

4. There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude,

learning or legal acumen or contribution to legal scholarship and the
development of the legal system or administrative and other relevant
skills), as well as potential for public service.

5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may

justify clemency.

JURISPRUDENCE

JUDICIAL CLEMENCY INVOLVING JUDGES

In Re: Letter of Judge Augustus Diaz. 533 SCRA 534 (2007)

Judge Augustus C. Diaz was an applicant for judgeship in one of the

vacant Regional Trial Court branches in Metro Manila. In connection
therewith, he was interviewed by the Judicial and Bar Council. He was told
to seek judicial clemency due to the fact that he was once fined P20,000
"for not hearing a motion for demolition." He claims that this lapse
happened only once as a result of "oversight." He requests judicial
clemency and, in particular, that he be allowed to "again be nominated to
one of the vacant branches of the Regional Trial Court of Manila or in any
of the cities where [his] application [is being] considered."

Judge Diaz was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law when he
granted the following motions: (1) a motion for execution which was fatally
defective for lack of notice to the defendant and (2) a motion for demolition
without notice and hearing. His action on the motion for demolition also
made him liable for grave abuse of authority.3 He was fined P20,000.

Judge Diaz is disqualified from being nominated for appointment to

any judicial post, until and unless his request for judicial clemency is
granted.

In the exercise of its constitutional power of administrative

supervision over all courts and all personnel thereof, the Court lays down
the following guidelines in resolving requests for judicial clemency:
1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall
include but should not be limited to certifications or testimonials of
the officer(s) or chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
judges or judges associations and prominent members of the
community with proven integrity and probity. A subsequent finding
of guilt in an administrative case for the same or similar misconduct
will give rise to a strong presumption of non-reformation.

2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty
to ensure a period of reformation.

3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still
has productive years ahead of him that can be put to good use by
giving him a chance to redeem himself.
 4. There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude,
learning or legal acumen or contribution to legal scholarship and
the development of the legal system or administrative and other
relevant skills), as well as potential for public service.

5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may

justify clemency.

In this case, Judge Diaz expressed sincere repentance for his

past malfeasance. He humbly accepted the verdict of this Court in
Alvarez. Three years have elapsed since the promulgation of Alvarez.
It is sufficient to ensure that he has learned his lesson and that he has
reformed. His 12 years of service in the judiciary may be taken as
proof of his dedication to the institution. Thus, the Court may now
open the door of further opportunities in the judiciary for him.

In Re: Undated Letter of Mr. Louis C. Biraogo, Petitioner in Biraogo vs.

Nograles and Limkaichong, 580 SCRA 107 (2009)

Through six letters filed by Retired Justice Ruben T. Reyes, he sought the
benevolence of the Court to lift his indefinite suspension from the practice
of law and disqualification to hold public office. The said sanctions were
recommended because Justice Reyes was found to have prematurely
leaked the ponencia in G.R. No. 179120.

The Court found that Justice Reyes’ espousal of much regret and sincere
apology for the incident, his thirty-five years of service in the government
prior to the suspension, and considering his advanced age, satisfied the
guidelines. However, the Court only allowed Justice Reyes to return to
private practice and chose not to lift the suspension in holding of
public office and he is also not allowed to teach law in MCLE and to
become a lecturer in the PHILJA.

The granting of these petitions still depends on the discretion of the Court,
notwithstanding the criteria and guidelines.

For as long as the Court is satisfied that a member of the bar or the bench
suffering from suspension, disbarment or any other disabilities has shown
strong proofs of rehabilitation, he may be allowed or readmitted to the
practice of law.

However, this is without prejudice to the authority of the Court to impose

additional conditions to grant requests for judicial clemency and/or
reinstatement.

In Re: Emma J. Castillo vs. Judge Manuel M. Calanog,

239 SCRA 268 (1994)

The Court found Judge Calanog guilty of immorality and ordered dismissed
from the service "with prejudice to his reinstatement or appointment to any
public office including a government-owned or controlled corporation, and
forfeiture of retirement benefits, if any."

As proof of his moral regeneration, Atty. Calanog alleges that he has

become active in religious and civic activities. In support of his allegations,
he has submitted testimonials. Atty. Calanog is a relatively young man of
54. If his contributions during the four years that he was an RTC judge
were any measure of his potentiality for public service, he has productive
years still ahead of him which should not be foreclosed. The penalty of
disqualification from appointment to any public office should be lifted so
that the opportunity for public service in other fields may be opened to him.

Atty. Calanog appears to be sincerely repentant. He describes the effect of

the decision in this case as a "healing surgery" for him.

Atty. Calanog is a relatively young man of 54. If his contributions during the
four years that he was an RTC judge were any measure of his potentiality
for public service, he has productive years still ahead of him which should
not be foreclosed. The penalty of disqualification from appointment to any
public office should be lifted so that the opportunity for public service in
other fields may be opened to him. His return to the judiciary may not be
feasible at this time considering the recency of our decision, but certainly in
the vast field of public service there should be room for the gainful
employment of his talents. Indeed in the past this Court showed
compassion in imposing penalties, taking into account the peculiar
circumstances of the case. In one instance it modified a judgment of
dismissal and ordered the reinstatement of a judge.
.
WHEREFORE, the petition for clemency and compassion of Atty. Manuel
M. Calanog, Jr. is GRANTED and the penalty of disqualification from public
office imposed on him is LIFTED.

In the Matter of Petition for Absolute Judicial Clemency of Former

Judge Baguinda Ali A. Pacalna, MTTC Marawi City (2013)

A Petition for judicial clemency filed by Baguinda-Ali A. Pacalna

(respondent), former Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court
(MCTC) of Balindong in Lanao del Sur.

The respondent was found administratively liable for dishonesty, serious

misconduct and gross ignorance of the law or procedure, and also violated
the Code of Judicial Conduct which enjoins judges to uphold the integrity of
the judiciary, avoid impropriety or the appearance of impropriety in all
activities and to perform their official duties honestly and diligently.

This Court in A.M. No. 07-7-17-SC (Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz,
Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 37, Appealing for Judicial
Clemency)7 laid down the following guidelines in resolving requests for
judicial clemency, to wit:
1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall
include but should not be limited to certifications or testimonials of the
officer(s) or chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, judges
or judges associations and prominent members of the community
with proven integrity and probity. A subsequent finding of guilt in an
administrative case for the same or similar misconduct will give rise to
a strong presumption of non-reformation.
2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty
to ensure a period of reformation.
3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still
has productive years ahead of him that can be put to good use by
giving him a chance to redeem himself.
4. There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude,
learning or legal acumen or contribution to legal scholarship and the
development of the legal system or administrative and other relevant
skills), as well as potential for public service.
5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may
justify clemency. (Emphasis supplied.)
Respondent’s petition is not supported by any single proof of his
professed repentance. His appeal for clemency is solely anchored on
his avowed intention to go back to the judiciary on his personal belief
that "he can be x x x an effective instrument in the delivery of justice
in the Province of Lanao del Sur because of his seventeen (17) years
of experience," and on his "promise before the Almighty God and the
High Court that he will never repeat the acts or omissions that he had
committed as a Judge." He claims having learned "enough lessons"
during the three years he became jobless and his family had "suffered
so much because of his shortcoming."

In the present case, the Court held that respondent exhibited gross
ignorance of procedure in the conduct of election cases in connection with
petitions for inclusion of voters in the barangay elections, resulting in delays
such that complainant’s name was not timely included in the master list and
consequently he was not considered a candidate for barangay chairman.
Such failure to observe fundamental rules relative to the petitions for
inclusion cannot be excused. Further, respondent was found to have
intentionally fabricated an order which supposedly granted a motion for
intervention by the counsel for the incumbent mayor whose re-election
complainant and his co-petitioners were allegedly not willing to support.
Respondent’s act of fabricating an order to cover up his official
shortcomings constitutes dishonesty, a reprehensible act that will not be
sanctioned by this Court.

In the subsequent administrative case (A.M. No. MTJ-11-1791), respondent

was found to have misused his authority when he, over the vigorous
objection of complainants police officers, took custody of an accused then
detained in jail for carnapping charges, by merely issuing a signed
handwritten acknowledgment receipt with an undertaking to present the
said accused to the court when ordered. Said accused was never returned
to jail and while the case against him was dismissed, there was no order for
release issued by the court. Respondent endeavored to justify his act in
aiding the accused by virtue of his position as Sultan in his hometown, but
the Court found him liable for Grave Misconduct, warranting his dismissal
from the service. But since the penalty of dismissal can no longer be
imposed on account of respondent’s resignation, he was meted the penalty
of six months suspension converted to forfeiture of the corresponding
amount of his salary. This second administrative offense committed by
respondent also led to the OCA’s filing of a criminal complaint for
obstruction of justice against him.

Given the gravity of respondent’s transgressions, it becomes more

imperative to require factual support for respondent’s allegations of
remorse and reform. As this Court previously declared:

Concerned with safeguarding the integrity of the judiciary, this Court has
come down hard and wielded the rod of discipline against members of the
judiciary who have fallen short of the exacting standards of judicial conduct.
This is because a judge is the visible representation of the law and of
justice. He must comport himself in a manner that his conduct must be free
of a whiff of impropriety, not only with respect to the performance of his
official duties but also as to his behavior outside his sala and as a private
individual. His character must be able to withstand the most searching
public scrutiny because the ethical principles and sense of propriety of a
judge are essential to the preservation of the people’s faith in the judicial
system.

Clemency, as an act of mercy removing any disqualification, should be

balanced with the preservation of public confidence in the courts. The Court
will grant it only if there is a showing that it is merited. Proof of reformation
and a showing of potential and promise are indispensable. Emphasis
supplied.)

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Judicial Clemency filed by respondent

Baguinda-Ali A. Pacalna is DENIED for lack of merit.

JUDICIAL CLEMENCY INVOLVING LAWYERS

Maccarubo vs. Maccarubo (424 SCRA 42) Re: Petition (For

Extraordinary Mercy) of Edmundo Macarubbo. (2013)
Florence Macarrubo filed a verified complaint for disbarrment against
Atty. Edmundo Macarrubo, alleging that respondent deceived her into
marrying him despite his prior subsisting marriage with a certain Helen
Esparza.
 He was first suspended, then later on meted the punishment of
disbarrment.
While the court is ever mindful of its duty to discipline and even
remove its errant officers, concomitant to it is its duty to show compassion
to those who have reformed.

For resolution is the Petition for Extraordinary Mercy filed by

respondent Edmundo Macarubbo who seeks to be reinstated in the Roll of
Attorneys. Eight years after or on June 4, 2012, respondent filed the instant
Petion seeking judicial clemency and reinstatement in the Roll of Attorneys.
Citing In Re: Letter of Judge Agustus C. Diaz, the court laid down the
following guidelines in resolving requests for judicial clemency, to wit:
1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation.
2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty
to ensure a period of reformation.
3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still
has productive years ahead of him that can be put to good use by
giving him a chance to redeem himself.
4. There must be a showing of promise as well as potential for public
service.
5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may
justify clemency.

Moreover, to be reinstated to the practice of law, the applicant must, like

any other candidate for admission to the bar, satisfy the Court that he is a
person of good moral character. (In re: Atty. Tranquillo Rovero, A.C. No.
126, December 29, 1980, 101 SCRA 799, 801)

Respondent has sufficiently shown his remorse and

acknowledge his indiscretion in the legal profession and in his
personal life. He asked forgiveness form his children and maintained
a cordial relationship with them as shown in attached pictures.
Devoted his time to his ailing mother. Appointed as Private Secretary
to Mayor Enrile, Cagayan and thereafter assumed the position of
Local Assessment Operations Officer. Took active part in socio-civic
activities by helping his neighbors and friends who are in dire need.
In Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, Metropolitan Trial Court of
Quezon City, Branch 37, Appealing for Clemency,8 the Court laid down the
following guidelines in resolving requests for judicial clemency, to wit:

1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall include but
should not be limited to certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or
chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, judges or judges
associations and prominent members of the community with proven
integrity and probity. A subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case
for the same or similar misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of
non-reformation.

2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to
ensure a period of reform.

3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has
productive years ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a
chance to redeem himself.

4. There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude,

learning or legal acumen or contribution to legal scholarship and the
development of the legal system or administrative and other relevant skills),
as well as potential for public service.

5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify
clemency.9 (Citations omitted)

Moreover, to be reinstated to the practice of law, the applicant must, like

any other candidate for admission to the bar, satisfy the Court that he is a
person of good moral character.10

Respondent has sufficiently shown his remorse and acknowledged his

indiscretion in the legal profession and in his personal life. He has asked
forgiveness from his children by complainant Teves and maintained a
cordial relationship with them as shown by the herein attached pictures.11
Records also show that after his disbarment, respondent returned to his
hometown in Enrile, Cagayan and devoted his time tending an orchard and
taking care of his ailing mother until her death in 2008.12 In 2009, he was
appointed as Private Secretary to the Mayor of Enrile, Cagayan and
thereafter, assumed the position of Local Assessment Operations Officer II/
Office-In-Charge in the Assessor’s Office, which office he continues to
serve to date.13 Moreover, he is a part-time instructor at the University of
Cagayan Valley and F.L. Vargas College during the School Year 2011-
2012.14 Respondent likewise took an active part in socio-civic activities by
helping his neighbors and friends who are in dire need.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is GRANTED.

Respondent Edmundo L. Macarubbo is hereby ordered REINSTATED in
the Roll of Attorneys.

In RE: 2003 BAR EXAMINATIONS ATTY. DANILO DE GUZMAN, 586

SCRA 373 (2009)

Atty. Danilo De Guzman was stripped his license to practice law for his
alleged involvment in the leakage in the 2003 Bar Examination. As a
consequence of his dire acts, he was later on disbarred.

Petitioner now seeks for Judicial Clemency and Reinstatement to the

Bar.

Among the proof where the Petitioner has sufficiently demonstrated

the remorse expected of him, the attestations submitted by his peers in the
community and other esteemed members of the legal profession, his
subsequent track record in public service. His achievements as a lawyer
would redound to the general good and more than mitigate the stain on his
record. Compassion to the petitioner is warranted.

Citing the case of In Re: Carlos S. Basa, petitioner pleaded that he be

afforded the same kindness and compassion in order that, like Atty. Basa,
his promising future may not be perpetually foreclosed.

The Court will take into consideration the applicant's character and
standing prior to the disbarment, the nature and character of the charge/s
for which he was disbarred, his conduct subsequent to the disbarment and
the time that has elapsed in between the disbarment and the application for
reinstatement.

Petitioner was barely thirty (30) years old and had only been in the practice
of law for five (5) years when he was disbarred from the practice of law. It is
of no doubt that petitioner had a promising future ahead of him where it not
for the decision of the Court stripping off his license.

Petitioner is also of good moral repute, not only before but likewise, after
his disbarment, as attested to overwhelmingly by his constituents,
colleagues as well as people of known probity in the community and
society.

The SC were convinced, however, that petitioner has since reformed and
has sincerely reflected on his transgressions. Thus, in view of the
circumstances and likewise for humanitarian considerations, the penalty of
disbarment may now be commuted to suspension. Considering the fact,
however, that petitioner had already been disbarred for more than five (5)
years, the same may be considered as proper service of said commuted
penalty and thus, may now be allowed to resume practice of law.

The SC deem petitioner worthy of clemency to the extent of commuting his

penalty to seven (7) years suspension from the practice of law, inclusive of
the five (5) years he has already served his disbarment.

Penalties, such as disbarment, are imposed not to punish but to correct

offenders. While the Court is ever mindful of its duty to discipline its erring
officers, it also knows how to show compassion when the penalty imposed
has already served its purpose.

However, the record shows that the long period of respondent's disbarment
gave him the chance to purge himself of his misconduct, to show his
remorse and repentance, and to demonstrate his willingness and capacity
to live up once again to the exacting standards of conduct demanded of
every member of the bar and officer of the court. During respondent's
disbarment for more than fifteen (15) years to date for his professional
infraction, he has been persistent in reiterating his apologies and pleas for
reinstatement to the practice of law and unrelenting in his efforts to show
that he has regained his worthiness to practice law, by his civic and
humanitarian activities and unblemished record as an elected public
servant, as attested to by numerous civic and professional organizations,
government institutions, public officials and members of the judiciary.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition for Judicial Clemency

and Compassion is hereby GRANTED IN PART. The disbarment of
DANILO G. DE GUZMAN from the practice of law is hereby COMMUTED
to SEVEN (7) YEARS SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW.