Abad vs. Bleza 145 SCRA 1 (1986)
Abad vs. Bleza 145 SCRA 1 (1986)
SUPREME COURT
Manila Pacifico Ocampo was an employee of the Manila International Airport
Authority. He filed an administrative case against one Ricardo Ortiz.
EN BANC After that, Ocampo alleged that Crisanto Cruz (perhaps a friend of Ortiz?
– not mentioned in the case), tried to persuade Ocampo not to continue
A.M. No. 227-RTJ October 13, 1986 with the administrative case against Ortiz. Ocampo did not accede so
allegedly, Cruz filed a separate administrative complaint against Ocampo.
GREGORIO R. ABAD, complainant, In turn, Ocampo filed a civil case against Cruz before Judge Bleza. Ocampo
vs. alleged that the administrative case against him was baseless and the
ILDEFONSO BLEZA, respondent. same made him suffer embarrassment, mental shock, anxieties, sleepless
nights, and loss of appetite.
A.M. No. R-561-RTJ October 13, 1986
Ocampo won and Bleza ordered Cruz to pay for damages. Cruz filed an
administrative case against Bleza for allegedly knowingly rendering a
CRISANTO P. CRUZ, complainant,
wrongful decision as Cruz averred that the administrative case was based
vs.
on Ocampo’s absenteeism, inefficiency and tardiness which were all on
HON. JUDGE ILDEFONSO M. BLEZA, RTC of Bacoor, Cavite, respondent.
record and same were presented as evidence which were even (allegedly)
uncontroverted.
A.M. No. 5249-RET October 13, 1986
ISSUE: Whether or not Bleza should be disciplined.
Application for Disability Retirement. HELD: No (in both cases). In the first case, Bleza erred in appreciating the
mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to kill in favor of Sabater – but
Judge ILDEFONSO M. BLEZA, applicant. such error does not hold him administratively liable.
In Criminal Law, in cases of frustrated homicide there is inherently an
intention to kill for if otherwise, it would have been a case of physical
145 SCRA 1 – Legal Ethics – Liability of Judges for Erroneous Decisions injuries. Bleza found Sabater guilty of frustrated homicide hence it is error
There are two administrative cases against Judge Ildefonso Bleza here. for him to appreciate lack of intention to kill as a mitigating circumstance.
RESOLUTION
Two administrative cases were filed against Judge Ildefonso Bleza of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch XIX at Bacoor, Cavite, the first when he was
contemplating optional retirement due to poor health and the second, after
he had filed his application. Bleza's entitlement to disability retirement
benefits depends on the resolution of these cases.
Pacifico Ocampo alleged in the damage suit that on April 16, 1984, he filed Feria, Yap, Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Alampay, Cruz, Paras and
with the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) an administrative Feliciano, JJ., concur.
complaint against a certain Ricardo F. Ortiz; that complainant Cruz persuaded
Him to withdraw the complaint with a threat that if he would not withdraw Teehankee, C.J., is on leave.
the same, Cruz will cause his dismissal from the Fire and Rescue Division of
the MIAA; that because he did not accede to Cruz' demand, the latter filed
against him an administrative case for inefficiency and serious neglect of
duty, insubordination, absenteeism, and habitual tardiness; that because of
that baseless complaint, he has suffered embarrassment, mental
shock, anxieties, sleepless nights, and loss of appetite. In his answer, Cruz
denied knowledge of the administrative case between Pacifico Ocampo and