PEOPLE V. GACOTT, JR.

July 13, 1995 || Regalado, J.

The Supreme Court: Mode of Sitting

Doctrine: The Supreme Court en banc is granted the power to discipline and/or dismiss lower court judges and is free to
determine how this power could be exercised. However, the grant does not necessarily mean that all cases involving the
exercise of disciplinary power requires the Court to sit en banc.

Case Summary: Judge Gacott, Jr. was sanctioned by the Second Division of the Supreme Court for gross ignorance of
nd
the law in handling a Criminal Case assigned to him. He questioned the validity of the 2 Divisions decision in light of
Section 11, Article 8 of the 1987 Constitution which grants the SC en banc power to discipline and/or dismiss lower court
judges. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Division could validly decide on Gacotts case as Section 11 only
provides for the grant of the disciplinary power and determination of the exercise of this power to the Court en banc but
does not necessarily require the SC to decide on administrative cases en banc. In a Bar Matter, the SC laid down its rules
on which administrative cases specifically require en banc participation and Gacotts case is not one of them.

Facts:

An administrative case for gross ignorance of the law was filed against Judge Eustaqio Z. Gacott, Jr. and he was
sanctioned by the Supreme Court. The Court ordered the annulment of his order dismissing Criminal Case No.
11529; a reprimand of the Judge; a fine of Php 10,000.00.
Gacott filed an original and supplemental motion for reconsideration of his case.
Gacott questions why his case (G.R. 116049), initially raffled to the SC Third Division, was transferred to the
Second Division.
He questions whether or not the Second Division has the power to administratively sanction him on the basis of
Section 11, Article 8 of the Constitution.

Issue: W/N Gacott could be constitution allows the Second Division to sanction Gacott --- YES.

Ruling:

Cases ponente, Justice Bidin, was a member of the Third Division and was transferred to the Second Division
sometime between the penning of the decision. As such, the Second Division was credited to this case as Justice
Bidin wrote the ponencia as a member of this Division.
Court ruled that there are two situations envisioned in Section 11, Article 8:
(1) The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts... declaration of the
grant of that disciplinary power to, and the determination of the procedure in the exercise thereof by, the Court
en banc.
- No intended that all administrative disciplinary cases to be heard by the whole Court.
(2) [Court en banc can] order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the
deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon
Bar Matter No. 209 In the Matter of the Amendment and/or Clarification of Various Supreme Court Rules and
Resolutions:
o For said purpose, the following are considered en banc cases:
xxx
6. Cases where the penalty to be imposed is the dismissal of a judge, officer, or employee of the
Judiciary, disbarment of a lawyer, or either the suspension of any of them for a period of more than one
(1) year or a fine exceeding Php 10,000.00 or both.
Gacotts case does not fall under any of the penalty impositions stated in the Bar Matter that would require the
participation of the Court en banc.

Disposition: Motions for reconsideration are DENIED.

Notes:

Section 11, Article 8, 1987 Constitution

The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by
a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted
thereon.