[A.M. No. RTJ-00-1594. June 20, 2003] 813. PASTOR SALUD, co!"#$n#n%, &'. JUD() *LOR)NT+NO M. ALUM R)S, P e'$ $n/ Ju /e, Re/$on#" T $#" ou %, #nc 255, L#' P$#' $% , e'!on en%. T $' $' #n # $n$'% #%$&e c#'e "e P#'%o S#"u [1] #/#$n'% % e on. *"o en% A"u e', % en ! e'$ $n/ 6u /e o7 % e Re/$on#" T $#" ou % RT o7 L#' P$#' $% Me% o M#n$"#, #nc 255, 7o un ue e"# $n % e e'o"u%$on o7 $&$" #'e No. LP- 300, en%$%"e S!'. ) u# o #n Jo'e n# L#u $%o &. S!'. P#'%o #n M# co'# S#"u . +''ue; <ON T e e $' "e/#" #'$' 7o % e !e%$%$on e" ; T e eco ' o=' % #% % $' $' no% % e '% %$e % #% e'!on en% #' een c#""e #ccoun% % $' ou %. +n 1992, e =#' ne 7o / o'' !# %$#"$% %o # !# % . +n e =#' # on$' e 7o e"# $n % e $'!o'$%$on o7 # c#'e. +n 1999, e =#' e! $#n e . A"% ou/ e'!on en% #' e%$ e on June 3, 2001, % e ecoen #%$on o7 % e O A % #% # ne e $!o'e on $ $' '%$"" $n o e . <o % '% e''$n/, e&en #7%e # 6u /e #' e%$ e 7 o % e 'e &$ce, e # '%$"" # $n$'% #%$&e" #ccoun%# "e 7o "#!'e' #n o>en'e' co$%%e u $n/ $' $ncu enc . A"% ou/ e # no "on/e e $'$''e o 'u'!en e , ne' # '%$" e e%e ou% %o e e uc%e 7 o $' e%$ een% ene %'. [34]
[A.M. No. RTJ-00-1594.June 20, 2003]813. PASTOR
SALUD,complainant, vs.JUDGE FLORENTINO M. ALUMBRES,Presiding Judge,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 255, Las Pias City,respondent.This is
an administrative case filed by Pastor Salud[1]against the Hon.
Florentino M. Alumbres, then presiding judge of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Las Pias City, Metro Manila, Branch 255, for undue
delay in the resolution of Civil Case No. LP-96-300, entitledSps.
Eduardo and Josefina Laurito v. Sps. Pastor and Marcosa
Salud.Issue: WON There is legal basis for the petitionHeld:The
record shows that this is not the first time that respondent has
been called to account by this Court. In 1992, he was fined for
gross partiality to a party. In 1996, he was admonished for delay
in the disposition of a case. In 1999, he was reprimanded.Although
respondent has retired on June 3, 2001, the recommendation of the
OCA that a fine be imposed on him is still in order.Worth
stressing, even after a judge has retired from the service, he may
still be held administratively accountable for lapses and offenses
committed during his incumbency.Although he may no longer be
dismissed or suspended, fines may still be meted out to be deducted
from his retirement benefits.[34]
