Administrative Matter No. 21-08-09-SC: Further Amendments to Rule 140 of the Rules of Court

- WHEREAS, Section 1, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution states that "[p]ublic office is a public trust," and mandates that "[p]ublic officers and employees must[] at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives";
- WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7 (3), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, "Member[s] of the Judiciary must be of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence";
- WHEREAS, under Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, "[t]he Supreme Court x x x [has] administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof';
- WHEREAS, under Section 11, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, "[t]he Supreme Court en bane x x x [has] 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";
- WHEREAS, Section 5 (5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution vests upon the Supreme Court the power to promulgate rules concerning the pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts;
- WHEREAS, in accordance with its constitutional authority, the Supreme Court is empowered to issue or amend the rules for the proper discharge of its administrative and disciplinary functions over all Members, officials, employees, and personnel of the Judiciary;
- WHEREAS, the Supreme Court crafted two (2) separate body of rules to govern administrative disciplinary cases, namely: (a) Rule 140 of the Rules of Court (Rule 140), which is originally applied to Justices of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, and the Court of Tax Appeals, and Judges of the lower courts; and (b) the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel (CCCP) which is applied to all other officials, employees, and personnel of the Judiciary who are not Justices or Judges of said courts;
- WHEREAS, Rule 140 provides for a framework of administrative discipline that, among others, includes a list of administrative offenses with their own nomenclature, classification, and corresponding penalties, while the CCCP merely incorporated the framework of offenses and penalties as provided in the Civil Service rules;
- WHEREAS, in Resolutions dated October 2, 2018 and July 7, 2020 in A.M. No. 18-01-05-SC, the Supreme Court amended Rule 140 by, among others, expanding its coverage to govern administrative disciplinary cases against all Members (i.e., Justices and Judges), officials, employees, and personnel of the entire Judiciary;
- WHEREAS, the amendments introduced under the foregoing resolutions were silent on Rule 140's retroactive application;
- WHEREAS, in the 2021 case of Dela Rama v. De Leon, the Supreme Court en banc adopted a policy which provides that, "[i]n the interest of a uniform application of charges and imposition of penalties in the administrative cases involving Judiciary personnel, [it] will apply Rule 140 x x x [to pending cases] since it is the prevailing rule at present, unless the retroactive application of Rule 140 would not be favorable to the employee", A.M. No.03-06-13-SC (June 1, 2004). Known as "CREATING THE JUDICIAL INTEGRITY BOARD AND THE CORRUPTION PREVENTION AND INVESTIGATION OFFICE." Known as "ESTABLISHMENT OF THE JUDICIAL INTEGRITY BOARD (JIB) AND THE CORRUPTION PREVENTION AND INVESTIGATION OFFICE (CPIO)." See A.M. No. P-14-3240, March 2, 2021. See id.
- WHEREAS, the adoption of this policy required a comparative analysis between the prevailing Civil Service rules at the time of the commission of the offense, and the provisions of Rule 140 in every case to determine the proper penalty;
- WHEREAS, the conduct of said comparative analysis in ensuing cases highlighted the various nuances and differences in the structure of the Civil Service rules and Rule 140, among others, the latter's lack of explicit provisions on aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and parameters of penalty application in instances of multiple infractions charged in a single case, as well as for prior administrative liabilities already adjudicated;
- WHEREAS, the lack of such provisions in Rule 140 has resulted in the inconsistent appreciation of modifying circumstances, as well as the uneven imposition of aggravated or mitigated penalties in previous cases;
- WHEREAS, Senior Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe was assigned by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo to conduct a comprehensive review and revision of Rule 140, which is envisioned to institutionalize a complete, streamlined, and updated administrative disciplinary framework for the entire Judiciary that is wholly independent from the Civil Service rules, harmonizes existing jurisprudence, and is uniformly applicable to all cases, regardless of when the infractions are committed;
NOW, THEREFORE, acting on the recommendations of Senior Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, taking into account the suggestions of the Members of the Court, the Office of the Court Administrator, and the Judicial Integrity Board, the Supreme Court, sitting en banc, resolves to further AMEND Rule 140 of the Rules of Court accordingly:
Rule 140 Discipline of Members, Officials, Employees, and Personnel of the Judiciary
- Section 1
  - 1 Motu Proprio Against those who are not Members of the Supreme Court.
    Proceedings for the discipline of the Presiding Justices and Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the Shari'ah High Court, and Judges of the first and second Resolution level courts, including the Shari'ah District or Circuit Courts, as well as the officials, employees, and personnel of said courts and the Supreme Court, including the Office of the Court Administrator, the Judicial Integrity Board, the Philippine Judicial Academy, and all other offices created pursuant to law under the Supreme Court's supervision may be instituted, motu proprio, by either the Supreme Court with the Judicial Integrity Board, or by the Judicial Integrity Board itself on the basis of records, documents; or newspaper or media reports; or other papers duly referred or endorsed to it for appropriate action; or on account of any criminal action filed in, or a judgment of conviction rendered by the Sandiganbayan or by the regular or special courts, a copy of which shall be immediately furnished to the Supreme Court and the Judicial Integrity Board.
  - 2 By Complaint Against those who are not Members of the Supreme Court.
    Disciplinary proceedings against those mentioned in Section 1 (1) of this Rule may also be instituted with the Judicial Integrity Board by any interested person either by way of a verified complaint supported by affidavits of persons who have personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by authentic documents which may substantiate its allegations; or by way of an anonymous complaint, provided, that its material averments may be readily verified, and/or substantiated by competent evidence, including public records.
    - In every case, the written verified or anonymous complaint shall state, clearly and concisely, the imputed acts and/or omissions constituting the administrative offense/offenses listed under Sections 14 to 16 of this Rule.
    - If the verified or anonymous complaint is filed directly with the Supreme Court, the same shall be referred by the Supreme Court to the Judicial Integrity Board as if it was originally filed before it, reckoned from the date the Judicial Integrity Board receives the complaint.
  - 3 By Complaint Against Members of the Supreme Court.
    Complaints involving graft and corruption and violations of ethical standards, including anonymous complaints, against Members of the Supreme Court shall be filed directly with the Supreme Court and shall be consequently referred to its Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards. The said committee shall be responsible for preliminarily investigating and submitting its findings and recommendations to the Supreme Court en banc, in accordance with its own internal rules, which may adopt any of the procedures herein set forth.
    - If the complaint is filed directly with the Judicial Integrity Board, the same shall be referred by the Judicial Integrity Board to the Supreme Court as if it was originally filed before it, reckoned from the date the Supreme Court receives the complaint.
- Section 2
  - 1 Circumstances Already Existing Prior to the Institution of the Proceedings.
    Disciplinary proceedings may not be instituted against a Member, official, employee, or personnel of the Judiciary who has already died, retired, or otherwise separated from service. If such proceedings have been instituted notwithstanding the foregoing circumstances, the administrative case against said Member, official, employee, or personnel of the Judiciary shall be dismissed.
  - 2 Circumstances Supervening Only During the Pendency of the Proceedings.
    However, once disciplinary proceedings have already been instituted, the respondent's supervening retirement or separation from service shall not preclude or affect the continuation of the same, provided, that, the supervening death of the respondent during the pendency of such proceedings shall result in the dismissal of the administrative case against him or her.
- Section 3
  - 1 Proceedings Initiated Motu Proprio.
    In disciplinary proceedings initiated motu proprio by the Supreme Court or the Judicial Integrity Board, the respondent shall be served with a copy of the records, documents, newspaper or media reports, or other papers used as basis for the disciplinary action. Within ten (10) calendar days from notice, or within any extended period granted by the Judicial Integrity Board not exceeding thirty (30) calendar days, the respondent shall be required to file his or her verified answer or comment thereon, which may be supported by affidavits of persons who have personal knowledge of the facts alleged and/or by documents which may substantiate respondent's defenses.
  - 2 Proceedings Initiated By Complaint.
    If the Judicial Integrity Board finds that the verified or anonymous complaint is sufficient in form and substance, the respondent shall be served with a copy thereof, including its attachments. Within ten (10) calendar days from notice, or within any extended period granted by the Judicial Integrity Board not exceeding thirty (30) calendar days, the respondent shall be required to file with the Judicial Integrity Board his or her verified answer or comment thereon, which may be supported by affidavits of persons who have personal knowledge of the facts alleged and/or by documents which may substantiate respondent's defenses.
    - If the verified or anonymous complaint is not sufficient in form and substance, it shall be dismissed. Moreover, if the complaint prima facie appears to be baseless and was filed only to harass or embarrass the respondent, or to unduly delay the release of retirement benefits in case of his or her impending compulsory retirement, the complainant shall be required to show cause why he or she should not be cited in contempt. Furthermore, if the complainant is a lawyer, he or she shall also be required to show cause why he or she should not be administratively sanctioned as a member of the Philippine Bar and as an officer of the Court.
  - 3 Consequence of Respondent's Failure to Answer or Comment.
    Failure of the respondent to file his or her verified answer or comment in accordance with Section 3 (1) or (2) above shall, unless otherwise justified, result in his or her waiver to participate in the proceedings, and the investigation may proceed based on the available evidence on record.
  - 4 Prohibited Pleadings.
    Motions for bill of particulars, clarification, dismissal, or quashal, and memoranda are prohibited pleadings, and as such, shall only be noted without action and attached to the records.
- Section 4 Administrative Case Considered as Disciplinary Actions Against Members of the Philippine Bar.
  An administrative case against any of those mentioned in Section 1 (1) of this Rule shall also be considered as a disciplinary action against him or her as a member of the Philippine Bar, provided, that the complaint specifically states that the imputed acts or omissions therein likewise constitute a violation of the Lawyer's Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Canons of Professional Ethics, or such other forms of breaches of conduct that have been traditionally recognized as grounds for the discipline of lawyers.
  - If the complaint fails to include such specific statement, or if the disciplinary proceedings are instituted motu proprio, the respondent, in the interest of due process, must first be required to show cause in this respect before he or she is likewise disciplined as a member of the Philippine Bar as may be warranted by the circumstances of the case.
  - The disciplinary action against the respondent as a member of the Philippine Bar shall be docketed as a separate administrative case but shall be jointly threshed out in, and consolidated with, the investigation of the administrative complaint against him or her as a Member, official, employee, or personnel of the Judiciary. The Judicial Integrity Board shall include its findings on said disciplinary action in the "Report" submitted to the Supreme Court pursuant to Sections 10 and 11 of this Rule.
- Section 5 Preventive Suspension of Respondent.
  The Supreme Court may, motu proprio or upon recommendation of the Judicial Integrity Board, order the preventive suspension of the respondent without pay and other monetary benefits for a period not exceeding ninety (90) calendar days, unless earlier lifted, or further extended by the Supreme Court for compelling reasons. Upon the lapse of the ninety (90)-calendar day period or any extended period of preventive suspension ordered by the Supreme Court, the respondent shall be automatically reinstated in the service, unless the delay in the disposition of the case is due to the fault or negligence of, or other causes attributable to, the respondent, in which case, the period of delay shall not be included in the counting of the period of preventive suspension. If the respondent is fully exonerated from any administrative liability, he or she may claim back salaries, allowances, and other economic benefits for the entire period that he or she was preventively suspended.
  - The preventive suspension, among others, may be issued to enable the Judicial Integrity Board to conduct an unhampered formal investigation of the disciplinary action, prevent a crisis or disharmony in various courts, or shield the public from any further damages that the continued exercise by the respondent of the functions of his office may cause, or where there is a strong likelihood of his guilt or complicity in the offense charged, or protect the image of the courts as temples of justice.
- Section 6 Procedure for Formal Investigation.
  - 1 When Hearings are not Required.
    Any disciplinary action against any of those mentioned in Section 1(1) hereof, which can already be resolved on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, or public or court records, and/or other documents or papers on record, shall be deemed submitted for the preparation and submission by the Judicial Integrity Board of its "Report" containing its findings of facts and recommendations to the Supreme Court within sixty (60) calendar days, or within such extended period granted by the Supreme Court not exceeding thirty (30) calendar days, from receipt of the said pleadings and/or records or documents. For guidance, the Judicial Integrity Board shall notify the parties that the case has been submitted for resolution without the need for any hearing.
  - 2 When Hearings are Required.
    If based on the pleadings of the parties, there is a prima facie case against the respondent which requires actual hearings to resolve substantial factual issues raised, the Judicial Integrity Board shall set such hearings, with due notice thereof to the parties.
    - During such hearings, the parties may be heard by themselves and/or counsel. If after due notice, the complainant or respondent fails to appear, the investigation shall proceed ex parte. Furthermore, the parties may present documentary and/or object evidence, as well as testimonial evidence in the form of judicial affidavits to serve as the direct testimony of the parties and of their witnesses; after which, they may be cross-exarnined by the other party or parties, or through counsel, and may be examined by the Chairperson and members of the Judicial Integrity Board.
- Section 7 Powers of the Judicial Integrity Board During Hearings.
  The Judicial Integrity Board shall have the power to administer oaths to the parties and their witnesses, and to issue subpoenas ad testificandum and duces tecum, conduct ocular inspections and take depositions of the complainant and/or witnesses in accordance with the Rules of Court. The failure or refusal to obey or comply with the subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum issued by the Judicial Integrity Board shall be referred to the Supreme Court for contempt proceedings, which shall proceed independently from the administrative proceedings.
- Section 8 Non-Interruption and Non-Termination of the Investigation for Other Causes.
  In addition to the circumstances stated in Section 2 (2) of this Rule, the investigation conducted by the Judicial Integrity Board of disciplinary actions shall not be interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance of the complainant, settlement, compromises, restitution, withdrawal of the disciplinary action by the complainant; failure of the complainant to prosecute the same; or by the respondent having transferred his residence to a foreign country; or by the death of the complainant, subject to the exceptional circumstances as may be determined by the Judicial Integrity Board, conformably with case law.
- Section 9 Delegation of Authority.
  The Judicial Integrity Board may delegate to the Office of the Court Administrator the disciplinary investigation of Judges involving less serious charges and light charges under Sections 15 and 16 of this Rule.
  - The Judicial Integrity Board may also delegate the conduct of disciplinary investigations and hearings of administrative cases likewise involving less serious charges and light charges against court officials and employees to the appropriate Committees or Offices which have administrative control and/or supervision over their respective officials and employees, such as the following:
    - a
      Committee on Ethics in Special Concerns of the Court of Appeals, or Presiding Justice thereof, as provided for in the "Procedure in Administrative Cases" of the Court of Appeals;
    - b
      Committee on Ethics of the Sandiganbayan;
    - c
      Committee of the Court of Tax Appeals on Employee's Rules of Discipline;
    - d
      Office of the Court Administrator for the personnel of the Shari'ah High Court, as well as the personnel of the first and second level courts, including those of Shari'ah District and Circuit Courts; and
    - e
      Complaints and Investigation Division (CID) of the Office of Administrative Services for personnel of the Supreme Court and offices under its supervision, including those of the Office of the Court Administrator, the Judicial Integrity Board, the Philippine Judicial Academy, and all other offices created pursuant to law under the Supreme Court's supervision.
- Section 10 Termination of the Investigation.
  The Judicial Integrity Board shall terminate its investigation within ninety (90) calendar days from the date of the first hearing conducted, or within such extended period granted by the Supreme Court not exceeding thirty (30) calendar days. If the Judicial Integrity Board delegates the conduct of investigation to a Committee or Office as stated in Section 9 of this Rule, said Committee or Office shall terminate its investigation within sixty (60) calendar days from the date of delegation, or within any extended period granted by the Judicial Integrity Board not exceeding thirty (30) calendar days, and accordingly submit its "Report" to the latter.
- Section 11 Report of the Judicial Integrity Board to the Supreme Court when Hearings are Required.
  Within sixty (60) calendar days from the termination of the investigation or within an extended period granted by the Supreme Court not exceeding thirty (30) calendar days, the Judicial Integrity Board shall submit to the Supreme Court its written "Report" thereon containing its findings of facts and recommendations.
  - If the Judicial Integrity Board delegates the conduct of investigation to a Committee or Office pursuant to Section 9 of this Rule, and the said Committee or Office has already submitted its own "Report" to the Judicial Integrity Board, the latter shall submit its recommended action on said "Report" to the Supreme Court within thirty (30) calendar days from receipt thereof, or within an extended period granted by the Supreme Court not exceeding thirty (30) calendar days.
  - All "Reports" for the discipline of all members, officials, employees, and personnel of the Judiciary shall, at all times, be confidential and shall be for the exclusive use of the Supreme Court. Any undue disclosure or tampering of records shall render the responsible party liable for contempt of court, in addition to other penalties/sanctions as may be provided by law.
- Section 12 Action of the Supreme Court.
  The Supreme Court shall take such necessary action on the "Report" as may be warranted by the facts and the law, the Rules of Court, as well as the issuances of the Supreme Court and its Internal Rules.
  - A copy of the Decision or Resolution of the Supreme Court shall be attached to the official records of the respondent whether in the Office of the Court Administrator, the Office of Administrative Services in the Supreme Court, or in other similar offices in other courts. If the respondent is a lawyer, such copy shall also be furnished to the Office of the Bar Confidant, Office of the Court Administrator, and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
- Section 13 Classification of Charges.
  Administrative charges are classified as serious, less serious, or light.
- Section 14 Serious Charges.
  Serious charges include:
  - a
    Gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct or of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel;
  - a
    Bribery, direct and indirect, and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019);
  - c
    Serious dishonesty;
  - d
    Gross neglect of duty in the performance or non-performance of official functions;
  - e
    Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or order;
  - f
    Commission of a crime involving moral turpitude;
  - g
    Falsification of official documents, including making untruthful statements in the certificates of service;
  - h
    Borrowing money or property from lawyers and/or litigants in a case pending before the court;
  - i
    Gross immorality;
  - j
    Gross ignorance of the law or procedure;
  - k
    Partisan political activities;
  - l
    Grave abuse of authority, and/or prejudicial conduct that gravely besmirches or taints the reputation of the service;
  - m
    Sexual harassment;
  - n
    Gross insubordination; and
  - o
    Possession and/or use of illegal drugs or substances.
- Section 15 Less Serious Charges.
  Less serious charges include:
  - a
    Simple misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct or of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel;
  - b
    Simple neglect of duty in the performance or non-performance of official functions;
  - c
    Habitual absenteeism and/or tardiness;
  - d
    Unauthorized practice of law;
  - e
    Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives and circulars that establish an internal policy, rule of procedure, or protocol;
  - f
    Receiving additional or double compensation unless specifically authorized by law; and
  - g
    Simple dishonesty.
- Section 16 Light Charges.
  Light charges include:
  - a
    Vulgar and unbecoming conduct;
  - a
    Gambling in public;
  - a
    Fraternizing with lawyers and litigants with pending case/cases in his or her court;
  - a
    Undue delay in the submission of monthly reports; and
  - a
    Willful failure to pay judgment debts or taxes due to the government.
- Section 17 Sanctions.
  - 1
    If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed:
    - a
      Dismissal from service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Supreme Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or -controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits;
    - b
      Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than six (6) months but not exceeding one (1) year; or
    - c
      A fine of more than P100,000.00 but not exceeding P200,000.00
  - 2
    If the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed:
    - a
      Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) month nor more than six (6) months; or
    - b
      A fine of more than ₱35,000.00 but not exceeding P100,000.00.
  - 3
    If the respondent is guilty of a light charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed:
    - a
      A fine of not less than ₱1,000.00 but not exceeding ₱35,000.00;
    - b
      Censure; or
    - c
      Reprimand.
- Section 18 Penalty in Lieu of Dismissal on Account of Supervening Resignation, Retirement, or other Modes of Separation of Service.
  If the respondent is found liable for an offense which merits the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service but the same can no longer be imposed due to the respondent's supervening resignation, retirement, or other modes of separation from service except for death, he or she may be meted with the following penalties in lieu of dismissal:
  - a
    Forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Supreme Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or -controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits; and/or
  - b
    Fine as stated in Section 17 (1) (c) of this Rule.
- Section 19 Modifying Circumstances.
  In determining the appropriate penalty to be imposed, the Court may, in its discretion, appreciate the following mitigating and aggravating circumstances:
  - 1 Mitigating circumstances
    - a
      First offense;
    - b
      Length of service of at least ten (10) years with no previous disciplinary record where respondent was meted with an administrative penalty;
    - c
      Exemplary performance;
    - d
      Humanitarian considerations; and
    - e
      Other analogous circumstances.
  - 2 Aggravating Circumstances
    - a
      Finding of previous administrative liability where a penalty is imposed, regardless of nature and/or gravity;
    - b
      Length of service facilitated the commission of the offense;
    - c
      Employment of fraudulent means to conceal the offense; and
    - d
      Other analogous circumstances.
- Section 20 Manner of Imposition.
  If one (1) or more aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances are present, the Supreme Court may impose the penalties of suspension or fine for a period or amount not exceeding double of the maximum prescribed under this Rule.
  - If one (1) or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the Supreme Court may impose the penalties of suspension or fine for a period or amount not less than half of the minimum prescribed under this Rule.
  - If there are both aggravating and mitigating circumstances present, the Supreme Court may offset each other.
- Section 21 Penalty for Multiple Offenses.
  If the respondent is found liable for more than one (1) offense arising from separate acts or omissions in a single administrative proceeding, the Court shall impose separate penalties for each offense. Should the aggregate of the imposed penalties exceed five (5) years of suspension or P1,000,000.00 in fines, the respondent may, in the discretion of the Supreme Court, be meted with the penalty of dismissal from service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as may be determined, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or -controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits.
  - On the other hand, if a single act/omission constitutes more than one (1) offense, the respondent shall still be found liable for all such offenses, but shall, nonetheless, only be meted with the appropriate penalty for the most serious offense.
- Section 22 Payment of Fines.
  When the penalty imposed is a fine, the respondent shall pay it within a period not exceeding three (3) months from the time the decision or resolution is promulgated. If unpaid, such amount may be deducted from the salaries and benefits, including accrued leave credits, due to the respondent. The deduction of unpaid fines from accrued leave credits, which is considered as a form of compensation, is not tantamount to the imposition of the accessory penalty of forfeiture covered under the provisions of this Rule.
- Section 23 Immediately Executory Nature.
  Decisions or resolutions pronouncing the respondent's administrative liability are immediately executory in nature. The respondent, upon receipt of such decision or resolution, shall immediately serve the penalty indicated therein. In case of suspension, he or she shall formally manifest to the Court that his or her suspension has started within five (5) calendar days upon receipt of the decision or resolution.
  - Upon completion of service of the penalty of suspension, the Presiding Justice, in case of the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan or the Court of Tax Appeals, or the Executive Judge where the respondent is assigned or stationed, in case of the first and second level courts, shall issue a certification that the penalty of suspension has been served by the respondent. The certification shall be submitted to the Supreme Court.
- Section 24 Retroactive Effect.
  All the foregoing provisions shall be applied to all pending and future administrative cases involving the discipline of Members, officials, employees, and personnel of the Judiciary, without prejudice to the internal rules of the Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards of the Supreme Court insofar as complaints against Members of the Supreme Court are concerned.
- Section 25 Repealing Clause.
  Any resolution, circular or administrative order issued by the Supreme Court inconsistent herewith is deemed modified or repealed.
- Section 26 Effectivity Clause.
  These Rules shall take effect following their publication in the Official Gazette or in two newspapers of national circulation.