EN BANC

[A.M. RTJ-03-1779 : March 27, 2007]

CHIEF STATE PROSECUTOR JOVENCITO R. ZUNO, ET. AL. V. JUDGE ARNULFO G. CABREDO

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated March 27, 2007

A.M. RTJ-03-1779 - (Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito R. Zuno, et. al. v. Judge Arnulfo G. Cabredo)

In a letter dated January 8, 2007 addressed to the Justices of this Court, reinstated Judge Arnulfo G. Cabredo prayed for payment of
back salaries and other withheld benefits during the time of his suspension, citing Neeland v. Villanneva, Jr.

Judge Cabredo, then judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tabaco City, Albay, Branch 15, was charged with grave misconduct,
knowingly rendering an unjust interlocutory order, manifest impartiality, evident bad faith and gross inexcusable negligence.

In a Decision promulgated on April 30, 2003, Judge Cabredo was found guilty of grave misconduct and dismissed from service. The
dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, Judge Arnulfo G. Cabredo is found GUILTY of GRAVE MISCONDUCT. The Court imposes on him the penalty of
DISMISSAL from the service with forfeiture of all benefits, excluding accrued leave credits, with prejudice to re-employment in any
branch or agency of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
Judge Cabredo filed a motion for reconsideration seeking a modification of the Decision.

On August 23, 2005, the Court resolved the motion for reconsideration with a compassionate approach after noting that the offense was
the first and only misdeed committed by Judge Cabredo in his thirty-three years of government service. Moreover, Judge Cabredo
required the posting of a bond when he issued the questioned temporary restraining order in seizure and forfeiture proceeding conducted
by the Bureau of Customs. The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads:
WHEREFORE, respondent's Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED and the Court's Decision of April 30, 2003 is RECONSIDERED
and the respondent Judge Arnulfo G. Cabredo is hereby REINSTATED but he is considered SUSPENDED without pay for the entire
time from the date of the dismissal up to his re-assumption of office, with a stern warning that a repetition of the offense will be dealt
with more severely.
In an En Banc Resolution dated March 7, 2006, the Court resolved, upon recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator, to
a) DESIGNATE Judge Arnulfo B. Cabredo as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, Tabaco City, vice Judge Virginia
Almonte who retired on December 17, 1005; and

b) DECLARE that Judge Cabredo is entitled to his salary and other benefits beginning August 25, 2006.
Judge Cabredo stated in his letter that he could not return to his original position since another judge was appointed to his sala while his
motion for reconsideration was pending. The retirement of Judge Virginia Almonte gave him a chance to re-assume his position as RTC
judge.

Further, Judge Cabredo declared that he has been receiving his salary as a judge and also the back salary ordered to be paid to him from
August 25, 2006, the date of his reinstatement. He stated that he came across the case of Neeland v. Villanueva, Jr.[1] wherein a reinstated
court employee was given back salaries and other economic benefits from the time of his dismissal to his reinstatement. He now prays
that he be given the same privilege by the Court.

Neeland v. Villanueva, Jr. involved a foreclosure of chattel mortgage wherein respondent Clerk of Court Ildefonso M. Villanueva, Jr.
issued a certificate of sale without ascertaining that the balance of P20,000 due from the winning bidder was duly turned over and
accounted by Sheriff Abordaje to the mortgagor. Clerk of Court Villanueva was dismissed from the service for gross misconduct for his
failure to supervise Sheriff Abordaje in the performance of the latter's duties. The Resolution dismissing Clerk of Court Villanueva and
Sheriff Abordaje was immediately enforced, and they were barred from working even before they could move for a reconsideration.

In the resolution of the motion for reconsideration filed by Clerk of Court Villanueva, the Court downgraded the offense of gross
misconduct to simple neglect of duty, and Villanueva was sentenced to pay a fine of P5,000.

Clerk of Court Villanueva, thereafter, wrote a letter to former Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. praying that he be paid his back
salaries and other economic benefits from the time of his dismissal from the service to his actual reinstatement.

The Court granted his request on the ground that his dismissal for gross misconduct was unjustified and "falls under a situation of
unjustified dismissal from work, which lays the basis for the claim for back salaries and other economic benefits." Upon reconsideration,
Clerk of Court Villanueva was found guilty only of simple neglect of duty. The Court stressed that its resolution of the motion for
reconsideration penalized Clerk of Court Villanueva only with a fine, and did not include as part of his penalty his suspension from
work for the period he was dismissed from the service on account of its original Resolution, and also did not order the forfeiture of his
salaries and other economic benefits.

In this case, Judge Cabredo was found guilty of grave misconduct and punished with the extreme penalty of dismissal from service with
forfeiture of all benefits, excluding accrued leave credits, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or agency of the government,
including government-owned or controlled corporations. On motion for reconsideration, the offense of Judge Cabredo was not
downgraded, unlike in the case of Neeland. The Court only reconsidered his dismissal and reinstated him in government service. As
penalty, Judge Cabredo was considered suspended without pay for the entire time from the date of the dismissal up to his re-assumption
of office.

Hence, Judge Cabredo is not entitled to payment of back salaries during the time of his suspension, because the dispositive portion of
the Resolution dated August 23, 2005 clearly states that "he is considered SUSPENDED without pay for the entire time from the date
of the dismissal up to his re-assumption of office."[2]

WHEREFORE, the request of Judge Arnulfo G. Cabredo for payment of back salaries and other withheld benefits during his suspension
is DENIED.