see - sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/january2013/10-25-SB-J.pdf
"x x x.
Issue Before The Court
The sole issue to be determined by the Court is whether the respondent Sandiganbayan Justices may be held administratively liable for their actions which unduly delayed the execution of the final sentence of
conviction of accused Velasco.
The Court’s Ruling
After a judicious review of the records, the Court finds no grave misconduct or violation of a specific provision of the Code of Judicial
Conduct to have been committed by the Sandiganbayan Justices.
“Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of
a rule of law or a standard of behavior.
To constitute an administrative offense, misconduct should relate to or be connected with the performance of the official functions of a public officer.
In grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of an established rule must be established.”
In this case, the actions of the Sandiganbayan Justices respecting the
execution of the final judgment against accused Velasco were shown to be in respectful deference to the Court’s action on the various petitions filed by the former, who apparently exhausted what he perceived were valid
available remedies under the law. Records are bereft of evidence showing
any trace of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of the rules as to hold them administratively liable for grave misconduct.
However, the becoming modesty that the Sandiganbayan Justices have
exhibited in this case cannot detract from the fact that the judgment of
conviction of accused Velasco should have been immediately executed,
absent any restraining order from the Court, in violation of the Court's
directive in A.M. Circular No. 07-7-12-SC, adopting amendments to Rule
65 of the Rules of Court, inter alia. Thus, Section 7 of Rule 65 now states:
SEC. 7. Expediting proceedings; injunctive relief. –
The court in which the petition is filed may issue orders expediting the proceedings, and it may also grant a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction for the preservation of the rights of the parties
pending such proceedings. The petition shall not interrupt the course of the principal case, unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued, enjoining the public respondent from further proceeding with the case.
The public respondent shall proceed with the principal case within ten (10) days from the filing of a petition for certiorari with a higher court or tribunal, absent a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction,
or upon its expiration. Failure of the public respondent to proceed with the principal case may be a ground for an administrative charge. (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, judicial courtesy may no longer be invoked by the Sandiganbayan Justices in the execution of the final judgment against accused Velasco. This lapse in judgment on the part of the Sandiganbayan Justices deserves admonition.
x x x."
