Scribd
Upload
184 views2 pages

Judge Quitain's Administrative Liability Case

Judge Jaime Quitain was appointed as a judge but failed to disclose in his application that he had previously been administratively dismissed from his position at the National Police Commission for administrative and criminal charges. When the Office of the Court Administrator learned of this, they recommended that Quitain be dismissed from service with prejudice and forfeiture of retirement benefits due to deliberately misleading the Judicial and Bar Council in his application. The Supreme Court found Quitain guilty of dishonesty for withholding this vital information about his previous dismissal, as judicial appointees are required to disclose any matters bearing on their integrity, probity, and fitness for office. Quitain's resignation was accepted but the administrative case against him still proceeded.

Uploaded by

Alexandrea Cornejo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
184 views2 pages

Judge Quitain's Administrative Liability Case

Judge Jaime Quitain was appointed as a judge but failed to disclose in his application that he had previously been administratively dismissed from his position at the National Police Commission for administrative and criminal charges. When the Office of the Court Administrator learned of this, they recommended that Quitain be dismissed from service with prejudice and forfeiture of retirement benefits due to deliberately misleading the Judicial and Bar Council in his application. The Supreme Court found Quitain guilty of dishonesty for withholding this vital information about his previous dismissal, as judicial appointees are required to disclose any matters bearing on their integrity, probity, and fitness for office. Quitain's resignation was accepted but the administrative case against him still proceeded.

Uploaded by

Alexandrea Cornejo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

RE: NON-DISCLOSURE BEFORE THE JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE

CASE FILED AGAINST JUDGE JAIME V. QUITAIN, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE THEN ASST.
REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION, REGIONAL
OFFICE XI, DAVAO CITY.
JBC No. 013. DATE: 22 August 2007
PONENTE:
TOPIC: Sec. 7, Art. 8

FACTS OF THE CASE:


Judge Jaime Vega Quitain was appointed Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 10, Davao City. Subsequent thereto, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received
confidential information that administrative and criminal charges were filed against Judge Quitain in his
capacity as then Assistant Regional Director, National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM), Regional
Office 11, Davao City, as a result of which he was dismissed from the service. This fact did not appear
in his Personal Data Sheet (PDS) submitted with his application as judge. Quitain explained that he
was not aware of his administrative dismissal in NAPOLCOM. However, there were newspaper articles
that even featured his ouster and his subsequent appeal to clear his name. Thus, the OCA
recommended that: (1) the instant administrative case against respondent be docketed as an
administrative matter; and (2) that he be dismissed from the service with prejudice to his reappointment
to any position in the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and with
forfeiture of all retirement benefits except accrued leave credits. When the case reaches the Supreme
Court, Quitain tendered his resignation which was accepted without prejudice to the decision of the
administrative case.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE/S:
Whether or not Judge Quitain is admistratively liable.

HOLDING:
YES. It behooves every prospective appointee to the Judiciary to apprise the appointing
authority of every matter bearing on his fitness for judicial office, including such circumstances as may
reflect on his integrity and probity. These are qualifications specifically required of appointees to the
Judiciary by Sec. 7 (3), Article VIII of the Constitution. No amount of explanation or justification can
erase the fact that Judge Quitain was dismissed from the service and that he deliberately withheld this
information. His insistence that he had no knowledge of A.O. No. 183 is belied by the newspaper items
published relative to his dismissal. More importantly, it is clear that Judge Quitain deliberately misled
the JBC in his bid to gain an exalted position in the Judiciary. In Office of the Court Administrator v.
Estacion, Jr., this Court stressed: “. . . The important consideration is that he had a duty to inform the
appointing authority and this Court of the pending criminal charges against him to enable them to
determine on the basis of his record, eligibility for the position he was seeking. He did not discharge
that duty. His record did not contain the important information in question because he deliberately
withheld and thus effectively hid it. His lack of candor is as obvious as his reason for the suppression of
such a vital fact, which he knew would have been taken into account against him if it had been
disclosed." Thus, we find respondent guilty of dishonesty. "Dishonesty" means "disposition to lie, cheat
or defraud; unworthiness; lack of integrity."
We cannot overemphasize the need for honesty and integrity on the part of all those who are in
the service of the Judiciary. We have often stressed that the conduct required of court personnel, from
the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk of court, must always be beyond reproach and circumscribed
with the heavy burden of responsibility as to let them be free from any suspicion that may taint the
Judiciary. We condemn, and will never countenance any conduct, act or omission on the part of all
those involved in the administration of justice, which would violate the norm of public accountability and
diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary.

1
2

You might also like