The Supreme Court has denied with finality the disbarment case filed against retired Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., retired Supreme Court Justice Bernardo P. Pardo, and nine others by a Regional Trial Court Judge who had been separated from service due to “a medically disabling condition.”

In a resolution, the Court said that former Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. of the Malabon City RTC Branch 73 failed to present any substantial argument to warrant a reconsideration of its September 20, 2006 resolution dismissing for lack of merit Floro’s disbarment complaint.
         
Floro had accused Davide et al. of conspiring in, among others, the imposition of his preventive suspension for seven years. Also named as respondents were retired Court of Appeals Justice Pedro A. Ramirez, former Solicitor General Alfredo L. Benipayo, retired Assistant Court Administrator and SC Public Information Office Chief Atty. Ismael G. Khan, Jr, Court Management Office Chief Atty. Thelma C. Bahia, Judge Benjamin M. Aquino, Jr., and lawyers Teresita Cruz-Sison, Mary Jane Dacarra-Buenaventura, Esmeralda Galang-Dizon, and Mario E. Ongkiko.

In March last year, the Court ordered Floro separated from service after medical findings showed that he was suffering from psychosis. It said the judge’s medical condition made him unfit to perform his judicial functions.

In the said decision, the Court clarified that Floro’s the separation from service of RTC Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr., of the Malabon City RTC Branch 73, is not a penalty. “It is imposed instead upon Judge Floro out of necessity due to a medically disabling condition of the mind which renders him unfit, at least at present, to continue discharging the functions of his office,” it said.

The Court said that Judge Floro lacks the judicial temperament and the fundamental requirements of competence and objectivity expected of all judges. It said that the findings of psychosis by the mental health professionals assigned to his case indicate gross deficiency in competence and independence.

The Court, however, did not disqualify Judge Floro from appointment to any other public office including government-owned or controlled corporations. It said that while Judge Floro may be dysfunctional as a judge because of the sensitive nature of said position, he may still be successful in other areas of endeavor. It noted that the SC Clinic medical report showing Judge Floro’s mental impairment also contained statements and findings in Judge Floro’s favor, such as his high intellectual assets and impressive academic achievements.
The Court also clarified that his separation from service did not carry with it forfeiture of all or part of his accrued benefits. It ruled that as a matter of equity, Judge Floro is entitled to back salaries, allowances and other economic benefits corresponding to three years.