Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
619
vs.
JUDGE
FIRST DIVISION.
620
620
Thus far, no ruling to the contrary has even rippled the doctrine
enunciated in the abovementioned cases. If respondent has truly
been continuously keeping abreast of legal and jurisprudential
development [sic] in the law, it was impossible for him to have
missed or misread these cases. What detracts from his claim of
assiduity is the fact that he even cited the cases of Oliveros v.
Villaluz and Aguinaldo v. Santos in support of his 30 June 1995
order. What is then evident is that respondent either did not
thoroughly read these cases or that he simply miscomprehended
them. The latter, of course, would only manifest either
incompetence, since both cases were written in plain and simple
language thereby foreclosing any possibility of misunderstanding
or confusion or deliberate disregard of a long settled doctrine
pronounced by this Court. While diligence in keeping uptodate
with the decisions of this Court is a commendable virtue of judges
and, of course, members of the Barcomprehending the
decisions is a different matter, for it is in that area where ones
competence may then be put to the test and proven. Thus, it has
been said that a judge is called upon to exhibit more than just a
cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules it is
imperative that he be conversant with basic legal principles and
aware of wellsettled and authoritative doctrines. He should strive
for excellence, exceeded only by his passion for truth, to the end
that he be the personification of justice and the Rule of Law.
Same Same A becoming modesty of inferior courts demands
621
622
RESOLUTION
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
1
Rollo, 25.
Rollo, 8.
3Id.,
1112.
623
623
1314.
5Id.,
1718.
6Id.,
19.
Rollo, 20.
624
624
2627.
9Id.,
30.
10
Rollo, 3335.
625
625
Pascual v. Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija, G.R. No. 11959, 31 October 1959
Lizares v. Hechanova, G.R. No. L22059, 17 May 1966 Oliveros v. Villaluz, G.R.
No. L34636, 30 May 1974 Aguinaldo v. Santos, G.R. No. 94115, 21 August 1992)
Ingco v. Sanchez, 21 SCRA 1292).
12
Id., 3637.
626
626
Rollo, 39.
14
Dela Cruz v. Concepcion, 235 SCRA 597 [1994] Roa v. Imbing, 231 SCRA
57 [1994].
627
627
15
16
628
629
630
631
Then on 20 June
1969, in Luciano v. The Provincial
20
Governor, et al., this Court likewise categorically declared
that criminal liabilities incurred by an elective public
official during his previous term of office were not
extinguished by his reelection, and that Pascual v.
Provincial Governor and Lizares v. Hechanova referred
only to administrative liabilities committed during the
previous term of an elective official, thus:
1. The first problem we are to grapple with is the legal effect of
the reelection of respondent municipal officials. Said respondents
would want to impress upon us the fact that in the last general
elections of November 14, 1967 the Makati electorate reelected all
of them, except that ViceMayor Teotimo Gealogo, a councilor
19
At 12941295.
20
632
632
633
633
634
this
635
25
26
636
In the constitutional
27
28
29
30
637
637
638
o0o
Copyright2015CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.