Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
MTJ-05-1582 February 28, 2005 investigation stage, as such, any and all incidents will
ultimately be subject to their review in the OPP.1awphi1.nét
ANTONIO OCENAR, complainant,
vs. On the authority of the respondent to grant bail, he cites Rule
JUDGE ODELON S. MABUTIN, respondent. 114, Sections 4 and 17(b) of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure to justify his action.
DECISION
On the charge of partiality due to the grant of bail to
Monsanto and the denial of bail to Bantugan, the reason
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
proffered by respondent is simply because no bail was
applied for by Bantugan. The fact of non-application for bail is
In a verified Complaint1 filed before the Office of the Court attested by a certification, to that effort issued by Mr. Alfredo
Administrator (OCA), Antonio Ocenar charges Judge Odelon Bardaje, Administrative Officer III of the OPP of Samar. 6
S. Mabutin, Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Catbalogan,
Samar, with grave misconduct and gross ignorance of the
Relative to the allegation that he is a protégé of Judge
law. In support thereof, Ocenar narrates: On 05 November
2002 at 10:30 p.m., Raymund Monsanto was arrested by the Monsanto, respondent denies the same and instead claims
police officers of Catbalogan, Samar, in a buy-bust operation. that he comes from another town in Samar, Sta. Margarita,
Confiscated from him were shabu paraphernalia, money, and while Judge Monsanto hails from Calbayog City. He never
3.8 grams of shabu. A case for violation of Section 5 of the had any dealings with Judge Monsanto except on a purely
Dangerous Drugs Act was filed against Monsanto who was professional basis such as when "he had to go to Judge
held behind bars. Respondent judge conducted the Monsanto’s office to research, the IBP officers induction, their
attendance in judge’s seminars, Christmas party of the trial
preliminary investigation of the case which was terminated on
07 January 2003. However, even before the conclusion of the court, encounters during town fiestas, and the blow-out of
Judge Monsanto when he was chosen as centennial judge
preliminary investigation, respondent judge approved the
motion for bail of Monsanto in the amount of P150,000 on 26 for Region VIII." Other than those instances, there was never
December 2002. A motion to reduce bailbond filed by any time where respondent dealt with Judge Monsanto
Monsanto was again granted by the respondent and bail was personally. Neither have they asked any favors from one
reduced to P120,000; whereupon, accused was released another and certainly not in the criminal case involving the
from prison. accused Monsanto.
From the point of view of the Complainant, Monsanto is not Referred to the OCA, the OCA recommended that the
entitled to bail and the granting thereof was a violation of complaint be dismissed for lack of merit.7
Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002) inasmuch as Section 5 provides that the penalty We concur in the recommendation of the OCA.
for the alleged crime is life imprisonment to death.
Complainant submits that the Respondent gave undue favor Evidence for the prosecution presented during the hearings
to Monsanto because the latter is a grandson of Judge conducted for the purpose of determining accused
Sinforiano A. Monsanto who is the Executive Judge of the Monsanto’s right to bail shows that on 05 November 2002,
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Catbalogan, Samar. In accused Monsanto was arrested at Purok 1, Barangay 13,
contrast, in another criminal case (Crim. Case No. Y3-H-330 Catbalogan, Samar, in a buy-bust operation. Recovered from
entitled, People v. Felix Bantugan), likewise for violation of
him were one (1) piece heat sealed transparent plastic
Section 5 of Rep. Act No. 9165, the accused therein, Felix sachet containing a white crystalline substance locally known
Bantugan, who was arrested in a police buy-bust operation
as shabu weighing more or less 4.0 grams and buy-bust
and caught in possession of 0.06 grams of shabu, was money of Seven Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P7,500).8 A
denied his bail by respondent. In sum, Complainant complaint dated 06 November 2002 for violation of Sections
challenges the propriety of the grant of bail by the respondent 5 and 15 both of Rep. Act No. 9165, The Comprehensive
to the accused Monsanto. Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, specifically for illegal sale and
use of dangerous drugs was filed against accused Monsanto
Per 1st indorsement of the OCA dated 23 October before the MTC where respondent judge is presiding. 9 On 02
2003,2 respondent judge was required to Comment on the December 2002, accused Monsanto, through counsel, filed
Complaint. an application for admission to bail. 10 As earlier stated, the
preliminary hearing on the application for admission to bail
In his Comment,3 respondent judge takes exception to the took place on 12 December 2002 where a judge-designate,
accusation of the complainant stating, first and foremost, that Judge Salvador P. Jakosalem presided owing to the absence
the instant administrative complaint is not the first time the of the respondent. A subsequent hearing was held on 17
December 2002 where Prosecutor Dhida L. Lim manifested
Complainant dragged the respondent to an unnecessary suit.
Previously, in OCA I.P.I. No./Adm. Matter No. 99-778- MTJ, that she would not intervene in the application for bail
considering that the case is only in the preliminary
complainant filed against respondent a case for partiality,
incompetence and ignorance of the law which this Court investigation stage and the same would ultimately be subject
dismissed for lack of merit in a Resolution dated 05 February to their review.11 Another hearing was held on 19 December
2001.4 Respondent surmised that the first complaint was an 2002 where the services of Atty. Jorge L. Almaden, a lawyer
offshoot of a case of which complainant was a party as from the Philippine National Police Regional Legal Services,
judgment-obligor whose assets were subjected to execution appeared for the prosecution, engaged by Inspector
and where respondent presided at the execution stage. Pensotes, team leader of the group that conducted the buy-
bust operation on Monsanto.12 Atty. Almaden appeared
during the hearings and presented evidence for the
Respondent stated that in view of Monsanto’s application for prosecution.
bail, the case was heard on 12, 17, 19 and 20 December
2003. While respondent admits that initially there was no
notice given to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor (OPP) In Te v. Perez,13 this Court held:
of Samar, there was really no irregularity of procedure taken
inasmuch as clarificatory hearings (i.e., cases for preliminary . . . We reiterate the following duties of judges in case an
investigations) are heard without the appearance of the application for bail is filed:
prosecutor considering that the MTC and the prosecutor’s
office are on equal footing in conducting preliminary 1. In all cases, whether bail is a matter of right or
investigations. Respondent points out that on 12 December
discretion, notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the
2002, during the initial hearing of Monsanto’s application for application for bail or require him to submit his
admission to bail, it was Judge Salvador Jakosalem - as
recommendation;
Presiding Judge designate – who presided over the case as
he (respondent) was on leave. As the Order 5 of the Court on
that day would bear out, Police Senior Inspector Joseph N. 2. Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a hearing of
Pensotes, representing the prosecution, sought for and was the application for bail regardless of whether or not the
granted additional time to consult the OPP which has control prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the guilt
and supervision over the prosecution of the case. At the next of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court
hearing on 17 December 2002, respondent informed the to exercise its sound discretion;
prosecutor assigned to the court, Prosecutor Dhida L. Lim,
regarding Monsanto’s application for bail. Lim merely stated 3. Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on
that she would not appear and intervene in the application for the summary of evidence of the prosecution; and
bail because the case was only in the preliminary
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |1
4. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the TRINIDAD O. LACHICA, Complainant,
accused upon the approval of the bail bond. Otherwise the vs.
bail should be denied.14 JUDGE ROSABELLA M. TORMIS, Municipal Trial Court in
Cities, Branch 4, Cebu City, Respondent.
Restated in the more recent case of Managuelod v. Judge
Paclibon, Jr.:15 RESOLUTION
The duties of a judge, in case an application for bail is filed, YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
are to: (1) notify the prosecutor of the hearing on the
application for bail or require him to submit his This resolves the Memorandum/Supplement to the
recommendation; (2) conduct a hearing on the application for Manifestation of respondent Judge Rosabella M. Tormis
bail whether or not the prosecution presents evidence to seeking for a reinvestigation of the administrative case filed
show that the guilt of the accused is strong, to enable the against her and to be allowed to present additional evidence
court to exercise its discretion; (3) decide whether the thereto.
evidence of guilt of the accused is strong based on the
summary of evidence of the prosecution; and (4) if the guilt of
the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the In the Court’s Decision dated September 20, 2005,
approval of the bailbond. respondent judge was found guilty of gross misconduct,
suspended from office for six months without salary and other
benefits and sternly warned that a repetition of the same or
Applying the foregoing, this Court finds that Respondent has similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
more than sufficiently complied with the requirements of the
law before his approval of the bail application of accused
Monsanto, negating a charge that he was remiss in his duty. The record shows that the case was initially referred to
Clearly, the prosecutor assigned to the court to appear in Executive Judge Simeon P. Dumdum, Jr. of the Regional
behalf of the People was notified of the hearing on the Trial Court of Cebu City for investigation, report and
application for bail and directed to make a recommendation. recommendation in a Resolution dated August 02, 2004. 1
The bail application was heard on different occasions before
the same was granted. The Order allowing the accused to be In compliance with the foregoing directive, the Investigating
released on bail on the ground that the evidence of his guilt Judge submitted the Report dated November 18, 20042with
was not strong was based on and contained a summary of the recommendation that respondent judge be fined
the evidence of the prosecution as required by the law. P20,000.00 or suspended for three months.3
Conspicuously, the recommendation of the respondent was The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) concurred with
in fact upheld by the reviewing prosecutors, Edilberto G. the findings of the Investigating Judge but recommended that
Morales and Manuel F. Torrevillas, Jr., Provincial respondent judge be suspended for three months.4
Prosecutors of Samar, who made a review resolution without
questioning the grant of bail to the accused by the
respondent.16 1awphi1.nét Thereafter, the Court issued a Resolution dated August 3,
2005 requiring the parties to manifest within five days from
notice if they were willing to submit the case for resolution
On the authority of the respondent to grant bail, the long based on the pleadings filed.5
settled rule is that a municipal judge conducting a preliminary
investigation of a person in custody and charged with a
capital offense has the authority to grant bail. 17Rule 114, Subsequently, the Court issued a Resolution dated
Section 17 of The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, September 14, 20056 where it resolved to re-docket the case
provides: as a regular administrative case; and dispense with the
manifestations of both parties submitting the case for
resolution based on the pleadings filed.
SEC. 17. Bail, where filed. – (a) Bail in the amount fixed may
be filed with the court where the case is pending, or in the
absence or unavailability of the judge thereof, with any On September 20, 2005, the Court promulgated its
regional trial judge, metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial Decision7 finding respondent judge guilty of gross misconduct
judge, or municipal circuit trial judge in the province, city, or and suspending her from office for six months.
municipality. If the accused is arrested in a province, city, or
municipality other than where the case is pending, bail may It appears from the record8 that even before her receipt of a
also be filed with any Regional Trial Court of said place, or if copy of the above-mentioned judgment, the same had been
no judge thereof is available, with any metropolitan trial downloaded from the web site of the Court and disseminated
judge, municipal trial judge, or municipal circuit trial judge to the local media. Indeed, respondent judge was apprised by
therein. her staff that her six-month suspension was bannered by the
Freeman, a local newspaper, in its September 23, 2005
In sum, the acts of respondent judge were all in accordance issue.9 The Banat News, a sister publication of the Freeman
with law and settled jurisprudence.l^vvphi1.net published in the local dialect likewise made reference to the
decision and called for respondent’s ouster from the judiciary
in its September 24, 2005 issue.10 These publications
In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the compelled respondent to send a letter addressed to the Clerk
burden of proving the allegations in his complaint with of Court of the First Division requesting for a certified true
substantial evidence,18 i.e., that amount of relevant evidence copy of the judgment.11
which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify
a conclusion.19 In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a
judge enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance In the afternoon of September 28, 2005, respondent judge
of his functions.20 received a copy of the Resolution dated August 3,
200512 requiring the parties to manifest whether they were
willing to submit the case for resolution based on the
While it is our duty to investigate and determine the truth pleadings filed. This led respondent judge to conclude that
behind every matter in complaints against judges and other the case had not yet been resolved and the judgment
court personnel, it is also our duty to see to it that they are promulgated, thus, she filed a Manifestation on the same
protected and exonerated from baseless administrative date13 praying for a reinvestigation and to be allowed to
charges. The Court will not shirk from its responsibility of adduce evidence thereat.14
imposing discipline upon its magistrates, but neither will it
hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that serve to
disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of On October 7, 2005,15 the Court received a copy of
justice.21 respondent’s Memorandum/Supplement to the
Manifestation16dated October 3, 2005 explaining in detail her
reasons for seeking a reinvestigation.
WHEREFORE, the Complaint is hereby DISMISSED for lack
of merit.
It must be stressed that the essence of due process in
administrative proceedings is the opportunity to explain one’s
SO ORDERED. side or seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of.17 Owing to the foregoing confluence of events
A.M. No. MTJ-05-1609 February 28, 2006 aggravated by the delay in our postal system, the Court is
inclined to grant the request of respondent judge.
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |2
In an administrative case, if the respondent judge must be Fund (CIF) and, thereafter, used this amount for his (the
disciplined for grave misconduct or any grave offense, the respondent's) personal benefit.
evidence against the miscreant magistrate should be
competent and should be derived from direct In its decision3 dated April 29, 2013, the Sandiganbayan's
knowledge.18The Judiciary to which the respondent belongs First Division found the respondent guilty beyond reasonable
demands no less. Before any of its members could be doubt of the crimes charged.
faulted, it should only be after due investigation and after
presentation of the required quantum of evidence especially The Sandiganbayan held that the prosecution successfully
because the charge is punitive by nature. 19 proved that the respondent "instigated" Nortal's withdrawal of
a P1 million cash advance from the CIF allotted for the
Any administrative complaint leveled against a judge must be Mayor's Office, and that he (the respondent) received and
used this amount for his personal benefit. The court found
examined with a discriminating eye for its consequential
effects are by nature penal in character, such that the that the respondent directed Nortal's request for the cash
respondent judge stands to face the sanction of dismissal, advance because he (the respondent) already had four (4)
disbarment, or suspension. As champion – at other times unliquidated cash advances as of December 31, 2006, and
tormentor – of trial and appellate judges, this Court must be that three of these cash advances (with a total of PI,3
unrelenting in weeding the judiciary of unscrupulous 84,280.00) already came from the CIF. The testimonies of
magistrates, but it must also be quick in dismissing the city treasurer, the city accountant, and the city budget
officer supported the conclusion that the respondent actively
administrative complaints which serve no other purpose than
to harass them.20 worked for the approval of the P1 million cash advance.
We resolve to dismiss the respondent from the service he 10. Partisan political activities; and
has dishonored and to bar him from the ranks of legal
professionals whose standards he has likewise transgressed. 11. Alcoholism and/or vicious habits, (emphasis
supplied)
I. The Court's disciplinary powers over justices and judges
The respondent's convictions by the Sandiganbayan for
We find no merit in the respondent's claim that the present violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and for
administrative case against him is premature because his malversation of public funds confirm that the administrative
criminal convictions by the Sandiganbayan are not yet final. charges for which he may be found liable are serious charges
under Section 8(2) of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as
Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution grants the amended. Malversation is likewise considered as a serious
Supreme Court administrative supervision over all courts and charge since it is a crime involving moral turpitude.
their personnel. This grant empowers the Supreme Court to
oversee the judges' and court personnel's administrative While the term moral turpitude does not have one specific
compliance with all laws, rules, and regulations, 9 and to take definition that lends itself to easy and ready application,12 it
administrative actions against them if they violate these legal has been defined as an act of baseness, vileness, or the
norms.10 depravity in the performance of private and social duties that
man owes to his fellow man or to society in general. 13
In the exercise of this power, the Court has promulgated
rules of procedure in the discipline of judges. Section 1, Rule Notably, jurisprudence has categorized the following acts as
140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A. M. No. 01-8-10- crimes involving moral turpitude: abduction with consent,
SC, provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary bigamy, concubinage, smuggling, rape, attempted bribery,
SECTION 1. How instituted. Proceedings for the discipline of profiteering, robbery, murder, estafa, theft, illicit sexual
Judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the relations with a fellow worker, violation of Batas Pambansa
Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan may be Blg. 22, intriguing against honor, violation of the Anti-Fencing
instituted motu proprio by the Supreme Court or upon a Law, violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, perjury, forgery,
verified complaint, supported by affidavits of persons who direct bribery, frustrated homicide, adultery, arson, evasion of
have personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by income tax, barratry, blackmail, bribery, duelling,
documents which may substantiate said allegations, or upon embezzlement, extortion, forgery, libel, making fraudulent
an anonymous complaint, supported by public records of proof of loss on insurance contract, mutilation of public
indubitable integrity. The complaint shall be in writing and records, fabrication of evidence, offenses against pension
shall state clearly and concisely the acts and omissions laws, perjury, seduction under the promise of marriage,
constituting violations of standards of conduct prescribed for estafa, falsification of public document, and estafa thru
Judges by law, the Rules of Court, or the Code of Judicial falsification of public document.
Conduct.cralawlawlibrary
Based on this rule, disciplinary proceedings against sitting To our mind, malversation - considering its nature - should
judges and justices may be instituted: (a) motu proprio, by not be categorized any differently from the above listed
the Court itself; (b) upon verified complaint, supported by crimes. The act of embezzling public funds or property is
the affidavits of persons with personal knowledge of the facts immoral in itself; it is a conduct clearly contrary to the
alleged, or by documents substantiating the allegations; or (c) accepted standards of justice, honesty, and good morals. 14
upon anonymous complaint supported by public records of
indubitable integrity.11 The preventive suspension we impose pending investigation
is not a penalty but serves only as a preventive measure as
It was pursuant to this power that the Court - on its own we explained above. Because it is not a penalty, its
initiative -ordered the re-docketing of the OCA's report as a imposition does not violate the right of the accused to be
formal complaint against the respondent and as a regular presumed innocent. It also matters not that the offenses for
administrative matter for the Court's consideration. which the respondent had been convicted were committed in
2001 when he was still the Mayor of Dapitan City. 15As
The Court likewise possesses the power to preventively explained below, it is likewise immaterial that his criminal
suspend an administratively charged judge until a final convictions by the Sandiganbayan are still on appeal with this
decision is reached, particularly when a serious charge is Court.
involved and a strong likelihood of guilt exists. This power is
inherent in the Court's power of administrative supervision Optional early retirement
over all courts and their personnel as a measure to allow
unhampered formal investigation. It is likewise a preventive The records show that the respondent wrote the Court a
measure to shield the public from any further damage that letter on May 27, 2013 (or soon after his Sandiganbayan
the continued exercise by the judge of the functions of his convictions), requesting that he "be allowed to optionally
office may cause. retire effective November 30, 2013."16 He later requested, in
another letter,17 that the effectivity date of his optional
In the present case, we placed the respondent under retirement be changed from November 30, 2013 to
preventive suspension because he is alleged to have December 31, 2013.
committed transgressions that are classified as serious under
Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, which The Court has not acted on the respondent's request for
provides:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary optional early retirement in view of his standing criminal
SEC. 8. Serious charges. - Serious charges include: convictions; he stands to suffer accessory penalties affecting
his qualification to retire from office should his convictions
1. Bribery, direct or indirect; stand.18 The OCA records19 also show that he is currently on
"on leave of absence" status. In any case, that a judge has
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |4
retired or has otherwise been separated from the service before us and to fully accord the respondent the due process
does not necessarily divest the Court of its jurisdiction to rule owed him in these proceedings, we shall examine all the
on complaints filed while he was still in the service. As we evidence adduced and apply to these pieces of evidence the
held in Gallos v. Cordero:20 substantial evidence rule that the present proceedings
The jurisdiction that was ours at the time of the filing of the require. This approach is only proper, as the present
administrative complaint was not lost by the mere fact that proceeding is not an appeal from the Sandiganbayan ruling
the respondent had ceased in office during the pendency of but is an original one for purposes of establishing or negating
his case. The Court retains jurisdiction either to pronounce the claimed administrative liability on the part of the
the respondent public official innocent of the charges or respondent.
declare him guilty thereof. A contrary rule would be fraught
with injustice and pregnant with dreadful and dangerous What do the evidence on record show?
implications x x x If innocent, respondent public official merits
vindication of his name and integrity as he leaves the Torres testified that when his office received a Request for
government which he has served well and faithfully; if guilty, Obligation Allotment (ROA)27 and a Disbursement Voucher
he deserves to receive the corresponding censure and a (DV)28 on May 16, 2001, for a P1 million cash advance
penalty proper and imposable under the payable to Nortal, he immediately sent a letter to the
situation.cralawlawlibrary respondent (through the City Budget Officer) informing him
Nor does separation from office render a pending that he could not accommodate the request because the CIF
administrative charge moot and academic.21 appropriation covered the whole of 2001, and that Nortal was
not properly bonded.
II. Administrative Liability
On the same day, Torres' letter was returned with the
In the present case, our task is not to determine the respondent's handwritten notation asking him to reconsider
correctness of the Sandiganbayan's ruling in Criminal Case his position. Torres eventually signed the ROA after the
Nos. 27467-68, a case that is separately pending before us respondent prevailed upon him to reconsider,29 although he
and which we shall consider under the evidentiary rules and still noted his objection to the payment of the claim when he
procedures of our criminal laws. received the disbursement voucher from the accounting
office, on the belief that the disbursement should only cover
In the present proceedings, our function is limited to the two quarters, not the whole year.
determination of whether substantial evidence exists to hold
the respondent administratively liable for acts he is alleged to In his affidavit, Torres stated that the CIF could not be
have committed while he was still the mayor of Dapitan City. released without the respondent's approval because this fund
was an appropriation under the Office of the City Mayor.
In this determination, it is immaterial that the respondent was
not yet a member of the Judiciary when he allegedly Ruda declared on the witness stand that right after the May
committed the acts imputed to him; judges may be disciplined 11, 2001 elections, the respondent directed her to release the
for acts committed prior to their appointment to the judiciary. whole appropriation (totalling P1 million) for the CIF. Ruda
Our Rules itself recognizes this situation, as it provides for hesitated to do as told considering that the respondent's term
the immediate forwarding to the Supreme Court for would end on June 30, 2001, while the amount to be
disposition and adjudication of charges against justices and released corresponded to the appropriation for the entire
judges before the IBP, including those filed prior to their 2001. Ruda gave in to the respondent's request after the
appointment to the judiciary. It need not be shown that the latter stressed to her that he (respondent) was still the mayor
respondent continued to do the act or acts complained of; it is until the end of June 2001.
sufficient that the evidence on record supports the charge/s
against the respondent through proof that the respondent In her affidavit, Ruda stated that it was not customary for her
committed the imputed act/s violative of the Code of Judicial office to release, in the middle of the year, the whole
Conduct and the applicable provisions of the Rules of intelligence fund appropriation for the year.
Court.22
Deloria testified that when she received a ROA and a DV for
In Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Sardido,23 the a P1 million CIF cash advance, she informed the respondent
Court definitively ruled that:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary that the amount requested covered the appropriations for the
The acts or omissions of a judge may well constitute at the entire 2001. The respondent informed her that the city
same time both a criminal act and an administrative offense. government needed the money badly. Ruda reviewed the
Whether the criminal case against Judge Hurtado relates request and found out that the payee, Nortal, had not yet
to an act committed before or after he became a judge is posted a fidelity bond. The respondent told Ruda that he had
of no moment. Neither is it material that an MTC judge will already applied for Nortal's bond.
be trying an RTC judge in the criminal case. A criminal case
against an attorney or judge is distinct and separate from an In her affidavit, Deloria stated that it was the first time that her
administrative case against him. The dismissal of the criminal office processed a request for funds intended for the entire
case does not warrant the dismissal of an administrative case year.
arising from the same set of facts, x x x (emphases
supplied)cralawlawlibrary Nortal, for his part, narrated that the respondent asked him
We reiterate that only substantial evidence is required to on May 16, 2001, to withdraw P1 million from the CIF on his
support our conclusions in administrative (respondent's) behalf. Nortal initially refused since he might
proceedings.24 Substantial evidence is that amount of not be able to liquidate this amount as the respondent had
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as lost in the elections. Instead, Nortal suggested that the Chief
adequate to justify a conclusion. The standard of substantial of Police be asked to make the withdrawal. The respondent,
is satisfied when there is reasonable ground to believe that however, assured Nortal that one of his men would help him
the respondent is responsible for the misconduct complained liquidate the requested amount. Nortal thus yielded to the
of, even if such might not be overwhelming or even respondent's request and proceeded to the City Budget
preponderant.25 That the respondent committed acts Office to sign the covering ROA and DV.
constituting malversation or violations of the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act should be adjudged in the same Nortal added that the respondent's private secretary picked
manner that other acts classified as serious charges under him up at his house on May 30, 2001, informing him that the
Rule 140 (such as bribery, immorality, gross misconduct, check of P1 million was already at the Treasurer's Office.
dishonesty, and partisan political activities) should be After securing the check, they proceeded to the Philippine
weighed — through substantial evidence.26 Expressed from National Bank (PNB) in Dipolog City to encash it. Thereafter,
the point of view of criminal law, evidence to support a they went to the respondent's office where Nortal handed him
conviction in a criminal case is not necessary in an the P1 million. Nortal asked the respondent for a receipt, but
administrative proceeding like the present case. the latter refused to issue one; instead, the respondent gave
him P50,000.00 to be used in the city's drug operations.
The Sandiganbayan, in considering the respondent's guilt in
the criminal case before it, gave full probative value to the In his affidavit, Nortal stated that the respondent told him that
testimonies of Fatima Ruda (OlC-City Budget Officer), Jose he (respondent) could no longer make any cash' advances
R. Torres (OlC-City Treasurer), Glendora Deloria (City since he had unliquidated cash advances.
Accountant), and Pepe Nortal (Police Inspector of the
Dapitan City Police). These conclusions and approach do not Leonilo Morales, State Auditor of the City Auditor's Office
mean that we shall not examine, on our own in the present from 1997 to 2000, corroborated NortaPs affidavit when he
proceedings, the evidence on record before us. testified that the respondent had not liquidated his cash
advances from the CIF.
For purposes of the original administrative proceeding
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |5
Aside from the testimonies of these witnesses and their competence, integrity, and independence, and their conduct
respective affidavits, the records before the Sandiganbayan should be above reproach. They must adhere to exacting
are replete with documentary proof showing that the standards of morality, decency, and probity. A magistrate is
respondent committed the acts attributed to him. The judged, not only by his official acts, but also by his
respondent failed to refute these pieces of evidence before private morality and actions. Our people can only look up
the Sandiganbayan or in the comment he filed with this to him as an upright man worthy of judging his fellow citizens'
Court. acts if he is both qualified and proficient in law, and equipped
with the morality that qualifies him for that higher plane that
The respondent's signature on the following documents standing as a judge entails.
showed that he facilitated Nortal's withdrawal of P1 million
from the CIF: (a) Disbursement Voucher No. 105.0105.3888; In Conrado Abe Lopez v. Judge Rogelio S. Lucmayon,32 we
(b) Request for Obligation Allotment; and (c) PNB Check No. ruled that:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
0001097358. The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of a
judge must be free of a whiff of impropriety not only with
The respondent's signature, as approving officer, on respect to his performance of his judicial duties, but also to
Disbursement Voucher No. 105.0105.3888, proved that he his behavior outside his sala as a private individual. There is
authorized the disbursement of a P1 million cash advance "to no dichotomy of morality: a public official is also judged
defray Confidential and Intelligence Expenses." 30 The by his private morals. The Code dictates that a judge, in
respondent's signature on the ROA also showed that he (and order to promote public confidence in the integrity and
Nortal) requested P1 million to be used for confidential impartiality of the judiciary, must behave with propriety at all
expenses. Finally, the respondent's signature on the PNB times. As we have recently explained, a judge's official life
check established that he allowed Nortal to withdraw the cannot simply be detached or separated from his personal
requested amount. existence. (emphasis ours)cralawlawlibrary
The conduct of judges, official or otherwise, must always be
Considering that the CIF was an appropriation under the beyond reproach and must be free from any suspicion
Mayor's Office, it is unlikely that Nortal would attempt to tainting him, his exalted office, and the Judiciary. A conduct,
withdraw the P1 million CIF cash advance without the act,- or-omission repugnant to the standards of public
respondent's imprimatur. In other words, Nortal — even if he accountability and which tends to diminish the people's faith
wanted to — could not have withdrawn any amount from the and confidence in the Judiciary, must invariably be handled
CIF without the approval and authority of the respondent City with the required resolve through the imposition of the
Mayor. appropriate sanctions imposed by law33 and by the standards
and penalties applicable to the legal profession.
That the respondent authorized the withdrawal of the entire
CIF for the year 2001 after he lost in his reelection bid (and Administrative Matter No. 02-9-02-SC (which took effect on
less than two months before the expiration of his term) is October 1, 2002) provides that an administrative case against
indicative of his bad faith. We note that several of the city's a judge of a regular court based on grounds which are also
financial officers, no less, made known to him their objections grounds for the disciplinary action against members of the
to the request due to its patent irregularity. Bar, shall be considered as disciplinary proceedings against
such judge as a member of the Bar. It also states
Indeed, if the request for cash advance request had been that judgment in both respects may be incorporated in
legitimate, there would have been no need for Nortal's one decision or resolution.
intervention in effecting a withdrawal as the respondent was
the City Mayor and the CIF was a fund under his office. This Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court, on the other
reality validates Nortal's claim that the respondent could no hand, provides that a lawyer may be removed or suspended
longer withdraw from the CIF because he already had from the practice of law, among others, for conviction of a
existing unliquidated advances. crime involving moral turpitude:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Sec. 27. Attorneys removed or suspended by the Supreme
Significantly, the records show that the withdrawn amount Court on what grounds. — A member of the bar may be
was never liquidated as shown by the Commission on Audit's removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the
schedule of unliquidated cash advances as of January 31, Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross
2013. No evidence also exists showing that the withdrawn misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by
fund had been used for its intended purposes, i.e., for reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude,
confidential or intelligence activities. or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take
before the admission to practice, or for a wilfull disobedience
Viewed against the positive declarations of the prosecution of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or
witnesses, which are supported by the documents on record, willful appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without
the respondent's denial cannot stand. The respondent even authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for
failed to substantiate his claim that the charges against him the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents
had been politically motivated. Thus, by substantial evidence, or brokers, constitutes malpractice.cralawlawlibrary
we consider it fully established that the respondent actively In Bengco v. Bernardo,34 we ruled that it is not sound judicial
worked for the approval of the P1 million cash advance from policy to await the final resolution of a criminal case before a
the CIF; that he facilitated the withdrawal of the P1 million by complaint against a lawyer may be acted upon; otherwise,
Nortal; and that he received and used this withdrawn amount this Court will be rendered helpless to apply the rules on
for his personal benefit. admission to, and continuing membership in the legal
profession during the whole period that the criminal case is
III. The Appropriate Penalty pending final disposition, when the objectives of the two
proceedings are vastly disparate. Disciplinary proceedings
Section 11 of Rule 140, as amended, states that [i]f the involve no private interest and afford no redress for private
respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the
sanctions may be imposed: (a) dismissal from the service, public welfare and to save courts of justice from persons unfit
forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may to practice law. The attorney is called to answer to the court
determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or for his conduct as an officer of the court.cralaw-red
appointment to any public office, including government-
owned or -controlled corporations; (b) suspension from office WHEREFORE, premises considered, Judge Joseph Cedrick
without salary and other benefits for more than three but not O. Ruiz is hereby DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE with
exceeding six months; or (c) a fine of more than P20,000.00 forfeiture of all benefits, except accrued leave credits, and
but not exceeding P40,000.00. with prejudice to reemployment in the Government or any of
its subdivisions, instrumentalities, or agencies including
Considering the nature and extent of the respondent's government-owned and -controlled corporations. As a
transgressions, we find the imposition of the supreme consequence of this ruling, Judge Ruiz is likewise
administrative penalty of dismissal to be appropriate. The declared DISBARRED and STRICKEN FROM the roll of
people's confidence in the judicial system is founded not only attorneys.
on the competence and diligence of the members of the
bench, but also on their integrity and moral uprightness. 31 We Let a copy of this Decision be (1) attached to the records of
would violate this standard and unduly tarnish the image of Judge Ruiz with the Office of the Bar Confidant of this Court
the Judiciary if we allow the respondent's continued presence and with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and (2) posted
in the bench. We would likewise insult the legal profession if at the Supreme Court website for the information of the
we allow him to remain within the ranks of legal Bench, the Bar, and the general public.
professionals.
SO ORDERED.
We emphasize that judges should be the embodiment of
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |6
A.M. No. RTJ-01-1657 February 23, 2004 2. Based on the records of transmittals of notarial reports,
Atty. Anthony E. Santos submitted his notarial reports in the
HEINZ R. HECK, complainant, ff. years:
vs.
JUDGE ANTHONY E. SANTOS, REGIONAL TRIAL a. January 1980 report - was submitted on Feb. 6, 1980
COURT, BRANCH 19, CAGAYAN DE ORO
CITY,1respondent. b February to April 1980 report - was submitted on
June 6, 1980
DECISION
c. May to June 1980 report - was submitted on July 29, 1980
CALLEJO SR., J.:
d. July to October 1980 report - submitted but no date of
May a retired judge charged with notarizing documents submission
without the requisite notary commission more than twenty
years ago be disciplined therefor? This is the novel issue e. November to December 1980-no entry
presented for resolution before this Court.
The complainant alleged that prior to the respondent’s h. January to December 1982 - submitted but no date of
appointment as RTC judge on April 11, 1989, he violated the submission
notarial law, thus:
i. January to June 1983 - submitted on January 5, 1984
Judge Santos, based on ANNEX "A," was not duly
commissioned as notary public until January 9, 1984 but still j. July to December 1983 - no entry
subscribed and forwarded (on a non-regular basis) notarized
documents to the Clerk of Court VI starting January 1980
uncommissioned until the 9th of January 1984. k. January to December 1984 - submitted on January 20,
1986
a) Judge Santos was commissioned further January 16th
1986 to December 31st 1987 and January 6th 1988 to l. January to December 1985 - submitted on January 20,
December 31st 1989 but the records fail to show any entry at 1986
the Clerk of Court after December 31st 1985 until December
31st 1989. 4. Records fail to show any entry of transmittal of notarial
documents under the name Atty. Anthony Santos after
b) Judge Santos failed to forward his Notarial Register after December 1985.
the expiration of his commission in December 1989.2
5. It is further certified that the last notarial commission
... issued to Atty. Anthony Santos was on January 6, 1988 until
December 31, 1989.4
WHEREFORE in light of the foregoing complainant pray[s] to
order respondent: In his Answer dated June 13, 2001, the respondent judge
categorically denied the charges against him. He also
submitted a certification5 from Clerk of Court, Atty. Sabio-
1. To disbar Judge Anthony E. Santos and to prohibit him Beja, to prove that there was no proper recording of the
from all future public service. commissioned lawyers in the City of Cagayan de Oro as well
as the submitted notarized documents/notarial register. The
2. To forfeit [the] retirement benefits of Judge Santos. respondent further averred as follows:
3. To prohibit Judge Santos from future practice of Law. That the complainant has never been privy to the documents
notarized and submitted by the respondent before the Office
of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Misamis
4. To file a criminal suit against Judge Santos.
Oriental, nor his rights prejudiced on account of the said
notarized documents and therefore not the proper party to
5. To conduct a speedy investigation and not to grant/accept raise the said issues;
any delaying tactics from Judge Santos or any agency and or
public servants involved in this administrative case. That the complainant was one of the defendants in Civil Case
No. 94-334 entitled Vinas Kuranstalten Gesmbh et al. versus
6. To pay all costs and related costs involved in this Lugait Aqua Marine Industries, Inc., and Heinz Heck, for
administrative case. Specific Performance & Sum of Money, filed before the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Cagayan de Oro City,
and prays for other relief in accordance with equity and wherein respondent is the Presiding Judge. The undersigned
resolved the case in favor of the plaintiffs. 6
fairness based on the premises.3
The complainant submitted a certification from Clerk of Court, Pursuant to the report of the Office of the Court Administrator
Atty. Beverly Sabio-Beja, Regional Trial Court, Misamis recommending the need to resort to a full-blown investigation
to determine the veracity of the parties’ assertions, the Court,
Oriental, which contained the following:
in a Resolution dated September 10, 2001, resolved to: (a)
treat the matter as a regular administrative complaint; and (b)
THIS CERTIFIES that upon verification from the records refer the case to Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz of the
found and available in this office, the following data appear: Court of Appeals (CA) for investigation, report and
recommendation.7
1. The name Atty. Anthony E. Santos is listed as a duly
commissioned notary public in the following years: In his Letters dated December 10, 2001 and February 1,
2002, the complainant requested that the hearing be held at
a. January 9, 1984 to December 31, 1985 Cagayan de Oro City. Justice Cruz initially denied the request
but upon the complainant’s insistence, the matter was
forwarded to the Court, which favorably acted thereon in a
b. January 16, 1986 to December 31, 1987 Resolution dated July 8, 2002.8 The complainant presented
his evidence in Cagayan de Oro City before retired Court of
c. January 6, 1988 to December 31, 1989 Appeals Justice Romulo S. Quimbo.9
The Procedural Issues The investigation may thereafter commence either before the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), in accordance with
Before the Court passes upon the merits of the instant Sections 2 to Sections 12 of Rule 139-B, or before the
complaint, a brief backgrounder. Supreme Court in accordance with Sections 13 and 14, thus:
On the Applicability of Resolution A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC Section 13. Supreme Court Investigators. - In proceedings
initiated motu proprio by the Supreme Court or in other
proceedings when the interest of justice so requires, the
On September 17, 2002, we issued Resolution A.M. No. 02- Supreme Court may refer the case for investigation to the
9-02-SC,13 to wit: Solicitor General or to any officer of the Supreme Court or
judge of a lower court, in which case the investigation shall
Some administrative cases against Justices of the Court of proceed in the same manner provided in Sections 6 to 11
Appeals and the Sandiganbayan; judges of regular and hereof, save that the review of the report shall be conducted
special courts; and the court officials who are lawyers are directly by the Supreme Court.
based on grounds which are likewise grounds for the
disciplinary action of members of the Bar for violation of the Section 14. Report of the Solicitor General or other Court
Lawyer’s Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and designated Investigator. Based upon the evidence adduced
the Canons of Professional Ethics, or for such other forms of at the investigation, the Solicitor General or other Investigator
breaches of conduct that have been traditionally recognized designated by the Supreme Court shall submit to the
as grounds for the discipline of lawyers. Supreme Court a report containing his findings of fact and
recommendations together with the record and all the
In any of the foregoing instances, the administrative case evidence presented in the investigation for the final action of
shall also be considered a disciplinary action against the the Supreme Court.
respondent justice, judge or court official concerned as a
member of the Bar. The respondent may forthwith be It is clear from the Rules then that a complaint for disbarment
required to comment on the complaint and show cause why is cognizable by the Court itself, and its indorsement to the
he should not also be suspended, disbarred or otherwise IBP is not mandatory. The Court may refer the complaint for
disciplinary sanctioned as a member of the Bar. Judgment in investigation, report and recommendation to the Solicitor
both respects may be incorporated in one decision or General, any officer of the court or a judge of a lower court,
resolution. on which the Court will thereafter base its final action. 15
The Retirement Or Resignation Of A Judge Will Not Preclude It is settled that a judge may be disciplined for acts committed
The Filing Thereafter Of An Administrative Charge Against prior to his appointment to the judiciary. 22 In fact, even the
Him For Which He Shall Still Be Held Answerable If Found new Rule itself recognizes this, as it provides for the
Liable Therefor immediate forwarding to the Supreme Court for disposition
and adjudication of charges against justices and judges
before the IBP, including those filed prior to their appointment
The fact that a judge has retired or has otherwise been
separated from the service does not necessarily divest the to the judiciary.23 It need not be shown that the respondent
Court of its jurisdiction to determine the veracity of the continued the doing of the act or acts complained of; it is
allegations of the complaint, pursuant to its disciplinary sufficient that the evidence on record supports the charge on
authority over members of the bench. As we held in Gallos v. the respondent, considering the gravity of the offense.
Cordero:18
Indeed, there is jurisprudence to the effect that the act
The jurisdiction that was ours at the time of the filing of the complained of must be continuing in order for the respondent
administrative complaint was not lost by the mere fact that judge to be disciplined therefor. In Sevilla v. Salubre,24 the
the respondent, had ceased in office during the pendency of respondent judge was charged with violating Canon 16 of the
his case. The Court retains jurisdiction either to pronounce Code of Professional Responsibility, for acts committed while
the respondent public official innocent of the charges or he was still a practicing lawyer. The respondent therein
declare him guilty thereof. A contrary rule would be fraught refused to turn over the funds of his client despite demands,
and persisted in his refusal even after he was appointed as a
with injustice and pregnant with dreadful and dangerous
implications... If innocent, respondent public official merits judge. However, the Court also stated in this case that the
respondent’s subsequent appointment as a judge will not
vindication of his name and integrity as he leaves the
government which he has served well and faithfully; if guilty, exculpate him from taking responsibility for the
he deserves to receive the corresponding censure and a consequences of his acts as an officer of the court.25
penalty proper and imposable under the situation. 19
In the case of Alfonso v. Juanson,26 we held that proof of
However, recognizing "the proliferation of unfounded or prior immoral conduct cannot be used as basis for
malicious administrative or criminal cases against members administrative discipline against a judge if he is not charged
of the judiciary for purposes of harassment," we issued A.M. with immorality prior to his appointment. We ratiocinated,
No. 03-10-01-SC20 which took effect on November 3, 2003. It thus:
reads in part:
...[I]t would be unreasonable and unfair to presume that since
1. If upon an informal preliminary inquiry by the Office of the he had wandered from the path of moral righteousness, he
Court Administrator, an administrative complaint against any could never retrace his steps and walk proud and tall again in
Justice of the Court of Appeals or Sandiganbayan or any that path. No man is beyond information and redemption. A
Judge of the lower courts filed in connection with a case in lawyer who aspires for the exalted position of a magistrate
court is shown to be clearly unfounded and baseless and knows, or ought to know, that he must pay a high price for
intended to harass the respondent, such a finding should be that honor - his private and official conduct must at all times
be free from the appearance of impropriety. ... 27
included in the report and recommendation of the Office of
the Court Administrator. If the recommendation is approved
or affirmed by the Court, the complainant may be required to The Court ruled in that case that the complainant failed to
show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court. prove the charges by substantial evidence. 28 The
If the complainant is a lawyer, he may further be required to complainant therein presented evidence pertaining to the
show cause why he or she should not be administratively respondent’s previous indiscretion while still a practicing
sanctioned as a member of the Bar and as an officer of the lawyer; no evidence was, however, adduced to prove that the
court. latter continued to engage in illicit acts after being appointed
to the bench. Thus, the respondent was exonerated in this
2. If the complaint is (a) filed within six months before the case because the complainant failed to present evidence that
compulsory retirement of a Justice or Judge; (b) for an the indiscretion continued even after the respondent was
alleged cause of action that occurred at least a year before appointed to the judiciary.
such filing and (c) shown prima facie that it is intended to
harass the respondent, it must forthwith be recommended for The practice of law is so ultimately affected with public
dismissal. If such is not the case, the Office of the Court interest that it is both the right and duty of the State to control
Administrator must require the respondent to file a comment and regulate it in order to promote the public welfare. The
within ten (10) days from receipt of the complaint, and submit Constitution vests this power of control and regulation in this
to the Court a report and recommendation not later than 30 Court.29 The Supreme Court, as guardian of the legal
days from receipt of the comment. The Court shall act on the profession, has ultimate disciplinary power over attorneys,
recommendation before the date of compulsory retirement of which authority is not only a right but a bounden duty as well.
the respondent, or if it is not possible to do so, within six (6) This is why respect and fidelity to the Court is demanded of
months from such date without prejudice to the release of the its members.30
retirement benefits less such amount as the Court may order
to be withheld, taking into account the gravity of the cause of Notarizing Documents Without The Requisite Commission
action alleged in the complaint. Therefore Constitutes Malpractice, If Not The Crime Of
Falsification Of Public Documents
Thus, in order for an administrative complaint against a
retiring or retired judge or justice to be dismissed outright, the It must be remembered that notarization is not an empty,
following requisites must concur: (1) the complaint must have meaningless, routinary act. On the contrary, it is invested with
been filed within six months from the compulsory retirement substantive public interest, such that only those who are
of the judge or justice; (2) the cause of action must have qualified or authorized may act as notaries
occurred at least a year before such filing; and, (3) it is shown public.31Notarization by a notary public converts a private
that the complaint was intended to harass the respondent. document into a public one, making it admissible in evidence
without the necessity of preliminary proof of its authenticity
In this case, the Administrative Complaint dated March 21, and due execution.32
2001 was received by the Office of the Court Administrator
As we all know the month of May and June is the time we It is well to stress once again the constitutional declaration
enroll our children in school thus the money I got that month that a "(p)ublic office is a public trust. Public officers and
from the Local Government Unit came handy in defraying employees must at all times be accountable to the people,
registration expenses of my four children. The passage of serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and
time coupled with some intervening events, made me efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest
oblivious of my obligation to refund the money. However, lives." 12
when my attention was called on the day I received the copy
of the resolution, I took no time in refunding the same.
We have repeatedly held that although every office in the
government service is a public trust, no position exacts a
Respondent alleges that the certification of Municipal greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness
Treasurer Jose V. Avenido is inaccurate because it was on from an individual than in the judiciary. Personnel in the
January 25, 1990 that she was appointed as Assessment judiciary should conduct themselves in such a manner as to
Clerk I. 7 According to respondent, she took her oath on June be beyond reproach and suspicion, and free from any
17, 1991, simply because it was on that date that she appearance of impropriety in their personal behavior, not only
received a copy of her oath form. 8 in the discharge of their official duties but also in their
everyday life. They are strictly mandated to maintain good
Respondent avers that she did not divulge any business moral character at all times and to observe irreproachable
interest in her Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities and behavior so as not to outrage public decency. 13
Financial Disclosure for the years 1991-1994 because she
"was never engaged in business during said period although This Court, in JPDIO vs. Josephine Calaguas, Records
I had a stall in the market." 9 Officer, OCC, MTCC, Angeles City, 14 held:
Respondent further avers that her Daily Time Record The Court must reiterate that a public office is a public trust.
indicated that she held office on August 15, 18, 21, 23 to 25 A public servant is expected to exhibit, at all times, the
and 28, 31 and all the working days of September, 1995 highest degree of honesty and integrity and should be made
"because in truth and in fact . . . (she) did hold office on those accountable to all those whom he serves.
Ricardo C. Valmonte for and in his own behalf and his co-
In the present case, the failure of respondent to disclose her
petitioners.
business interest which she herself admitted is inexcusable
and is a clear violation of Republic Act No. 6713.
The Solicitor General for respondent.
The respondent's claim that her contract of lease of a market
stall was never implemented because it became the subject
of a civil case, fails to convince us. We agree with the finding
of the OCA on respondent's guilt for this separate offense. It CORTES, J.:
is a finding, which further supports its recommendation for
respondent's dismissal, to wit: 17
Petitioners in this special civil action for mandamus with
preliminary injunction invoke their right to information and
The case respondent is referring to was filed in 1995. This pray that respondent be directed:
can be seen from the number of the case which is 95-93.
Earlier than the filling of the case, respondent was already
collecting rentals — as early as February 22, 1991 — from
one Rodolfo Luay who was operating a business without the
necessary license. (a) to furnish petitioners the list of the names of the Batasang
Pambansa members belonging to the UNIDO and PDP-
Respondent should have, therefore, indicated in her "Sworn Laban who were able to secure clean loans immediately
Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, Disclosure of before the February 7 election thru the intercession/marginal
Business Interests and Financial Connections, and note of the then First Lady Imelda Marcos; and/or
Identification of Relatives in the Government Service" for the
years 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995 that she had a (b) to furnish petitioners with certified true copies of the
market stall in the Public market of Panabo, Davao. documents evidencing their respective loans; and/or
She admits that she never indicated such in her sworn (c) to allow petitioners access to the public records for the
statements. subject information. (Petition, pp. 4-5; paragraphing
supplied.]
Hon. Feliciano Belmonte On June 26, 1986, Valmonte, joined by the other petitioners,
GSIS General Manager filed the instant suit.
Arroceros, Manila
On July 19, 1986, the Daily Express carried a news item
Sir: reporting that 137 former members of the defunct interim and
regular Batasang Pambansa, including ten (10) opposition
members, were granted housing loans by the GSIS [Rollo, p.
As a lawyer, member of the media and plain citizen of our 41.]
Republic, I am requesting that I be furnished with the list of
names of the opposition members of (the) Batasang
Separate comments were filed by respondent Belmonte and
Pambansa who were able to secure a clean loan of P2
million each on guarranty (sic) of Mrs. Imelda Marcos. We the Solicitor General. After petitioners filed a consolidated
understand that OIC Mel Lopez of Manila was one of those reply, the petition was given due course and the parties were
aforesaid MPs. Likewise, may we be furnished with the required to file their memoranda. The parties having
certified true copies of the documents evidencing their loan. complied, the case was deemed submitted for decision.
Expenses in connection herewith shall be borne by us.
In his comment respondent raises procedural objections to
If we could not secure the above documents could we have the issuance of a writ of mandamus, among which is that
access to them? petitioners have failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
We are premising the above request on the following Respondent claims that actions of the GSIS General
provision of the Freedom Constitution of the present regime. Manager are reviewable by the Board of Trustees of the
GSIS. Petitioners, however, did not seek relief from the GSIS
Board of Trustees. It is therefore asserted that since
The right of the people to information on matters of public administrative remedies were not exhausted, then petitioners
concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and have no cause of action.
to documents and papers pertaining to official acts,
transactions or decisions, shall be afforded the citizen subject
to such limitation as may be provided by law. (Art. IV, Sec. 6). To this objection, petitioners claim that they have raised a
purely legal issue, viz., whether or not they are entitled to the
documents sought, by virtue of their constitutional right to
We trust that within five (5) days from receipt hereof we will information. Hence, it is argued that this case falls under one
receive your favorable response on the matter. of the exceptions to the principle of exhaustion of
administrative remedies.
Very truly yours,
Among the settled principles in administrative law is that
(Sgd.) RICARDO C. VALMONTE before a party can be allowed to resort to the courts, he is
expected to have exhausted all means of administrative
redress available under the law. The courts for reasons of
[Rollo, p. 7.] law, comity and convenience will not entertain a case unless
the available administrative remedies have been resorted to
To the aforesaid letter, the Deputy General Counsel of the and the appropriate authorities have been given opportunity
GSIS replied: to act and correct the errors committed in the administrative
forum. However, the principle of exhaustion of administrative
remedies is subject to settled exceptions, among which is
June 17, 1986 when only a question of law is involved [Pascual v. Provincial
Board, 106 Phil. 466 (1959); Aguilar v. Valencia, et al., G.R.
Atty. Ricardo C. Valmonte No. L-30396, July 30, 1971, 40 SCRA 210; Malabanan v.
108 E. Benin Street Ramento, G.R. No. L-2270, May 21, 1984, 129 SCRA 359.]
Caloocan City The issue raised by petitioners, which requires the
interpretation of the scope of the constitutional right to
information, is one which can be passed upon by the regular
Dear Compañero:
courts more competently than the GSIS or its Board of
Trustees, involving as it does a purely legal question. Thus,
Possibly because he must have thought that it contained the exception of this case from the application of the general
serious legal implications, President & General Manager rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies is warranted.
Feliciano Belmonte, Jr. referred to me for study and reply Having disposed of this procedural issue, We now address
your letter to him of June 4, 1986 requesting a list of the ourselves to the issue of whether or not mandamus hes to
opposition members of Batasang Pambansa who were able compel respondent to perform the acts sought by petitioners
to secure a clean loan of P2 million each on guaranty of Mrs. to be done, in pursuance of their right to information.
Imelda Marcos.
We shall deal first with the second and third alternative acts
My opinion in this regard is that a confidential relationship sought to be done, both of which involve the issue of whether
exists between the GSIS and all those who borrow from it, or not petitioners are entitled to access to the documents
whoever they may be; that the GSIS has a duty to its evidencing loans granted by the GSIS.
customers to preserve this confidentiality; and that it would
not be proper for the GSIS to breach this confidentiality
This is not the first time that the Court is confronted with a
unless so ordered by the courts.
controversy directly involving the constitutional right to
information. In Tañada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. 63915, April
As a violation of this confidentiality may mar the image of the 24,1985, 136 SCRA 27 and in the recent case of Legaspi v.
GSIS as a reputable financial institution, I regret very much Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 72119, May 29,
that at this time we cannot respond positively to your request. 1987,150 SCRA 530, the Court upheld the people's
constitutional right to be informed of matters of public interest
Very truly yours, and ordered the government agencies concerned to act as
prayed for by the petitioners.
On June 20, 1986, apparently not having yet received the The right of the people to information on matters of public
reply of the Government Service and Insurance System concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and
(GSIS) Deputy General Counsel, petitioner Valmonte wrote to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts,
respondent another letter, saying that for failure to receive a transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research
When the information requested from the government MR. SUAREZ. Thank you.
intrudes into the privacy of a citizen, a potential conflict
between the rights to information and to privacy may arise. When we declare a "policy of full public disclosure of all its
However, the competing interests of these rights need not be transactions" — referring to the transactions of the State —
resolved in this case. Apparent from the above-quoted and when we say the "State" which I suppose would include
statement of the Court in Morfe is that the right to privacy all of the various agencies, departments, ministries and
belongs to the individual in his private capacity, and not to instrumentalities of the government....
public and governmental agencies like the GSIS. Moreover,
the right cannot be invoked by juridical entities like the GSIS.
MR. OPLE. Yes, and individual public officers, Mr. Presiding
As held in the case of Vassar College v. Loose Wills Biscuit
Officer.
Co. [197 F. 982 (1912)], a corporation has no right of privacy
in its name since the entire basis of the right to privacy is an
injury to the feelings and sensibilities of the party and a MR. SUAREZ. Including government-owned and controlled
corporation would have no such ground for relief. corporations.
Neither can the GSIS through its General Manager, the MR. OPLE. That is correct, Mr. Presiding Officer.
respondent, invoke the right to privacy of its borrowers. The
right is purely personal in nature [Cf. Atkinson v. John MR. SUAREZ. And when we say "transactions" which should
Doherty & Co., 121 Mich 372, 80 N.W. 285, 46 L.RA. 219 be distinguished from contracts, agreements, or treaties or
(1899); Schuyler v. Curtis, 147 N.Y. 434, 42 N.E. 22, 31 whatever, does the Gentleman refer to the steps leading to
L.R.A. 286 (1895)), and hence may be invoked only by the the consummation of the contract, or does he refer to the
person whose privacy is claimed to be violated. contract itself?
It may be observed, however, that in the instant case, the MR. OPLE. The "transactions" used here I suppose is
concerned borrowers themselves may not succeed if they generic and, therefore, it can cover both steps leading to a
choose to invoke their right to privacy, considering the public contract, and already a consummated contract, Mr. Presiding
offices they were holding at the time the loans were alleged Officer.
to have been granted. It cannot be denied that because of
the interest they generate and their newsworthiness, public
figures, most especially those holding responsible positions MR. SUAREZ. This contemplates inclusion of negotiations
in government, enjoy a more limited right to privacy as leading to the consummation of the transaction.
compared to ordinary individuals, their actions being subject
to closer public scrutiny [Cf.Ayer Productions Pty. Ltd. v. MR. OPLE. Yes, subject only to reasonable safeguards on
Capulong, G.R. Nos. 82380 and 82398, April 29, 1988; See the national interest.
also Cohen v. Marx, 211 P. 2d 321 (1949).]
MR. SUAREZ. Thank you. [V Record of the Constitutional
Respondent next asserts that the documents evidencing the Commission 24-25.] (Emphasis supplied.)
loan transactions of the GSIS are private in nature and
hence, are not covered by the Constitutional right to
information on matters of public concern which guarantees Considering the intent of the framers of the Constitution
"(a)ccess to official records, and to documents, and papers which, though not binding upon the Court, are nevertheless
pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions" only. persuasive, and considering further that government-owned
and controlled corporations, whether performing proprietary
or governmental functions are accountable to the people, the
It is argued that the records of the GSIS, a government Court is convinced that transactions entered into by the
corporation performing proprietary functions, are outside the GSIS, a government-controlled corporation created by
coverage of the people's right of access to official records. special legislation are within the ambit of the people's right to
be informed pursuant to the constitutional policy of
It is further contended that since the loan function of the transparency in government dealings.
GSIS is merely incidental to its insurance function, then its
loan transactions are not covered by the constitutional policy In fine, petitioners are entitled to access to the documents
of full public disclosure and the right to information which is evidencing loans granted by the GSIS, subject to reasonable
applicable only to "official" transactions. regulations that the latter may promulgate relating to the
manner and hours of examination, to the end that damage to
First of all, the "constituent — ministrant" dichotomy or loss of the records may be avoided, that undue
characterizing government function has long been interference with the duties of the custodian of the records
repudiated. In ACCFA v. Confederation of Unions and may be prevented and that the right of other persons entitled
Government Corporations and Offices (G.R. Nos. L-21484 to inspect the records may be insured [Legaspi v. Civil
and L-23605, November 29, 1969, 30 SCRA 6441, the Court Service Commission, supra at p. 538, quoting Subido v.
said that the government, whether carrying out its sovereign Ozaeta, 80 Phil. 383, 387.] The petition, as to the second and
attributes or running some business, discharges the same third alternative acts sought to be done by petitioners, is
function of service to the people. meritorious.
Consequently, that the GSIS, in granting the loans, was However, the same cannot be said with regard to the first act
exercising a proprietary function would not justify the sought by petitioners, i.e., "to furnish petitioners the list of the
names of the Batasang Pambansa members belonging to the
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |16
UNIDO and PDP-Laban who were able to secure clean loans At the staff room, respondent judge, acting as if nothing
immediately before the February 7 election thru the happened, ordered his researcher to show her certain court
intercession/marginal note of the then First Lady Imelda records. Although she was trembling, she pretended to look
Marcos." at the records then ran out of the staff room and cried.
Although citizens are afforded the right to information and, On March 12, 2001, Atty. Veloso sent a letter to Judge
pursuant thereto, are entitled to "access to official records," Caminade informing him of her decision not to appear in his
the Constitution does not accord them a right to compel court again as resident PAO lawyer. She was thereafter
custodians of official records to prepare lists, abstracts, assigned to another branch of the court.
summaries and the like in their desire to acquire information
on matters of public concern. In his comment dated April 25, 2001, respondent judge
averred that, after the court session on March 9, 2001, Atty.
It must be stressed that it is essential for a writ of mandamus Veloso entered his chambers to discuss a case she was
to issue that the applicant has a well-defined, clear and handling. Inside the chambers were Atty. Myrna Valderrama-
certain legal right to the thing demanded and that it is the Limbaga, branch clerk of court, and Mr. Othello
imperative duty of defendant to perform the act required. The Capangpangan, a court employee. After discussing her case,
corresponding duty of the respondent to perform the required she allegedly reminded respondent judge of the motion filed
act must be clear and specific [Lemi v. Valencia, G.R. No. L- by her father, Atty. Eustacio Veloso, pertaining to a case
20768, November 29,1968,126 SCRA 203; Ocampo v. pending before his sala. The judge told her to convey to her
Subido, G.R. No. L-28344, August 27, 1976, 72 SCRA 443.] father that he could not act on the motion yet since he
The request of the petitioners fails to meet this standard, needed more time to review the voluminous records of the
there being no duty on the part of respondent to prepare the case. She promised to relay the message to her father.
list requested. Purportedly as a gesture of appreciation, Judge Caminade
spontaneously placed his hand on her thigh and pressed it
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby granted and while saying "Thank you" to her. He then playfully took her
respondent General Manager of the Government Service hand and kissed it. She allegedly did nothing to protest such
Insurance System is ORDERED to allow petitioners access action because she knew that he was just teasing her. He
to documents and records evidencing loans granted to also opined that the complaint was filed by Atty. Veloso in
order to erase any doubt about her moral values, knowing
Members of the former Batasang Pambansa, as petitioners
may specify, subject to reasonable regulations as to the time that Atty. Limbaga and Mr. Capangpangan were present
when he kissed her hand.
and manner of inspection, not incompatible with this decision,
as the GSIS may deem necessary.
Further, Judge Caminade explained that he had a tendency
SO ORDERED. to tease and play pranks on his friends, both male and
female, because of his congenial nature. In fact, even before
his appointment to the judiciary, it had been his natural way
A.M. No. RTJ-01-1655 July 8, 2004 of complimenting women for their physical attributes but he
(Formerly OCA IPI 91-1174- RTJ) never had any malice or lustful designs in his actuations.
ATTY. GRACE M. VELOSO AND MA. JOEYLYNN B. On the other hand, Joeylynn Quiñones, Clerk III in the office
QUIÑONES, complainants, of Judge Caminade, claimed that respondent judge squeezed
vs. her hand on three different occasions in February 2001. She
JUDGE ANACLETO M. CAMINADE, RTC, Branch 6, Cebu noticed that the judge would squeeze her hand whenever she
City, respondent. gave him the case records. Although offended by his actions,
Joeylynn opted to remain silent out of deference to or fear of
respondent judge.
Canons 35 and 46 of the new Code of Judicial Conduct However, on July 3, 2003, at around 8:30 a.m., complainant
mandate, respectively, that "judges shall ensure that not only
is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be was surprised to receive a call from the accused informing
so in the view of the reasonable observer" and that "judges her that she was released from confinement on July 2, 2003
shall avoid improprieties and the appearance of impropriety
in all of their activities." These very stringent standards of at 10:00 p.m. Complainant inquired from the police station if
decorum are demanded of all magistrates and employees of an Order of Release was issued by the court, but she was
the courts.
informed that the accused was released because the
Judge Caminade’s behavior must be sanctioned. We are respondent judge called the police station and told the desk
neither amused by his claims of innocent playfulness nor
impressed by his excessive display of congeniality. He acted officer that the accused had posted a cash bail bond and may
beyond the bounds of decency, morality and propriety. He already be released.
failed to meet the standard of conduct embodied in the Code
of Judicial Conduct. His abusive and distasteful acts
unmistakably constituted sexual harassment because they Complainant checked the case records but the expediente
resulted in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment
for his female subordinates. contained no copy of the release order. It was only at 1:00
p.m. that she was shown a copy thereof. Meanwhile, the
Section 8 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended, case records could not be located. It was only on 4:30 p.m. of
considers a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct as a
serious offense. A respondent found guilty of a serious July 3, 2003 that the same was found.
charge may be meted the penalty of: (1) dismissal from the
service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court
may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or The police blotter showed no entry that an order of release
appointment to any public office, including government-
was received by the police. Only a notation that the accused
owned or controlled corporations, provided, that the forfeiture
of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits; had put up a cash bail bond was entered therein.
(2) suspension from office without salary and other benefits
for more than three but not exceeding six months; or (3) Complainant also averred that it was improper for the
a fine of more than P20,000 but not exceeding P40,000. respondent judge to receive the cash bail bond as the
function belongs exclusively to the Office of the Clerk of
We find it proper to adopt Justice Morales’ recommendation
to suspend respondent judge for six months without pay. Court. She claimed that respondent judge committed an act
of impropriety when she called the police station to verbally
WHEREFORE, respondent judge is found guilty of violating order the release of the accused. She claimed that it was
Canons 3 and 4 of the new Code of Judicial Conduct by
committing sexual harassment and is irregular that no copy of the release order was found in the
hereby SUSPENDED from office for a period of six months
expediente in the morning of July 3, 2003 considering that it
without pay effective immediately, with the warning that a
repetition of the same offense shall be punished with was supposedly issued on July 2, 2003.
dismissal from the service.
7. Respondent judge was in Manila early morning of Incidentally, the arresting officer denied receiving any order
July 3, 200[4].
of release from respondent judge on July 2, 2003. In fact, he
8. It was physically impossible for the respondent claimed that they were reprimanded by their commanding
judge to have signed the Release Order before 1:00
p.m. of July 3, 200[4], since she was in Manila. officer for releasing from their custody the person of the
Questions may be raised whether the Receipt for accused without any accompanying court order. The
the Cash Bond and the Release Order were signed
by a person other than the respondent judge. As following day, July 3, 2003, he went to the court to secure a
can be gleaned from the record, the signature copy of the said order.
appearing on the Receipt for the Cash Bond, the
Release Order and the signature of the respondent
judge on her Comment dated December 10, 2003, Respondent judge also averred that the Order of Release
do not appear to be signed by the same person.
was received by SP01 James Estrera, which receipt was duly
9. Respondent judge authenticated the Release noted in the police blotter. An examination of the records,
Order during the Investigation proper as the
Release Order she issued on July 2, 2003. [9] however, discloses that what SPO1 Estrera received was
only a copy of the Receipt of the Cash Bail Bond dated July
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) agreed with the 2, 2003 and not the Order of Release. In fact, there was no
findings of the investigating judge but recommended that mention of a release order in the police blotter. [12]
respondent judge be suspended for three (3) months. [10]
It is also undisputed that respondent judge personally
We agree with the findings of the investigating judge and the received the cash bail bond for the accused. For this act
OCA except for the recommended penalty. alone, respondent is already administratively liable. Section
14, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
During the investigation, it was established that the accused specifies the persons with whom a cash bail bond may be
was arrested on July 2, 2003 at 8:45 p.m. and was brought deposited, namely: the collector of internal revenue or the
directly to the Waterfront Police Station where she was provincial, city or municipal treasurer. A judge is not
booked at 9:00 p.m. At about 10:00 p.m. the accused was set authorized to receive the deposit of cash as bail nor should
free without a release order.[11] such cash be kept in his office.
The foregoing acts not only seriously undermine and A judge is not one of those authorized to
receive the deposit of cash as bail, nor should
adversely reflect on the honesty and integrity of respondent such cash be kept in the office of the judge.
judge as an officer of the court; they also betray a character
flaw which speaks ill of her person. Making false Gross misconduct under Section 8(3), Rule 140 of the
representations is a vice which no judge should imbibe. As Revised Rules of Court, as amended, is classified as a
the judge is the visible representation of the law, and more serious offense punishable by any of the sanctions
importantly justice, he must therefore, be the first to abide by enumerated in Section 11 of the same Rule which provides
the law and weave an example for the others to follow. [13] that:
becomes the transgressor of the law which he is sworn to 2. Suspension from office without salary
and other benefits for more than three (3)
but not exceeding six (6) months; or
apply, he places his office in disrepute, encourages
3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not
exceeding P40,000.00.
disrespect for the law and impairs public confidence in the This is not the first time that respondent judge was
sanctioned by this Court. It appears that aside from this case,
integrity of the judiciary itself.[16] respondent judge has been administratively charged eight(8)
other times.[20] Of these cases three (3) have been
Misconduct is defined as any unlawful conduct of a person dismissed.[21]
concerned in the administration of justice prejudicial to the On April 27, 2004 in Administrative Matter No. MTJ-00-
rights of parties or to the right determination of the cause. It 1337,[22] the Court found respondent guilty of improper
generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct conduct for trying to influence the course of litigation in
motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional Criminal Case No. 99796-12 and was accordingly
[17]
purpose. To justify the taking of drastic disciplinary action, reprimanded. She was also admonished for conduct
as is what is sought by complainant in this case, the law unbecoming of a judge.
requires that the error or mistake must be gross or patent,
malicious, deliberate or in bad faith.[18]
On December 17, 2004, respondent was fined in the amount
It need not be overemphasized that in receiving the cash of P5,000.00 in Administrative Matters Nos. 04-7-373-
bond respondent judge ran afoul with Rule 114 of the Rules
RTC[23] and 04-7-374-RTC,[24] for gross violation of Section
of Criminal Procedure. Indeed, in the case of Office of the
Court Administrator v. Fernandez,[19] the Court held that: 17, Rule 114, for having approved the bail of an accused in
For the foregoing considerations, we find that the penalties The Office of the Ombudsman indorsed the letter-complaint
to the OCA for appropriate action.4 The OCA, in turn, directed
Executive Judge Victor A. Canoy (Judge Canoy) of the
recommended by the investigating judge and the OCA are Regional Trial Court of Surigao City, Surigao Del Norte, to
conduct a discreet investigation.5
SO ORDERED.
In an Indorsement dated April 25, 2016, the OCA required
Judge Dagala to file his comment in relation to the
anonymous letter-complaint as well as the findings of its
A.M. No. MTJ-16-1886 preliminary investigation. Attached to the Indorsement were a
copy of the anonymous letter-complaint, a certificate of
marriage between Judge Dagala and "A," and the certificates
ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT, Complainant
vs. of live birth of his alleged children. 11
PRESIDING JUDGE EXEQUIL L. DAGALA, MUNICIPAL
CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, DAPASOCORRO, DAP A, In his comment,12 Judge Dagala admitted that he was
SURIGAO DEL NORTE, Respondent married to "A" but that, due to their constant fighting, they
decided to separate. "A" returned to Surigao City while Judge
Dagala stayed in Siargao Island.13 Judge Dagala also
DECISION
admitted, "without any remorse," that he has three children
with three different women. He added that his wife knew
PER CURIAM: about his children and that she has already forgiven and
forgotten him for his unfaithfulness.14 He denied any
This administrative case arose from an anonymous letter- involvement in illegal logging, asserting that it was "B" who
complaint1 filed against Judge Exequil L. Dagala (Judge managed a furniture business.15 He also denies engaging in
Dagala), presiding judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Dapa- any illegal drug activity, asserting that the only connection
Socorro, Dapa, Surigao Del Norte, filed before the Office of linking him to the same is Commendador, who simply
the Ombudsman and indorsed to the Office of the Court happened to work as a court interpreter in his sala. Judge
Administrator (OCA) for appropriate action. Dagala also admitted to having owned a cockpit but asserts
that he had sold it to Borchs in 2008 to dispel any suspicion
that he was involved in illegal gambling. 16
In a letter-complaint dated September 30, 2015, an unnamed
resident of San Isidro, Siargo Island, Surigao Del Norte,
wrote to report, among others, an altercation involving his Earlier, however, Judge Dagala submitted a
neighbors and Judge Dagala. According to the unnamed letter17 "irrevocably resigning" his post but this was rejected
complainant, on September 29, 2015, he was in his hut when by the Court on August 9, 2016 because he was still under
he witnessed an argument between his neighbors and Judge investigation.18 On August 19, 2016, the OCA received a
Dagala over the ownership of his neighbor's lot and the trees Universal Serial Bus (USB) flash disk by mail from "a
planted thereon (September 29 incident). There, he saw concerned citizen" containing a video recording of the
Judge Dagala walking back and forth, shouting invectives at September 29 incident complained of.19
the lot's occupants and brandishing an M-16 armalite rifle to
intimidate them.2 He further claims that while police officers According to the OCA, while Judge Dagala may be "excused"
were at the scene, they did nothing to pacify the situation. for having sired two children prior to his marriage, the record
Complainant alleged that no inquiries were made as to the is clear that he had his third child with "B" during the
legality of the logging activities being undertaken at Judge subsistence of his marriage with "A." The OCA found it
Dagala's apparent behest nor his authority to carry a high- morally reprehensible for Judge Dagala, a married man, to
powered firearm. According to the complainant, while his maintain intimate relations with a woman other than his
neighbors were able to take photos and make a video spouse. That he has already separated from his wife and that
recording of the incident, they were too afraid to file a she had forgiven him for his extramarital affair do not justify
complaint against Judge Dagala and instead wanted to his conduct. The OCA asserted that Judge Dagala's act of
arrange for a confidential transmittal of their evidence to the successively siring children with different women displays his
Office of the Ombudsman. The complainant also recounted proclivity to disregard settled norms of morality. 20
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |21
The OCA also noted Judge Dagala's failure to disclose that matter [anonymous letter-complaint]." It thereafter informed
he already had a child in his Personal Data Sheet (PDS) Judge Dagala of the results of its preliminary
which he filed with the Judicial and Bar Council for his investigation,30 attaching copies of the anonymous letter-
application to the Judiciary in 2006. For the OCA, this complaint, the certificate of marriage31 between "A" and
omission is a deliberate attempt to mislead. As a former Judge Dagala, and the birth certificates32 of his alleged
prosecutor, Judge Dagala knew or ought to know that making children. Judge Dagala was directed to comment "on the
false statements in the PDS amounts to dishonesty and matter" within ten (10) days from receipt of the
falsification of a public document. Hence, his failure to Indorsement.33
disclose the fact that he fathered a child in his PDS
constitutes dishonesty.21
Plainly, when the OCA referred to the "matter," it meant not
only the information that the preliminary investigation yielded
The OCA also found that Judge Dagala committed gross and were stated in the Indorsement, but also the allegations
misconduct for openly carrying a high-powered firearm during of the anonymous letter-complaint. In its first sentence, the
the reported altercation of September 29, 2015. Republic Act OCA defined "matter" to be the anonymous letter-complaint.
No. 1059122 (RA 10591) provides that only small arms may The last sentence of the Indorsement therefore directed
be registered by licensed citizens or juridical entities for Judge Dagala to comment on the "matter," it was using that
ownership, possession, and concealed entry. The OCA noted word as a defined term.
that Judge Dagala neither refuted the allegation that he
brandished a high-powered weapon nor questioned the To recall, the anonymous complaint stated that Judge Dagala
veracity of the video recording of the September 29, 2015 "carried [an] armalite firearm" during the September 29
incident. A certification from the Philippine National Police incident and that he "maintained several mistresses." 34 The
(PNP) Firearms and Explosives Office further disclosed that, anonymous letter-complaint also stated that there were
per their records, Judge Dagala is not a licensed/registered
pictures and a video recording of Judge Dagala's
firearm holder of any kind or caliber.23 participation in the September 29 incident.
In light of these findings, we concur with the OCA's Thus, in Castillo, we dismissed a judge from service for siring
conclusion that Judge Dagala is guilty of gross misconduct. a child outside of wedlock and for engaging in an extramarital
Misconduct has been defined as an intentional wrongdoing or affair. The absence of a public and private dichotomy when it
a deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, comes to the ethical standards expected of judges and
especially by a government official. Misconduct is considered justices has since become an unyielding doctrine as
grave where the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate consistently applied by the Court in subsequent cases.50
the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules are
present.36 Here, the record is clear. The certificate of live birth of "B's"
male child indicates that Judge Dagala is the father as shown
Judge Dagala's actuations, as recorded in the video, are by his signature in the affidavit of acknowledgment of
unacceptable for a member of the bench and should merit a paternity.51 The date of birth (March 24, 2008) is during the
finding of administrative liability. This is without prejudice to subsistence of Judge Dagala's marriage to "A," there being
any criminal action that may also be filed against him. neither proof nor allegation that said marriage was annulled
or voided in the meantime. Judge Dagala himself admits to
the paternity of his son with "B." He does not dispute the
b. entry in the certificate of live birth attesting to his paternity.
He admits his mistake and merely pleads for the Court's
We also agree with the OCA's findings that Judge Dagala is forgiveness.
guilty of immorality.
Justice Leonen opines that even if the filiation of the child is
In his Comment, Judge Dagala has admitted "without any proven, this fact alone is insufficient to prove immorality on
remorse" that he "was able to impregnate" three different the part of Dagala. He suggests that only evidence which
women.37 This is an admission that he is the father of "B's" would qualify to prove the commission of an illegal
son, who was born on March 24, 2008,38 while his marriage act, e.g. concubinage or adultery under the Revised Penal
with "A" was subsisting.39 He is listed as the father in the Code, the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995,52 and the
child's certificate of live birth.40 Dagala, in an obvious appeal Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of
directed to the Court, pleads: [T]o err is human your 200453 (VAWC), will suffice to establish immorality.
honors and to forgive is divine."41 He claims he is separated
from his wife, "A," because of "constant fighting in our Again, we reject this argument.
married life" and claims that she knew about his children out
of wedlock. She did not object because she understood his
desire to have children. "A" has learned to "forgive" and While we agree with Justice Leonen that the circumstances
"forget" him because she impliedly submits to the "notion that in this case may not be sufficient to successfully prosecute
we are not really meant for each and for eternity." 42 Judge Dagala for the crime of concubinage, the spirit that
moves our criminal law in penalizing criminal infidelity is not
the same as the rationale which compels us to sanction acts
Under the above facts, we find Judge Dagala guilty of of immorality.
immorality, for siring a child out of wedlock during the
subsistence of his marriage.
The Court has consistently held that absence of criminal
liability does not preclude disciplinary action. 54 As in the case
We have repeatedly said that members of the Judiciary are of disciplinary action of lawyers, acquittal of criminal charges
commanded by law to exhibit the highest degree of moral
is not a bar to ·administrative proceedings.
certitude and is bound by the highest standards of honesty In Pangan v. Ramos,55 we held that "[t]he standards of the
and integrity.43 In Regir v. Regir,44 we held: legal profession are not satisfied by conduct which merely
enables one to escape the penalties of criminal law.
It is morally reprehensible for a married man or woman to Moreover, this Court in disbarment proceedings is acting in
maintain intimate relations with a person other than his or her an entirely different capacity from that which courts assume
spouse. Moreover, immorality is not based alone on illicit in trying criminal cases."56
sexual intercourse. It is not confined to sexual matters, but
includes conducts inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of Justice Leonen next argues that a complaint for immorality
corruption, indecency, depravity, and dissoluteness; or is should be commenced only by its victims, namely, the
willful, flagrant or shameless conduct showing moral spouse betrayed, the paramour who has been misled, or the
indifference to opinions of respectable members of the children who have to live with the parent's scandalous
community, and an inconsiderate attitude toward good order indiscretions. According to Justice Leonen, a third party is not
and public welfare.45
a victim, so he/she cannot initiate the complaint unless there
is a showing that he/she is doing so for the benefit of the
Immorality is a recognized ground for the discipline of judges victims. The inability of these victims to press the charges
and justices under the Rules of Court. 46 The New Canon of themselves must likewise be pleaded and proven. 57
Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary requires judges
to avoid "impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all For the avoidance of doubt, the Court, in the clearest terms,
their activities."47
strongly holds otherwise.
In Castillo v. Calanog, Jr.48 (Castillo), we laid down Time and again, this Court has reminded judges that their
the doctrine of no dichotomy of morality. We explained acts of immorality are proscribed and punished, even if
why judges as public officials are also judged by their private
committed in their private life and outside of
morals: their salas, because such acts erode the faith and confidence
We see no cogent reason in law or policy to depart from our In 2013, this Court, speaking through Associate Justice
time-tested procedure for the discipline of judges and justices Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, affirmed the constitutionality of the
of lower courts which allows complaints to be instituted in VAWC. In Garcia v. Drilon,65 we explained:
three ways: by the Court motu proprio, through a verified
complaint, or through an anonymous complaint. 63 The unequal power relationship between women and men;
the fact that women are more likely than men to be victims of
Any citizen or member of the public who knows a judge who violence; and the widespread gender bias and prejudice
commits acts of immorality qualifies as, and has the civic duty against women all make for real differences justifying the
to be, a complainant or a witness against the errant judge. classification under the law.x x x
These persons, usually members of the community whom the
judge serves, have a direct interest in preserving the integrity xxx
of the judicial process and in keeping the faith of the public in
the justice system. The harm inflicted by the judge upon the
members of his family is distinct from the harm wreaked by According to the Philippine Commission on Women (the
an erring judge upon the judicial system. The family and the National Machinery for Gender Equality and Women's
State are each imbued with the autonomy to exact their Empowerment), violence against women (VA W) is deemed
response to acts of immorality by a rogue judge. The State to be closely linked with the unequal power relationship
cannot intrude into the family's autonomy any more than the between women and men otherwise known as "gender-
family cannot intrude upon the autonomy of the State. based violence[."] Societal norms and traditions dictate
people to think men are the leaders, pursuers, providers and
take on dominant roles in society while women are nurturers,
Justice Leonen ominously warns the Court not to be complicit men's companions and supporters, and take on subordinate
to the "State's over-patronage through its stereotype of roles in society. This perception leads men to gaining more
victims."64 power over women. With power comes the need to control to
retain that power. And VA W is a form of men's expression of
The Court cannot agree with this rather constricting controlling women to retain power.66 (Emphasis in the
view. original; citations omitted.)
First. He appears to proceed from the notion that the State Statistics from the Philippine National Demographic and
stereotypes all women to be victims who are weak and Health Survey 201367 show that one in every five women
cannot address patriarchy by themselves. aged 15-49 years old has experienced physical violence.
Forty-four percent (44%) of the married women who
participated in this survey and claimed that they have
Second. This view is based on a faulty presumption that all suffered physical violence revealed that their current
erring judges are husbands who victimize their wives. Thus, if husbands or partners are the perpetrators.68 Violence is,
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |24
however, not only physical, and in this survey, about 26% of have refused to do so in cases where the parties, without any
the married women interviewed revealed that they suffered legal impediment, live together without the benefit of
some form of emotional, physical, and/or sexual violence marriage.75 We have also been adamant in holding that a
from their husbands or partners.69 person's homosexuality does not affect his or her moral
fitness.76 Nevertheless, immorality is a valid ground for
The inequality does not end there. sanctioning members of the Judiciary because it (1)
challenges his or her capacity to dispense justice, (2) erodes
the faith and confidence of the public in the administration of
These same statistics show that almost three in five married justice, and (3) impacts the Judiciary's legitimacy.
women earn less than their husbands. Only 10% of women
own a house alone, while 19% own a house jointly with
someone else. Further, only 18% of women own land, either Finally, while a disciplinary case for immorality may proceed
alone or co-owned.70 even without the participation of the spouse, the children or
the alleged paramour, steps must be taken to protect their
decision not to air out their grievances in administrative
While there are indeed serious efforts to empower women in proceedings before us. As a matter of policy, in cases such
this country, the foregoing remains to be our reality. Much as this, the names of concerned parties who are not before
work remains to be done. It is the height of insensitivity and a the Court should not be used. Care should be taken so as not
display of a limited view to insist that when we are perceived to disclose personal information and circumstances that are
to take the cudgels for women, we are over-patronizing them. not relevant to the resolution of the case. If necessary,
To even go as far as to say that the State over-patronizes aliases should be used when referring to these parties.
women by stereotyping them as victims is unacceptable. The
reality-as shown by the Congress' decision to enact the VA
WC and the statistics showing the imbalance of power in this Taking all these into consideration, we find that Judge Dagala
country-is that there are women in this country who are in is also guilty of committing acts of immorality.
peril and are in real need of protection. While it is true that
there are certain groups of women who are able to protect III.
themselves and even to successfully compete in a male-
dominated society, this is not the reality for many women in Under Section 8 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, immorality
the Philippines. To say that the State is over-patronizing and and gross misconduct each constitute a serious charge.
stereotyping women just because some of our women are Section 11 of the same Rule provides that serious charges
empowered is, to borrow the words of United States are punishable by:
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, "throwing away
your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting
wet."70 we are not over-patronizing women when we take 1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the
measures to help them. We are simply doing our part in the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification
great endeavor of women empowerment. from reinstatement or appointment to any public office,
including government-owned or controlled
corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of
Finally, we reject the proposal because it will cause the Court
benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits;
to be beset with intractable problems of proof. It will require
the Court to inquire into whether the "victims" are genuinely
exercising their autonomy, an invasive process that will, in 2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits
turn, intrude into the family's autonomy. To illustrate, a judge for more than three (3) years but not exceeding six (6)
who sires innumerable children outside of wedlock, maintains months; or
multiple mistresses, and flaunts these misdeeds, is
immunized from the Court's disciplinary authority should the 3. A fine of more than [₱]20,000.00 but not exceeding
spouse and children choose not to press charges. [₱]40,000.00.
Authorizing private attorney generals to act on behalf of the
Court to vindicate the public's interest is no solution. Justice
Leonen himself recognizes that violence against women and We affirm the recommendation of the OCA to impose on
children may prevent them from coming forward. Thus, he Judge Dagala the supreme penalty of dismissal from the
concedes that third parties may be allowed to act on behalf of service with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued
the State provided they can plead and prove that they are leave benefits. Because of the gravity of Judge Dagala's
acting for the benefit of the victims, not "as a means to cause infractions, we also impose on him the penalty of perpetual
more harm on them."71 How can this be shown to the disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any
satisfaction of the Court without resolving, as a triable public office, including government owned or controlled
question of fact, the question of whether the wife and children corporations.
truly and freely exercised their individual autonomy? What
about the reality of the violence of economic need and Without staking a position on the proper penalty to impose on
dependence, which arguably prompts far more wives and Judge Dagala on the immorality charge, Justice Leonen
children into silently accepting the wrong done them? This is discusses circumstances that may be considered mitigating
a quagmire the Court is not wont to enter. or aggravating in the determination of an immorality
case.77 We will comment only on one circumstance cited,
It is safer to go back to basics. Simply put, the State does not namely, where the "marriage does not work."78
recognize any sexual autonomy on the part of judges to have
children with persons other than their spouses or to have The Court unequivocally reminds justices and judges that
extramarital affairs. It would be completely unprincipled for until the Congress grants absolute divorce, or unless they
the Court to reward a judge's commission of such grievous a have secured a court annulment of their marriage or a
wrong to the public with an absolution based on the judgment of nullity, a failed marriage does not justify acts of
forgiveness of the spouse and child. This is, of course, immorality.
assuming we will ever have the ability to ascertain whether
their forgiveness flows from the free exercise of their
autonomy. In the case of male judges, such a result will abet Judge Dagala seeks this Court's forgiveness. He claims that
the very patriarchy that Justice Leonen wants the Court to he and his wife separated because of "constant fighting;" that
reject. No one is forced to be a judge, just as Justice Leonen his wife knew of his children with other women but did not
pointed out in his concurring opinion in Tuvillo.73 To add to interpose any objection because she knew of his desire to
that, no judge is forced to remain one. have children; his wife had learned to "forgive and forget"
him; and both have arrived at the "notion that [they] are not
really meant for each other and for eternity."79
The Judiciary, to maintain its legitimacy, must be able to
convince that it makes principled decisions. 74 This requires
that the Judiciary resolve cases fairly, impartially, and We understand the undeniable sadness of a failed marriage.
convincingly. Decisions must be based on a logical We commiserate with Judge Dagala and his wife, as well as
interpretation and application of laws. The Judiciary's his children, who must live with circumstances far different
institutional legitimacy is also impacted by its members. from what society recognizes as ideal. We understand the
Members of the Judiciary must act in a way that will pain of accepting certain stark realities-that some
encourage confidence among the people. relationships must come to an end and not even the legal ties
of marriage can save them; that some married couples soon
discover that they are not right for each other; that in certain
To be clear, we do not seek to interfere with a judge's cases, not even the legal bonds of marriage can fill the void;
relationships. Thus, while we have sanctioned lawyers, that sometimes, happiness can be found in finding the
judges, and even justices, who have extramarital affairs, we strength to get out of a relationship and begin again. We
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |25
understand that judges and justices are also human, and are legitimacy-an element' essential in its role as a branch of
naturally inclined to search for what is good and what gives government charged with interpreting rules. We value
meaning, including happy and fulfilling relationships. In this monogamous marriages and consider them worthy of strict
case, we do not seek to pontificate that there is only one legal protection. A judge who disregards this fundamental
honorable way to live. Judges are free to choose how to live value opens himself or herself up to questions about his or
their lives. Nevertheless, choices are made within her capacity to act with justice in his or her own dealings.
particular con texts and in consideration of duties and This affects the people's perception of his or her moral
obligations that must be honored. More importantly, fitness. As we said in Resngit-Marquez v. Llamas, Jr., a
choices have consequences. Judge Dagala made his magistrate "cannot judge the conduct of others when his own
choice. He must now face the repercussions. Thus, as much needs judgment."91
as we commiserate with Judge Dagala, we remain a court of
law with a mandate to dispense even-handed justice.
No one is forced to be a judge.92 The judiciary is an institution
reserved for those who, when they apply for a judicial
We thus compare the grounds offered by Judge Dagala in position, are expected to have a thorough understanding of
mitigation of his wrong to similar pleas made by judges community standards and values which impose exacting
similarly situated, namely, married judges who sired children standards of decorum and strict standards of morality. 93 We
outside of wedlock or engaged in affairs during the highlight that judges are bound to uphold secular, not
subsistence of their marriage. religious, morality. Thus, the values that a judge must uphold
are those in consonance with the dictates of the conscience
Only last year, in Tuvillo, the Court rejected a plea in of his or her community. Among these community values is
mitigation by a judge. The judge explained that both he and respect for the sanctity of marriage.94 All applicants to the
his mistress were "mature lonely people" whose marriage to Judiciary must, therefore, decide for themselves whether the
community values that the Court has recognized conform to
their legally wed spouses had "lessened sheen" and that his
mistress brought him a "soul connection, understanding and their own personal values, lifestyle, or proclivities. All who
desire to be part of the Judiciary must first decide if he or she
great company." Further, his own wife "was distant to him."
can live up to the highest standards of morality expected of
judges and justices.
In Re: Complaint of Mrs. Rotilla Marcos,79 which Justice
Leonen also quotes in his dissent in Tuvillo, we dismissed a
How applicants to the Judiciary will choose to construe the
judge who publicly carried on a relationship with a woman not
his wife. We found him liable notwithstanding the fact that he values that this Court upholds is their choice. Those who
have a fervent belief in a God may find that the values of this
had already been physically separated from his wife for three
(3) years.80 Court compel them to live the lives of the faithful. Those who
are predisposed to pursue a strict code of morality may
choose to perceive our values as moral codes, proper and
In Anonymous v. Achas,81 we reprimanded a judge for going worthy of being adhered to. Those who have the inclinations
out in public with a woman not his wife. We imposed this to bend the rules or to live outside societal norms may find
penalty notwithstanding the fact that Judge Achas had been that these rules are like straightjackets-pretentious,
estranged from his wife for the last 26 years. We held that the unreasonable, or constricting.
fact remains that he is still legally married to her. It was not
therefore commendable, proper, or moral for a married judge
to be perceived as going out with a woman not his wife. 82 Whether applicants to the Judiciary will choose to construe
these secular strictures as rules that require them to live the
life of a saint, or of a priest, imam, or other religious person,
In Resngit-Marquez v. Llamas, Jr.,83 we dismissed a judge is a purely personal decision. They are free to choose their
upon finding that he had a long standing relationship with a own metaphors. But once a lawyer joins the Judiciary, he or
married woman. We found the judge liable in spite of the fact she should abide by the rules. We remind all judges that no
that both he and his partner were estranged from their position demands greater moral righteousness and
respective husband and wife. Notably, we took cognizance of uprightness from its occupant than the judicial office. A
the complaint in this case even if neither the estranged judge's personal behavior outside the court, not only while in
husband nor wife of the parties participated in the the performance of his official duties, must be beyond
proceedings.84 reproach, for he is perceived to be the personification of law
and justice.95
In Pe7:fecto v. Esidera,85 the Court, through Justice Leonen,
disciplined a female judge who carried on a relationship with WHEREFORE, premises considered, Judge Exequil L.
a man not her husband, even if the judge had never lived Dagala is hereby found GUILTY of IMMORALITY and
with her legal husband and had long been estranged from GROSS MISCONDUCT. Accordingly, he is DISMISSED from
him. the service with FORFEITURE of his retirement and other
benefits except accrued leave credits, and PERPETUALLY
The reason for the Court's consistent position is not difficult DISQUALIFIED from re-employment in any government
to discern. The Philippines is a society that values agency or instrumentality, including any government-owned
monogamy in marriages, except as to certain ethnicities and and controlled corporation or government financial institution.
religions where monogamy is not the norm. Our legal system
is replete with laws that enforce monogamy in a marriage and SO ORDERED.
penalize those who go against it. Save for religions that
accept and embrace multiple marriages, bigamy in the
Philippines is a crime.87 In the same vein, our criminal law A.M. No. RTJ-06-1982 December 14, 2007
penalizes adultery88 and concubinage.89 (Formerly A.M. No. 05-12-757-RTC)
No less than the Constitution emphasizes the value of a SHERLITA O. TAN, complainant,
marriage as the foundation of the family. 90 The Philippines is vs.
a legal regime that intensely protects marriages by limiting JUDGE REXEL M. PACURIBOT, Regional Trial Court,
the grounds for its nullity or annulment. Until today, we do not Branch 27, Gingoog City, respondent.
have divorce, with the exception provided for in the Code of
Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines. We only recognize x---------------------x
legal separation. There have been calls for allowing divorce
here but no law has been passed so far. Ultimately, we are
the branch of government tasked with interpreting the law. A.M. No. RTJ-06-1983 December 14, 2007
We do not meddle with policies or with the endeavor to have (Formerly A.M. No. 05-12-757-RTC)
our laws reflect the developments in our values and morality.
It is not our place to ascertain whether our laws on marriage JOHANNA M. VILLAFRANCA, complainant,
have failed to adjust to the demands of the times. vs.
JUDGE REXEL M. PACURIBOT, Regional Trial Court,
For the Judiciary, this is the legal and social context within Branch 27, Gingoog City, respondent.
which we must understand immorality in connection with
extramarital affairs.1âwphi1 In penalizing judges for engaging x---------------------x
in extramarital affairs, we merely seek to dis-incentivize
judges' propensity to disregard accepted standards of
ANONYMOUS LETTER-WRITERS, complainant,
morality because these acts impact their capacity to properly
vs.
perform their jobs. These acts affect the judiciary's
Q: What was his reaction, if any? A: His penis could hardly stiffen.
A: He angrily shouted at me: "My goodness! Why are you so Q: What was his reaction, if any?
slow? As if you are a virgin!"
A: He got angry saying: "It can’t enter! Your vagina’s too
Q: What did you feel, if any? small.
Q: What did you do, if any? A: He spread my two (2) legs wide apart and tried to insert
his penis but it did not stiffen.
A: I was forced to go near him, kissed his neck, but [I]
stopped. Q: What happened next, if any?
Q: Why did you stop? A: He pulled my head towards him by pulling my hair.
A: I was disgusted with what I was doing and with him. Q: What was your reaction, if any?
Q: What was his reaction, if any? A: I told him: "Don’t pull my hair, sir! It’s very painful! What a
sadist you are!"
A: He angrily told me: "You don’t know how to make love!
How do you do it with Ramon? You simply have sex without Q: What was his reaction, if any?
foreplay? Kayati ba sab?"
A: He just kissed my lips, neck, sucked my nipple and
Q: What was your reaction, if any? mashed my breast by saying: "This is the breast of a lustful
woman" while continuing to suck my neck and breast.
A: I felt helpless and kept quiet.
Q: What happened next, if any?
Q: What happened next, if any?
A: He said: "I’m going to plant lots of kiss marks here to let
the people know that you passed through my hands."
A: He ordered me saying: "Suck it!"
A: My neck.
A: His penis.
Ms. Tan did not report to the office the next working day, that Villafranca’s Story
was 22 October 2004 – a Friday. She absented herself from
her work because she still had noticeable number of kiss Ms. Villafranca first met respondent judge [Judge Pacuribot]
marks on her neck. She only reported on Monday and sometime in November 2004 at the lobby near the Probation
covered her kiss marks with her hair. At the office, [Judge Office at the Hall of Justice of Gingoog City where she holds
Pacuribot] told her not to file anymore her leave for October office. When [Judge Pacuribot] passed by, she was then
20 and 21, 2004 while bragging, "Ako na gud ni, kinsay talking to a certain Dondi Palugna, her childhood friend who
magbuot nako?" (It is me, who will prevail against me?) at that time was [Judge Pacuribot’s] driver. Short
introductions followed.
Ms. Tan told no one of her traumatic experience and carried
on as if nothing happened. But from then on, [Judge On 18 December 2004, Ms. Villafranca received a call
Pacuribot’s] advances on her went on unabated even in the through her cell phone from [Judge Pacuribot]. To Ms.
office. Whenever she would go inside his chamber, at times, Villafranca, the call was unexpected. After their talk, he asked
he would grab her blouse, mash her breast, and kiss her her if he could call again for chitchat. She answered "Ok
neck saying that she smells so sweet. At times, he would lang." She asked him how he got her mobile number. He said
touch the crotch of her pants or pull the string of her panty. he got it from Dondi Palugna. Later, she began to receive text
On 13 October 2005, he did the same indignities to her in the messages from him, telling her how beautiful and sexy she is,
presence of Placido Abellana, the court aide, and the latter how the mini skirt suited her, etc. She courteously
just pretended to see nothing by turning his back. Every time acknowledged his praises and said "thank you" to him. Then,
she would resist and/or evade his sexual advances, he would he started inviting her for dinner. Knowing him to be married
shame her before her officemates at a later time. He also told and the fact that she is married, she declined these
her to send him text messages of endearment. She was invitations citing an inoffensive excuse which is her evening
warned that her failure to comply, or to receive his call, or teaching sessions at Bukidnon State College, Gingoog City.
reply to his text messages will have an adverse effect on her But she found him persistent. One time, he took offense at
performance rating. her refusal, saying "Why don’t you come with me? I AM A
JUDGE! Why should you refuse me? Why do you go with
The situation got worse for Ms. Tan when respondent judge [ Dondi and not with me when I AM A JUDGE?" At another
Judge Pacuribot] indicated his interest in renting a room in instance, he even asked her why she goes with Dondi
her house which she used as her home office. Ms. Tan’s Pallugna, a drug addict, and not him a judge. Although
house is near the Police Station and the courthouse. Initially, scared of his outbursts, which by reputation he was known,
she candidly told him that the said room is not for rent. She she politely explained to him that his driver Dondi Pallugna
even refused him in the presence of her officemates who was her childhood friend. Still, she had to dodge his
cannot comprehend why she should not allow him to rent the persistence.
room considering that it would be an additional income for
her. At that time, they were unaware what she was going In avoidance, Ms. Villafranca requested for a transfer to
through. Probation Office, Cagayan de Oro City. This was in February
2005. She was asked to make a written request which she
Ms. Tan brought her commercial calendar to their office. It failed to file due to heavy work load. At that time, the
has her picture. Having seen it, [Judge Pacuribot], in the Regional Office of the Probation Office for Region X was
presence of Ms. Tan, instructed Placido Abellana, the court about to hold a Timestral Conference. Venue of the
aide, to mount her calendar at the door of his chamber, Conference was Gingoog City and so the host office for that
saying: "Whoever removes the calendar would take a conference was the Gingoog City Parole Office where Ms.
scolding from me. Don’t remove Shirley’s calendar. I like that Villafranca works. She was assigned to take charge of the
hot babes." Then, pointing to her picture, he added: "That’s hotel accommodations of participants in the conference. For
my idol, the hot babes Kikay!" As he was still trying to that reason, she was too busy attending to her assigned task
persuade her then to let him rent a room in her house, he that she failed to prepare the written request. Accordingly,
said in jest to Placido Abellana: "If I rent the room, I will call nothing materialized out of her intended transfer.
Shirly… she will massage me and step on my back and I will
feel good because Shirley is sexy." Although calls of [Judge Pacuribot’s] were unwanted, but Ms.
Villafranca wanted to be polite to him for two (2) reasons: his
With the pressure on her to rent him a room being kept, Ms. status as a judge and his reputation, in the Hall of Justice, as
Tan eventually yielded, but she erected a wall between his "terror" which caused most people to fear him. So, she took
rented room and her house, and provided for him a separate his calls politely, gave him respect, and when she had to turn
ingress and egress. Nonetheless, when her husband is not down his call, she had to do it courteously like: "Ok, sir, I still
around, she would find him knocking on her window and have work to do, I cannot talk long."
ordering her to go to his room.
In the last week of February 2005, Ms. Villafranca got a call
Ms. Tan claims that if [Judge Pacuribot] could not have his from [Judge Pacuribot] who was fuming mad because she
way with her because she resists, he would scold her in his refused his dinner invitations. Scared, she finally relented. It
chamber and would also humiliate her in the presence of her was scheduled on 22 February 2005 which turned out to be
officemates. She would also receive threats from him as her worst nightmare.
regards her performance rating. In fact, her "Very
Satisfactory" rating in the previous years of her service went February 22, 2005 came. [Judge Pacuribot] asked Ms.
down to "Satisfactory" for the period of January to June 2005, Villafranca to choose a restaurant. She singled out The
the first and only time that she was given such a rating. Mansion in Gingoog City for good reasons. The Mansion is
owned by her relative. On that account, she thought that in
Because of the very oppressive ways of [Judge Pacuribot], the place she will be safe. She planned to invite one of her
Ms. Tan eventually suffered from what doctors call "chronic relatives in that restaurant during the dinner. By arrangement,
fatigue syndrome" and was hospitalized in December 2005. she was to be picked up at 7 p.m. at the school gate.
Dr. Virgilio Lim of Lipunan Hospital of Gingoog City treated
her. Dr. Lim testified that emotional stresses of a patient A few minutes past 7 p.m., on the appointed date, [Judge
could lead to chronic fatigue syndrome. Pacuribot], driving his car, fetched Ms. Villafranca. He
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |29
opened the car door to her and she took her seat. While she remember and I kept on telling him: "No! I want to go home to
was talking to him, she saw him brought out his clutch bag, my children." I wanted to go home because my family will be
took out his gun, cocked it and put it in between them. looking for me. What? Did he listen to me? No, he kept on
Frightened that it may blow off anytime, she voiced out her telling me I am emancipated. Nobody will look for me.
fears of guns. He quickly replied that guns are for the safety
of judges who are prone to ambushes. Q: What were you wearing at that time on February 22?
Noticing that [Judge Pacuribot] was driving towards the A: I was wearing pants and a blouse.
opposite direction of The Mansion, she told him they are
driving the wrong way. But she was told that they are going to
Butuan City as he knew a great dining place there. While Q: Were you undressed at that time?
driving with his left hand, [Judge Pacuribot] would hold his
gun with his right hand and put it down every now and then A: I am sorry?
when he had to change gear. This scared her even more and
she started shaking in fear. She observed that he was over
speeding and would honk his horn furiously so the other Q: Were you undressed?
drivers would allow him to overtake. She started having
frightening thoughts like imagining being killed if she resists A: Undressed? He undressed me.
and be left along the road. She feared for her life, and of her
children.
Q: He undressed you?
A: I’m sorry, Attorney, everything seems to be so blurred After [Judge Pacuribot] settled the bill, he led her out of the
during that time. All I could really remember was asking him room. Ms. Villafranca shrugged him off. At the garage, she
to take me home because it was not agreed that I go with him was ushered to the front seat of the car. She was dying to go
in a motel but in a restaurant at Mansion by the sea at home. He drove back to Gingoog City. On their way back,
Gingoog City. she turned her back on him, closed her eyes, covered her
face with hand, and pretended to be asleep. Later, he
informed her of their approach to Gingoog City. She asked
Q: So you don’t remember really anything else? him to drop her off at the old Caltex gasoline station along the
national highway. From there, she hailed a motorela, went
A: I remember what happened to me. home, took a long bath to wash his marks of her. At about 11
p.m., she fetched her children from her father’s house. When
asked where she had been, she gave her father a lame
Q: Why, what happened to you? excuse that she went out with her friends.
A: When he forced himself to me. Ms. Villafranca reported to work the next day. There had
been some phone calls in their office. Like any other office,
Q: When you say he forced himself to you, what do you whoever has the convenience to answer at the time would
mean? pick up the phone. [Judge Pacuribot] had called twice their
office already and when her officemates answer the phone,
he would just hang the line. When the phone rung again, she
A: When he was on top of me and he was kissing me. God, I picked it up. It was [Judge Pacuribot] on the other end. After
can feel and I can remember how heavily he was breathing in recognizing her voice, he belittled her yelling: "Prostitute!
my face and he was kissing me all over and he was trying to Devil! Animal! Why don’t you pick up the phone?" She was
position himself inside of me. Those are what I can
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |30
consumed with fear, and meekly told him that she was just Atty. Kho:
busy. Days passed as he continued to threaten her with the
publication of her half naked picture. She tried to pacify him Q: You mean you often wrote some notes?
sensing that he could make real his threats. Being married to
an overseas worker with two kids, she was so scared of
figuring in a scandal. Her fright of him was burdensome. He A: Yes. I may even have some drafts there wherein he even
would send her text messages telling her of sweet nothings, edited it.
but every time she would ignore them, he would burst in
anger and would renew his threats. At times, she made Q: What kind of notes were they?
excuses, like having no cell phone load, but he would insist
that she should secure a load, otherwise he would shame
her. He was far too wise to accept excuses. Her constant fear A: Love notes and there was a time he made me write a letter
made her succumb to his blackmails. to my mother-in-law which the very next day I was posting
myself at the Post Office awaiting for that letter to come so
that I could intercept it.
[Judge Pacuribot] was always demanding that Ms. Villafranca
send him text messages and letters expressing nonsense, a
matter she could not understand then. She thought it was xxxx
only to feed his ego. On cross examination, [Judge
Pacuribot’s] counsel asked why she complied with these Q: Also attached to the Comment of respondent are some
orders. She answered: notes already marked as Annex 9. Could you go over some
of these notes and tell us if this is your handwriting? Annexes
Atty. Kho: 9 and 9B.
Q: In your affidavit, do you remember having said that the A: I will not deny that I wrote these letters but they were
respondent is forcing you to send to him text messages? under his supervision just like the ones he made to my
mother-in-law and to my husband.
A: Yes.
Q: You mean to say you were writing the letters?
Q: And you complied with the sending of these text
messages? A: Yes. He will dictate to me what to do, what to say.
A: Yes, because one day when I was not able to text he xxxx
called me and he screamed at me over the phone and then
he said: "Burikat, animal ka, yawa ka, imo gibuhat… dili ko Q: So you were acting like a stenographer who writes down
nimo i-ignore. This will be the last time na imo ko i-ignore sa his dictation?
text or sa tawag nako. Otherwise, you will pay for it."
A: I did not act like a stenographer who wrote down his
Atty. Ignes translating: dictation. But I acted like a victim who is under threat by
some…
"You whore, you devil, you animal, don’t you dare! This will
be the last time you will ignore me in my call, otherwise you Q: The words here in Annexes 9-A and 9-B, you mean to say
will pay for it." all of these are his words, the respondent?
Atty. Kho: A: As I said Attorney, yes, under his dictation, under his
supervision. Do you know what is this?
Q: Why did you allow him to do that to you?
Atty. Kho:
A: Because he constantly tells me that he will develop that
picture, he will show that to my mother-in-law and then he will No. Do not ask me a question. You are not allowed to do
destroy me and he will create scandal in Gingoog City. that.
A: And what? How would I explain to them that I was there? Q: So you admit sending the respondent a lot more letters
How he took my picture? How am I going to? I don’t know. I that the ones I’ve presented you?
just wanted to protect my family from any shame, from any
scandal. And he knew that it would be his hold to me. And he
knew that I would be very careful with the name that my A: I admit that I wrote those letters under his supervision,
family had, that is why he is constantly threatening me with yes.
such same arguments, you know. "Ikaw and madaot ani. Imo
ning kuan tana." Q: All of the letters that you sent were all under his
supervision?
Atty. Ignes:
A: As I said, yes, under his supervision. There were times
"You will be destroyed because of this." that he would even call me to his chamber to have some
cards signed.
Atty. Kho:
Q: So, aside from notes, you also sent him cards?
Q: So, you admit that you sent him a lot of text messages?
A: Yes, I recall signing them because he would ask me to do
so.
A: I did not deny it in my affidavit. I had it in my affidavit, that
there were text messages and forced notes written for him.
xxxx
Q: Miss Witness, the handwriting on this card now marked as (The witness is crying at the witness stand)
Exhibit 6, on the second line of the handwriting are the words
"Love you, Bi." Could you tell us what is the meaning of the Q: During those 8 times which you said you went to the room
word "Bi", if you know? of respondent at Sherlita Tan’s place which is near the police
station and the LTO, was there a time that you shouted?
A: It has no significance with me because your client dictated
it to me. A: I could not shout, I’m scared.
But [JudgePacuribot] seized another incident to destroy her To be able to put behind her harrowing experience, Ms.
more. On 15 June 2005, he reported in writing to the Villafranca applied for leave of absence with their office to
superiors of Ms. Villafranca – superiors in local office and work abroad knowing that [Judge Pacuribot’s] order in People
superiors in Manila – alleging her negligence allegedly v. Anude and his letter to her superiors have effectively made
committed on 6 June 2005 in forgetting to shut off the air-con her lose that desired promotion. Eventually she left the
unit in their Probation Office. Her local superior in the country on 2 October 2006 for Dubai, UAE to work and forget
Probation Office referred to her the letter of [Judge her past even if her leave of absence in their office was not
Pacuribot]. She prepared an explanation which her local
yet approved. On 18 March 2007, she returned to testify in
superior used as letter to the judge. Thinking that because this case after struggling against employment restrictions and
she authored that letter, the explanation there covered
financial constraints, she not having been half a year yet
already her side, she did not write nor see the judge abroad. On 22 March 2007, when asked on the witness stand
anymore. This further infuriated him. when she will leave again for Dubai, she said: "I want to
leave the country as much as possible and stay out of here. I
xxxx don’t want to be reminded of what happened to me." At the
time she testified in March 2007 in this case, her leave of
In July 2006, Ms. Villafranca’s request for transfer was absence in the Probation Office was not yet granted.
granted and she started working in Cagayan de Oro City on
17 July 2006. The transfer of assignment resulted in her In his Comment,9 Judge Pacuribot denied the charges of Ms.
constant separation from her nine (9) year old son and four Tan and Villafranca for "lack of factual and legal bases"; and
(4) year old daughter, plus the great inconvenience of a 2½ opposed the allegations on the ground that the same were
hours bus ride from Gingoog City one way, and motivated by revenge and were part of a comprehensive and
transportation expenses. She would usually go home to sinister plan to drive him out of service.
Gingoog City to be with her family and children on weekends,
or every now and then, and sometimes late at night. Judge Pacuribot made total denial of Ms. Tan’s charges
against him and claimed that the alleged incidents on 20 and
After her transfer to the Probation Office in Cagayan de Oro 21 October 2004 were "big lie[s], a fraud, a hoax and
City on 17 July 2006, Ms. Villafranca was able to tell her deception." He insisted that he could not have committed the
husband what she went through. Before that, she just could acts complained of by Ms. Tan because in his first five
Ms. Villafranca said she was scared of [Judge Pacuribot’s] Her spontaneity in answering the cross examination
person and "how intimidating he could be and how evil he questions, the anguish she revealed in court, her very natural
could be." She feared him because when she resists him he and coherent way of telling how she was ravished and
would tell her "madaot ka ani." (You will be destroyed abused repeatedly as an underling leaves no room to doubt
because of this.) So she had to yield to him because she her testimony and the things she said under oath in her
knew he could do what he threatens to do – to destroy her. Affidavit – Complaint, her Rejoinder, and her Sworn
She points to the Order dated 6 June 2005 in People v. Statement. Her tears could only be the clues to her righteous
Anude of how indeed he had destroyed her. indignation against the indignities she suffered from [Judge
Pacuribot]. Indeed, the conviction to reveal the truth must
have been so strong that she had to come back to the
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |36
country hurdling employment restrictions and the difficulty of "Why did you bring me here, Sir? Didn’t I tell you I will just
not having saved enough yet for her trip back just to testify in take a taxi to Agora Terminal?
this case.
"Don’t pull my hair, Sir. It is very painful. What a sadist you
[Judge Pacuribot’s] claim that her administrative charge is a are."
fabrication is unacceptable against the avalanche of Ms.
Villafranca’s evidence. The Investigator cannot find any valid "You are so rude, Sir, we work in the same office yet you
reason to sustain [Judge Pacuribot’s] denial and alibi as a disgrace me."
defense.
On the eight (8) occasions that [Judge Pacuribot] had carnal [Judge Pacuribot] challenges Ms. Tan’s claim of rape and
knowledge of Ms. Villafranca in his rented room while [Judge repeated sexual harassments by arguing, to wit:
Pacuribot’s] gun was always displayed on the table, implying
the commission of rape, the same are treated as sexual "Why did she not refuse to go with respondent when he
harassments only for Ms. Villafranca’s failure to state when allegedly fetch her at Pryce Plaza Hotel on 20 October 2004
they were committed and to provide details on those and instead go voluntarily with him?"
occasions.
"At the Discovery Hotel, if indeed she stayed and slept there
Ms. Tan’s agony started with [Judge Pacuribot’s] deception. all by herself, why did she not escape or call for help and
He made her believe he will bring her in his car to the bus instead wait for respondent to arrive the next morning? So
terminal from Pryce Plaza Hotel, only to surprise her after that he can sexually assault her again? Or why did she fail to
riding with him by bringing her to the City Lodge Motel to ask for help from any of the hotel staff or from anybody while
ravish her. Again, while about to leave City Lodge Motel, he in the Discovery Hotel?"
deceived her again by telling her that he will bring her now to
the bus terminal, only to bring her to the Discovery Hotel, so
that he can ravish her some more later. Aside from "If she immediately reported to the police authorities the
deception, [Judge Pacuribot] uses extravagantly another tool maltreatment of her son by her husband, why did she not
– intimidation. Immediately after Ms. Tan settled herself on complain of the alleged incidents of sexual harassments and
the front seat on that infelicitous night of 20 October 2004, he acts of lasciviousness she experienced from the
immediately had his bag between them, the bag Ms. Tan respondent?"
knows contains [Judge Pacuribot’s] gun. Also, he used on
her an uncouth language in a loud voice, an irrational temper, Despite her claims of having been subjected to rape, sexual
a fake message of urgency to rattle Ms. Tan and make her harassment and acts of lasciviousness, why did she gleefully
jump to obedience without thinking. By the time Ms. Tan socialize with respondent during their Christmas party and
realized [Judge Pacuribot’s] repulsive intentions, it was too respondent’s birthday celebration?"
late to fight back because she had been trapped in the motel.
Ms. Tan had only two (2) options –
His repeated intimidating warnings on Ms. Tan that she could
harm her if she disobeys were indeed proven true. On 24
November 2004, Ms. Tan was severely and publicly scolded "Lose her job by promptly fighting back at [Judge Pacuribot];
before her office mates, a fact that was affirmed by Atty. or
Wilfredo Bibera. Her performance rating from "Very
Satisfactory" slipped down to "Satisfactory" in 2005. "Keep her job tolerating him with muffled defiance.
[Judge Pacuribot] uses force and cruelty on his hapless Ms. Tan had correctly assessed the far reaches of his
victims. When he ordered her to do oral sex on him and she influence. When she was looking for a lawyer to help her file
refused, he pulled her hair and pushed her face to his penis the administrative charge, no lawyer in Gingoog City would
with an order: "Suck it. Let it in till deep your throat. Let my like to accept her case. She had to look for one in Cagayan
penis reach your throat." He tightened his hold on her that de Oro City. She was thus correct to wonder while she was in
she was frightened he might break her neck. In pain, she had Discovery Hotel whether anyone there would come her aid if
to plead: "Don’t pull my hair, sir. It’s very painful. What a [Judge Pacuribot] will start harming her.
sadist you are." While he was sucking her nipple and
mashing her breasts, he was telling her: "This is the breast of
Ms. Tan as a victim cannot be put in the same footing as
a lustful woman." While he was planting vile kisses on her
other rape victims where the offender holds no control on the
neck to produce "chiquinini" on her, he told her: "I am going
victim’s survival and has no moral ascendancy over her.
to plant lots of kiss marks here to let the people know that
Fighting back immediately against the offender is a rational
you passed through my hands." Upon hearing it, Ms. Tan
move. In the case at bench, [Judge Pacuribot’s] moral
cried. Indeed, [Judge Pacuribot] is a sadist beyond
ascendancy and influence over her was a given. It was that
description capable of declaring his unconcealed intention to
together with his flair to humiliate people and his blackmails
parade her to the public as his victim.
which made her succumb to his sexual abuses. Ms. Tan
values her job; in fact, she consciously keeps track of her
At the trial, when issues would touch on her tender feelings performance ratings. An underling who believes that her
towards her family or when it would recall [Judge Pacuribot’s] immediate superior wields control over her continued
cruelty that crushed her respectability or the delicateness of employment or sudden separation from service will cower in
her womanhood, she would invariably sob on the witness fear to the point of tolerating the indignities committed on her.
stand. The way he ravished her and sexually harassed her As [Judge Pacuribot] impressed on her, looking for a new job
showed how irrationally lewd or unbearably cruel he was. at her age is not easy.
Even when Ms. Tan was already abused, still the thought that At the time that [Judge Pacuribot] was taking advantage of
he is her superior had never been lost to her. Ms. Tan has Ms. Tan, [Judge Pacuribot’s] proverbial explosives temper
always addressed him – "Sir." and short fuse were being put to good use to terrorize her
with remarkable frequency. That dark spot in his character
[Judge Pacuribot] cites Ms. Tan’s merry behavior during the x x x Delay in reavealing the commission of rape is not an
Christmas Party and his Birthday Party in Cagayan de Oro indication of a fabricated charge. Many victims of rape never
City as hardly the behavior of a rape victim or a victim or complain or file criminal charges against the rapist, for they
repeated sexual harassments. Normally, such a victim is prefer to silently bear the ignominy and pain, rather than
expected to behave with animosity and grievance toward the reveal their shame to the world or risk the offender’s making
offender. Unfortunately for her, she cannot afford to display good on his threats. This is understandable, considering the
such animosity and grievance unless it is at the cost of her inbred modesty of Filipinas and their aversion to the public
job. If she cannot defy his demands when he victimizes her, disclosure of matters affecting their honor.
shouldn’t her economic realities prompt her to win her war
with friendship? [Judge Pacuribot] should be reminded that in
sexual harassments under Section 3 of RA No. 7877, an Delay in the filing of the charges does not necessarily
offense is committed regardless of whether the demand, undermine the credibility of witnesses.
request or requirement for submission is accepted by the
subject of said act. The Supreme Court has deemed delay as justified when
there is fear of reprisal, social humiliation, familial
Ms. Tan’s testimony was clear, frank and consistent. Her considerations and economic reasons. In the case of Ms.
candid and clear-cut account of how respondent judge had Tan, her tormentor is her superior who constantly dangles his
been deceitful and intimidating in his dealings with her that influence and power over her and her job. As regards Ms.
evening has inspired belief. And throughout her testimony, Villafranca, the threat to destroy her, her family and her
she succeeded in revealing how [Judge Pacuribot] took full family’s good name was ever present; thus, haunting her
advantage of his moral ascendancy over her as his underling, emotionally and psychologically. The delay in reporting the
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |38
rape cases committed by [Judge Pacuribot] has been No married woman would subject herself to public scrutiny
justified. and humiliation to foist a false charge of rape. Neither would
she take the risk of being alienated from her husband and her
On the repeated sexual harassments and violence committed family. The fact that the victim resolved to face the ordeal and
separately on the persons of Ms. Tan and Ms. Villafranca relate in public what many similarly situated would have kept
within the chamber of [Judge Pacuribot], the latter deems secret evinces that she did so to obtain justice. Her
them improbable because of the situation in his chamber. He willingness and courage to face the authorities as well as to
submit to medical examination are mute but eloquent
points out that outside his chamber is the staff room and
there is a glassed window that divides them. Ms. Villafranca confirmation of her sincere resolve.
cited the incident on 13 October 2005 where [Judge
Pacuribot] did lascivious acts on her inside the chamber in Finally, it may be true there are minor and trivial
the presence of Placido Abellana, the court aide, and the discrepancies in Ms. Tan’s testimony, but they neither impair
latter’s just turned his back and pretended to see nothing. the integrity of the victim’s evidence as a whole nor reflect
negatively on the witness’ honesty. Such inconsistencies,
In the case of People v. Lavador, the rapist-appellant argued which might have been caused by the natural fickleness of
memory, even tend to strengthen, rather than weaken the
that rape was impossible due to the presence of the victim’s
son on her side. The Supreme Court said: credibility of the witness, for they shake off the suspicion of a
rehearsed testimony.
Inasmuch as what is imputed against respondent Judge We explained the rationale for requiring judges to possess
connotes a misconduct so grave that, if proven, would entail impeccable moral integrity, thus:
dismissal from the bench, the quantum of proof required
should be more than substantial.
The personal and official actuations of every member of the
Bench must be beyond reproach and above suspicion. The
It is doctrinal that the requirement of proof beyond faith and confidence of the public in the administration of
reasonable doubt in criminal law does not mean such a justice cannot be maintained if a judge who dispenses it is
degree of proof as to exclude the possibility of error and not equipped with the cardinal judicial virtue of moral
produce absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is required integrity, and if he obtusely continues to commit an affront to
or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an public decency. In fact, moral integrity is more than a virtue; it
unprejudiced mind. The evidence adduced here
is a necessity in the judiciary.14
overwhelmingly established moral certainty that respondent
judge raped and sexually harassed complainant Mesdames
Tan and Villafranca on separate and repeated occasions. We also stressed in Castillo v. Calanog, Jr.15 that:
On February 15, 2005, private respondents wrote the offices The trial court furthermore held that R.A. No. 9334 violates
of respondent Collector of Customs and the SBMA the terms and conditions of private respondents’ subsisting
Administrator requesting for a reconsideration of the contracts with SBMA, which are embodied in their
directives on the imposition of duties and taxes, particularly Certificates of Registration and Exemptions in contravention
excise taxes, on their shipments of cigars, cigarettes, wines of the constitutional guarantee against the impairment of
and liquors.13 Despite these letters, however, they were not contractual obligations; that greater damage would be
allowed to file any warehousing entry for their shipments. inflicted on private respondents if the writ of injunction is not
issued as compared to the injury that the government and the
Thus, private respondent enterprises, through their general public would suffer from its issuance; and that the
representatives, brought before the RTC of Olongapo City a damage that private respondents are bound to suffer once
special civil action for declaratory relief 14 to have certain the assailed statute is implemented – including the loss of
confidence of their foreign principals, loss of business
provisions of R.A. No. 9334 declared as unconstitutional,
which case was docketed as Civil Case No. 102-0-05. opportunity and unrealized income, and the danger of closing
down their businesses due to uncertainty of continued
viability – cannot be measured accurately by any standard.
In the main, private respondents submitted that (1) R.A. No.
9334 should not be interpreted as altering, modifying or
amending the provisions of R.A. No. 7227 because repeals With regard to the rule that injunction is improper to restrain
the collection of taxes under Section 21819 of the NIRC, the
by implication are not favored; (2) a general law like R.A. No.
9334 cannot amend R.A. No. 7727, which is a special law; trial court held that what is sought to be enjoined is not per se
and (3) the assailed law violates the one bill-one subject rule the collection of taxes, but the implementation of a statute
embodied in Section 26(1), Article VI 15 of the Constitution as that has been found preliminarily to be unconstitutional.
well as the constitutional proscription against the impairment
of the obligation of contracts.16 Additionally, the trial court pointed out that private
respondents’ taxes have not yet been assessed, as they
Alleging that great and irreparable loss and injury would have not filed consumption entries on all their imported
befall them as a consequence of the imposition of taxes on tobacco and alcohol products, hence, their duty to pay the
alcohol and tobacco products brought into the SBF, private corresponding excise taxes and the concomitant right of the
respondents prayed for the issuance of a writ of preliminary government to collect the same have not yet materialized.
injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and
preliminary mandatory injunction to enjoin the directives of On May 11, 2005, the trial court issued a Writ of Preliminary
herein petitioners. Injunction directing petitioners and the SBMA Administrator
as well as all persons assisting or acting for and in their
Petitioners duly opposed the private respondents’ prayer for behalf "1) to allow the operations of [private respondents] in
the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and/or TRO, accordance with R.A. No. 7227; 2) to allow [them] to file
warehousing entries instead of consumption entries as
arguing that (1) tax exemptions are not presumed and even
when granted, are strictly construed against the grantee; (2) regards their importation of tobacco and alcohol products;
and 3) to cease and desist from implementing the pertinent
an increase in business expense is not the injury
contemplated by law, it being a case of damnum absque provisions of R.A. No. 9334 by not compelling [private
injuria; and (3) the drawback mechanism established in the respondents] to immediately pay duties and taxes on said
law clearly negates the possibility of the feared injury. 17 alcohol and tobacco products as a condition to their removal
from the port area for transfer to the warehouses of [private
respondents]."20
Petitioners moreover pointed out that courts are enjoined
from issuing a writ of injunction and/or TRO on the grounds of
an alleged nullity of a law, ordinance or administrative The injunction bond was approved at One Million pesos
regulation or circular or in a manner that would effectively (P1,000,000).21
dispose of the main case. Taxes, they stressed, are the
lifeblood of the government and their prompt and certain Without moving for reconsideration, petitioners have come
availability is an imperious need. They maintained that directly to this Court to question the May 4, 2005 Order and
greater injury would be inflicted on the public should the writ the Writ of Preliminary Injunction which, they submit, were
be granted. issued by public respondent with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
At the outset, it bears emphasis that only questions relating The provision of any special or general law to the The pr
to the propriety of the issuance of the May 4, 2005 Order and contrary notwithstanding, the importation of cigars the co
the Writ of Preliminary Injunction are properly within the and cigarettes, distilled spirits, fermented liquors of ciga
scope of the present petition and shall be so addressed in and wines into the Philippines, even if destined for ferme
order to determine if public respondent committed grave tax and duty free shops, shall be subject to all Philip
abuse of discretion. The arguments raised by private applicable taxes, duties, charges, including excise free sh
respondents which pertain to the constitutionality of R.A. No. taxes due thereon. Provided, however, That this taxes,
9334 subject matter of the case pending litigation before the shall not apply to cigars and cigarettes, due th
trial court have no bearing in resolving the present petition. fermented spirits and wines brought directly cigare
into the duly chartered or legislated freeports and w
Section 3 of Rule 58 of the Revised Rules of Court provides: of the Subic Economic Freeport Zone, created charte
under Republic Act No. 7227; the Cagayan Econo
Special Economic Zone and Freeport, created Repub
SEC. 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary injunction. – A under Republic Act No. 7922; and the Econo
preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established. Zamboanga City Special Economic Zone, created Repub
under Republic Act No. 7903, and are not Specia
(a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and transshipped to any other port in the Act No
the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the Philippines: Provided, further, That importations of hereaf
commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, cigars and cigarettes, distilled spirits, fermented law: P
or in requiring the performance of an act or acts, either for a liquors and wines made directly by a government- and cig
limited period or perpetually; owned and operated duty-free shop, like the Duty and wi
Free Philippines (DFP), shall be exempted from all and op
applicable duties, charges, including excise tax Philipp
(b) That the commission, continuance or non-performance of
due thereon; Provided still further, That such applica
the act or acts complained of during the litigation would
articles directly imported by a government-owned such a
probably work injustice to the applicant; or
and operated duty-free shop, like the Duty-Free owned
Philippines, shall be labeled "tax and duty-free" Free P
(c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, and "not for resale": Provided, still further, That if free" a
threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering such articles brought into the duly chartered or the rem
to be done, some act or acts probably in violation of the rights legislated freeports under Republic Acts Nos. goods
of the applicant respecting the subject of the action or 7227, 7922 and 7903 are subsequently introduced similar
proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual. into the Philippine customs territory, then such distille
articles shall, upon such introduction, be deemed one Fr
For a writ of preliminary injunction to issue, the plaintiff must imported into the Philippines and shall be subject deeme
be able to establish that (1) there is a clear and unmistakable to all imposts and excise taxes provided herein custom
right to be protected, (2) the invasion of the right sought to be and other statutes: Provided, finally, That the
protected is material and substantial, and (3) there is an removal and transfer of tax and duty-free goods,
xxxx
urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent products, machinery, equipment and other similar
serious damage.27 articles, from one freeport to another freeport, shall
not be deemed an introduction into the Philippine
customs territory.
Conversely, failure to establish either the existence of a clear
and positive right which should be judicially protected through
the writ of injunction, or of the acts or attempts to commit any x x x x.
act which endangers or tends to endanger the existence of
said right, or of the urgent need to prevent serious damage, (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
is a sufficient ground for denying the preliminary injunction. 28
To note, the old Section 131 of the NIRC expressly provided
It is beyond cavil that R.A. No. 7227 granted private that all taxes, duties, charges, including excise taxes shall not
respondents exemption from local and national taxes, apply to importations of cigars, cigarettes, fermented spirits
including excise taxes, on their importations of general and wines brought directly into the duly chartered or
merchandise, for which reason they enjoyed tax-exempt legislated freeports of the SBF.
status until the effectivity of R.A. No. 9334.
On the other hand, Section 131, as amended by R.A. No.
9334, now provides that such taxes, duties and charges,
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |44
including excise taxes, shall apply to importation of cigars Seventh. As a rule, courts should avoid issuing a writ of
and cigarettes, distilled spirits, fermented liquors and wines preliminary injunction which would in effect dispose of the
into the SBF. main case without trial.46 This rule is intended to preclude a
prejudgment of the main case and a reversal of the rule on
Without necessarily passing upon the validity of the the burden of proof since by issuing the injunctive writ, the
withdrawal of the tax exemption privileges of private court would assume the proposition that petitioners are
respondents, it behooves this Court to state certain basic inceptively duty bound to prove.47
principles and observations that should throw light on the
propriety of the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction Eighth. A court may issue a writ of preliminary injunction only
in this case. when the petitioner assailing a statute has made out a case
of unconstitutionality or invalidity strong enough, in the mind
First. Every presumption must be indulged in favor of the of the judge, to overcome the presumption of validity, in
constitutionality of a statute.29 The burden of proving the addition to a showing of a clear legal right to the remedy
sought.48
unconstitutionality of a law rests on the party assailing the
law.30 In passing upon the validity of an act of a co-equal and
coordinate branch of the government, courts must ever be Thus, it is not enough that petitioners make out a case of
mindful of the time-honored principle that a statute is unconstitutionality or invalidity to overcome the prima
presumed to be valid. faciepresumption of validity of a statute; they must also be
able to show a clear legal right that ought to be protected by
the court. The issuance of the writ is therefore not proper
Second. There is no vested right in a tax exemption, more so
when the latest expression of legislative intent renders its when the complainant’s right is doubtful or disputed.49
continuance doubtful. Being a mere statutory privilege, 31 a
tax exemption may be modified or withdrawn at will by the Ninth. The feared injurious effects of the imposition of duties,
granting authority.32 charges and taxes on imported cigars, cigarettes, distilled
spirits, fermented liquors and wines on private respondents’
To state otherwise is to limit the taxing power of the State, businesses cannot possibly outweigh the dire consequences
which is unlimited, plenary, comprehensive and supreme. that the non-collection of taxes, not to mention the unabated
The power to impose taxes is one so unlimited in force and smuggling inside the SBF, would wreak on the government.
so searching in extent, it is subject only to restrictions which Whatever damage would befall private respondents must
rest on the discretion of the authority exercising it. 33 perforce take a back seat to the pressing need to curb
smuggling and raise revenues for governmental functions.
These certificates granting private respondents a "permit to Besides, private respondents are not altogether lacking an
operate" their respective businesses are in the nature of appropriate relief under the law. As petitioners point out in
licenses, which the bulk of jurisprudence considers as neither their Petition53 before this Court, private respondents may
a property nor a property right.40 The licensee takes his avail themselves of a tax refund or tax credit should R.A. No.
license subject to such conditions as the grantor sees fit to 9334 be finally declared invalid.
impose, including its revocation at pleasure.41 A license can
thus be revoked at any time since it does not confer an Indeed, Sections 20454 and 22955 of the NIRC provide for the
absolute right.42 recovery of erroneously or illegally collected taxes which
would be the nature of the excise taxes paid by private
While the tax exemption contained in the Certificates of respondents should Section 6 of R.A. No. 9334 be declared
Registration of private respondents may have been part of unconstitutional or invalid.
the inducement for carrying on their businesses in the SBF,
this exemption, nevertheless, is far from being contractual in It may not be amiss to add that private respondents can also
nature in the sense that the non-impairment clause of the opt not to import, or to import less of, those items which no
Constitution can rightly be invoked. 43
longer enjoy tax exemption under R.A. No. 9334 to avoid the
payment of taxes thereon.
Sixth. Whatever right may have been acquired on the basis
of the Certificates of Registration and Tax Exemption must The Court finds that public respondent had also ventured into
yield to the State’s valid exercise of police power. 44 It is well
the delicate area which courts are cautioned from taking
to remember that taxes may be made the implement of the when deciding applications for the issuance of the writ of
police power.45
preliminary injunction. Having ruled preliminarily against
the prima facie validity of R.A. No. 9334, he assumed in
It is not difficult to recognize that public welfare and necessity effect the proposition that private respondents in their petition
underlie the enactment of R.A. No. 9334. As petitioners point for declaratory relief were duty bound to prove, thereby
out, the now assailed provision was passed to curb the shifting to petitioners the burden of proving that R.A. No.
pernicious practice of some unscrupulous business 9334 is not unconstitutional or invalid.
enterprises inside the SBF of using their tax exemption
privileges for smuggling purposes. Smuggling in whatever In the same vein, the Court finds public respondent to have
form is bad enough; it is worse when the same is allegedly overstepped his discretion when he arbitrarily fixed the
perpetrated, condoned or facilitated by enterprises hiding injunction bond of the SBF enterprises at only P1million.
behind the cloak of their tax exemption privileges.
This constitutional provision deals with the disposition of Time and again, it has been held, no less than by the
petitions for review and of motions for reconsideration. In Supreme Court, that mere suspicions and speculations can
appellate courts, the rule does not require any never be the basis of conviction in a criminal case. Guided by
comprehensive statement of facts or mention of the the same doctrinal rule, this Office is not duty-bound to
applicable law, but merely a statement of the "legal basis" for proceed with the indictment of the public respondents as
denying due course. charged. Indeed well entrenched is the rule that "(t)he
purpose of a preliminary investigation is to secure the
innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution
Thus, there is sufficient compliance with the constitutional and to protect him from an open and public accusation of
requirement when a collegiate appellate court, after crime, from the trouble, expense and anxiety of a public trial,
deliberation, decides to deny a motion; states that the and also to protect the state from useless and expensive
questions raised are factual or have already been passed trials (Joint Resolution, October 17, 2005, Rollo pp. 142-143).
upon; or cites some other legal basis. There is no need to
explain fully the court’s denial, since the facts and the law
have already been laid out in the assailed Decision. Moreover, petitioners failed to rebut the presumption of
(Emphasis supplied) regularity in the performance of the official duties of
respondents by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure
to perform a duty. The presumption prevails and becomes
Its decision shows that the CA’s Sixth Division complied with conclusive until it is overcome by no less than clear and
the requirements of the constitutional provision, 14 viz: convincing evidence to the contrary. Every reasonable
intendment will be made in support of the presumption and in
The petition is without merit. case of doubt as to an officer’s act being lawful or unlawful,
construction should be in favor of its lawfulness (Bustillo vs.
People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 160718, May 12, 2010).
Petitioner alleged that the Ombudsman erred in not finding
respondents liable for violation of the Cooperative Code of
the Philippines considering that their actuations constituted There being no substantial evidence to reverse the findings
acts of direct or indirect interference or intervention with the of the Ombudsman, the instant petition is denied.
internal affairs of FH-GYMN and that recommendation to
deny FH-GYMN’s application was tantamount to "any other WHEREFORE, premises considered the Petition for Review
act inimical or adverse to its autonomy and independence." is DENIED for lack of merit. The Joint Resolution dated
October 17, 2005 and Joint Order dated April 25, 2006 of the
We disagree. Deputy Ombudsman of Luzon are AFFIRMED.
ETHELWOLDO E. FERNANDEZ, ANTONIO A. HENSON On November 18, 2011, Gatmaitan filed his Answer to the
and ANGEL S. ONG, Complainants, complaint in SEC Case No. 11-164; Calalang, Romulo,
vs. Ayala, Fernandez, Engle and Nitorreda filed theirs on
COURT OF APPEALS ASSOCIATE JUSTICES RAMON M. November 21, 2011; and NADECOR filed its Answer on
BATO, JR., ISAIAS P. DICDICAN and EDUARDO B. November 23, 2011. On November 30, 2011, the plaintiffs
PERALTA, JR., Respondents. Ricafort filed their Answer to the Compulsory Counterclaims.
RESOLUTION In the Order dated December 21, 2011, the RTC agreed with
the plaintiffs Ricafort that they were not given due notice of
REYES, J.: the annual stockholders’ meeting of NADECOR, and that
their complaint did not involve an election contest, and
therefore was not subject to the 15-day prescriptive period to
Before us is a verified Joint Complaint-Affidavit1 filed against file an election protest.3 The fallo of the Order reads, as
Court of Appeals (CA) Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. follows:
(Justice Bato ), Isaias P. Dicdican (Justice Dicdican) and
Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. (Justice Peralta), all members of the
former Special 14th Division, charging them with grave IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, this Court GRANTS, as it
misconduct, conduct detrimental to the service, gross hereby GRANTS the relief prayed for in the Complaint and
ignorance of the law, gross incompetence, and manifest DEN[IES] all compulsory counterclaims for lack of merit.
Consequently, Nationwide Development Corporation’s 2011
partiality.
Annual Stockholders’ Meeting held on August 15, 2011 is
hereby declared NULL and VOID, including ALL matters
The complaint alleges that in a Resolution2 dated June 13, taken up during said Annual Stockholders’ Meeting. Any
2012, Justice Bato, who was designated on May 31, 2012 by other acts, decisions, deeds, incidents, matters taken up
raffle as acting senior member of the aforesaid arising from and subsequent to the 2011 Annual
Division, vice the regular senior member, Associate Justice Stockholders’ Meeting are hereby likewise declared VOID
Jane Aurora C. Lantion (Justice Lantion), who was scheduled and OF NO FORCE and EFFECT.
to take a 15-day wellness leave from June 1-15, 2012,
"usurped" the office of ponente in four (4) consolidated
petitions before the CA, namely, CA-G.R. Nos. 122782, Defendant Nationwide Development Corporation is hereby
122784, 122853, and 122854. Notwithstanding that the said directed to: (a) issue a new notice to all stockholders for the
cases have been previously assigned to Justice Lantion, conduct of an annual stockholders’ meeting corresponding to
Justice Bato acted on unverified motions to resolve the the year 2011 since the annual stockholders’ meeting held on
petitioners’ application for a writ of preliminary injunction, and August 15, 2011 was declared VOID, ensuring their receipt
granted the same, without conducting a prior hearing, with within three (3) days from the intended date of the annual
meeting[;] and (b) hold the annual stockholders meeting
the connivance of the respondents as regular members of the
Division; instead of the said regular members acting on the within thirty (30) days from receipt of this Order.
motions themselves.
No pronouncements as to cost.
Antecedent Facts
SO ORDERED.4 (Citation omitted and italics, and emphasis
Complainants Ethelwoldo E. Fernandez (Fernandez) and in the original)
Antonio A. Henson were elected in August 2010 to the Board
of Directors (Board) of the Nationwide Development Four separate petitions for certiorari were forthwith filed in the
Corporation (NADECOR), a domestic corporation organized CA by some members of the new Board and by NADECOR
in 1956, which owns a gold-copper mining concession in to assail the validity of the RTC order, all with application for
Pantukan, Compostela Valley called King-King Gold and a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or a writ of
Copper Mine (King-King Mine), while complainant Angel S. preliminary injunction, namely:
Ong was among those elected to NADECOR’s Board at its
stockholders’ meeting held on June 13, 2012.
(a) CA-G.R. SP No. 122782 - filed on January 5, 2012 by
Director Romulo versus CH Ricafort, JM Ricafort, MG
At the regular annual stockholders’ meeting held on August Ricafort and MT Santos (respondents Ricafort). The case
15, 2011, wherein 94% of NADECOR’s outstanding shares was raffled to Justice Lantion, senior member of the 15th
was represented and voted, two groups of stockholders were Division; the chairman of the Division was Justice Dicdican,
vying for control of the company, one group led by Jose G. while Justice Angelita A. Gacutan (Justice Gacutan) was the
Ricafort (JG Ricafort) who then personally controlled 42% of junior member.
the issued shares, and the other group led by Conrado T.
Calalang (Calalang), who owned 33%. Elected to the Board (b) CA-G.R. SP No. 122784 - filed on January 5, 2012 by
were Calalang, Jose, Jose P. De Jesus (De Jesus), Roberto Directors Calalang, Ayala, Engle and Nitorreda versus the
R. Romulo (Romulo), Alfredo I. Ayala (Ayala), Victor P. respondents Ricafort. Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio (Justice
Lazatin, Fernandez, Leocadio Nitorreda (Nitorreda), and Reyes-Carpio) of the 11th Division was the ponente.
John Engle (Engle). Later elected as Corporate Secretary
was Luis Manuel L. Gatmaitan (Gatmaitan).
(c) CA-G.R. SP No. 122853 - filed on January 6, 2012 by
NADECOR versus the respondents Ricafort. Justice Samuel
On October 20, 2011, two months after the August 15, 2011 Gaerlan of the 6th Division was the ponente.
stockholders’ meeting, Corazon H. Ricafort (CH Ricafort),
Jose Manuel H. Ricafort (JM Ricafort), Marie Grace H.
Ricafort (MG Ricafort), and Maria Teresa R. Santos (MT (d) CA-G.R. SP No. 122854 - filed on January 6, 2012 by
Santos) (plaintiffs Ricafort), wife and children of JG Ricafort, Gatmaitan versus the respondents Ricafort. Justice
claiming to be stockholders of record, sought to annul the Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente of the 9th Division was
said meeting by filing SEC Case No. 11-164 in the Regional the ponente.
Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 159. Impleaded as
defendants were NADECOR, the members of the incumbent On January 16, 2012, the 15th Division of the CA denied the
Board, and the Corporate Secretary, Gatmaitan. application for TRO and/or preliminary injunction in CA-G.R.
SP No. 122782. On the same day, however, the 11th Division
The plaintiffs Ricafort alleged that they were not given prior issued a TRO in CAG. R. SP No. 122784,5stating that the
notice of the August 15, 2011 stockholders’ meeting, and three (3) conditions for the issuance of an injunctive relief
thus failed to attend the same and to exercise their right to were present in the said petition, namely: (a) the right to be
participate in the management and control of NADECOR; protected exists prima facie; (b) the act sought to be enjoined
that they were served with notice only on August 16, 2011, a is violative of that right; and (c) there is an urgent and
day after the meeting was held, in violation of the 3-day prior paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.
notice provided in NADECOR’s Bylaws; and that moreover, The fallo of the Resolution of the 11th Division reads:
the notice announced a time and venue of the meeting
different from those set forth in the Bylaws. The plaintiffs WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, pending the
Ricafort therefore asked the RTC to declare null and void the determination by this Court of the merits of the Petition, the
August 15, 2011 annual stockholders’ meeting, including all Court GRANTS petitioners’ prayer for the issuance of a
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |49
temporary restraining order (TRO), to prevent the valuable asset, revoked by the Department of Environment
implementation and execution of the assailed Order dated and Natural Resources (DENR).
December 21, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 159,
Pasig City. On June 13, 2012 at 12:30 p.m., the announced annual
meeting of NADECOR’s stockholders was held at the Jollibee
The TRO is conditioned upon the filing by the petitioners of Center in Ortigas as scheduled, with Calalang chosen as
the bond in the amount of ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND presiding officer. Midway through the meeting, however,
([P]100,000.00) PESOS each, which shall answer for Calalang received a facsimile copy of the now assailed
whatever damages that [respondents Ricafort] may incur in Resolution of the CA’s Special 14th Division, bearing the
the event that the Court finds petitioners not entitled to the day’s date. On motion, Calalang declared the meeting
injunctive relief issued. The TRO shall be effective for sixty adjourned in view of the injunctive writ granted by the CA. But
(60) days upon posting of the required bond unless earlier he was overruled by the stockholders and directors holding
lifted or dissolved by the Court. 64% of the shares, and Calalang and his group walked out of
the assembly. The stockholders who remained in the meeting
During the effectivity of the TRO, the Board of Directors ignored the writ and the meeting resumed, with President De
Jesus now presiding. In the meeting, the following were taken
elected and serving before the August 15, 2011
Stockholders[’] Meeting shall discharge their functions as up: the election of the new Board; the ratification of the
Directors in a hold-over capacity in order to prevent any rescission by the Old Board of NADECOR’s MOUs with the
hiatus and so as not to unduly prejudice the corporation. St. Augustine; and the ratification of the subscription of
Queensberry to 25% of the capital stock of NADECOR.
On February 17, 2012, the respondents Ricafort filed Petitioners are thus mandated to post a bond of Five
their Comment Ad Cautelam8 to the petition in CA-G.R. No. Hundred Thousand Pesos ([P]500,000.00) to answer for any
122784. The petitioners therein thereafter filed three (3) damages which may result by virtue of the writ of preliminary
urgent motions to resolve their application for writ of injunction.
preliminary injunction, on March 8,9 on May 22,10 and again
on June 6, 201211. However, after the lapse of the 60-day SO ORDERED.14
TRO but before the CA could resolve the application for writ
of preliminary injunction, Deogracias G. Contreras, Corporate Significantly, the Resolution enjoined the Old Board from
Secretary of the Old Board who replaced Gatmaitan, issued
acting as a hold-over Board, thereby contravening the TRO
on June 6, 2012 a Notice of Annual Stockholders’ Meeting to issued by the 11th Division. It then allowed the New Board
be held at the Jollibee Centre in Ortigas on June 13, 2012 at
"to continue to act as Board of Directors of NADECOR." It
12:30 p.m. The notice was published on June 7, 2012 in The also enjoined the holding of a stockholders’ meeting on June
Philippine Star,12 and two of the main purposes of the 13, 2012, and ordered a freeze in the enforcement of all
meeting were: actions taken at the said meeting. In particular, the CA
enjoined the ratification of the rescission of all MOUs and
(a) The ratification of the rescission by the Old Board of related Transaction Agreements with the St. Augustine, the
NADECOR’s Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with election of a new Board of NADECOR, and the ratification of
the St. Augustine Gold & Copper Ltd. and the St. Augustine the sale to Queensberry of 25% of NADECOR’s authorized
Mining, Ltd., (St. Augustine), both dated April 27, 2010; and capital stock, which would come from its unissued shares.
(b) The ratification of the sale of unissued shares of The CA Resolution was penned by Justice Bato, the acting
NADECOR comprising 25% of its authorized capital stock senior member of the Special 14th Division (formerly 15th
(for ₱1.8 billion) to a new investor, Queensberry Mining and Division, following an internal CA reorganization), vice Justice
Development Corporation (Queensberry), later disclosed as Lantion who was on a 15-day wellness leave. Concurred in
controlled by the Group of Senator Manuel Villar. by Justices Dicdican and Peralta, the Resolution cited "new
and subsequent matters" allegedly not contemplated in the
On the same day, the petitioners in CA-G.R. SP No. 122784 RTC’s Order dated December 21, 2011, like the rescission of
NADECOR’s MOUs with the St. Augustine, and the
filed a Supplement to the Third Urgent Motion to Resolve with
Manifestation13 dated June 7, 2012, contending that the ratification of the 25% subscription of Queensberry. The CA
reasoned that the above actions of the Board could have
rescission of NADECOR’s MOUs with St. Augustine would
result in grave and irreparable injury to it since St. Augustine injurious consequences on the future viability of NADECOR,
even as they were not intended to merely "prevent a hiatus
alone had the financial and technical capability to develop its
1,656-hectare area mining claim in Pantukan, Compostela [in the operations of NADECOR] and so as not to unduly
Valley. NADECOR thus risked having its Mineral Production prejudice the corporation." The CA thus determined that the
Sharing Agreement (MPSA) with the government, its only petitioners, as stockholders and members of the Board
elected on August 15, 2011, have a right in esse to seek the
The CA further stated that the June 13, 2012 stockholders’ The pertinent provisions of the 2009 IRCA relevant to the
meeting would render moot and academic the four instant administrative complaint are Sections 2(d), 4 and 5 of
consolidated CA petitions, since a new Board would Rule VI, quoted below as follows:
effectively supplant the one elected on August 15, 2011,
although the validity of the latter was still being contested in Sec. 2. Justices Who May Participate in the Adjudication of
the CA.
Cases.―
On June 7, 2012, the petitioners filed a "Supplement to the The complainants have no personality to assail the
Third Urgent Motion to Resolve with Manifestation," 31citing an injunctive writ.
announcement that same day in The Philippine Star calling
for an annual stockholders’ meeting on June 13, 2012 to Section 1 of Rule 19 of the Rules of Court provides that a
elect a new Board and to ratify the rescission of the MOUs person who has a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in
with St. Augustine and the subscription of Queensberry. the success of either of the parties, or an interest against
both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a
The complainants now insist that the petitioners’ "Third distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of
Urgent Motion to Resolve" application for preliminary the court or of an officer thereof may, with leave of court, be
injunction as well as their "Supplement to the third Urgent allowed to intervene in the action. Conversely, a person who
Motion to Resolve with Manifestation" in the four CA cases is not a party in the main suit cannot be bound by an ancillary
were unverified. No hearing was also held on the alleged new writ, such as a preliminary injunction. Indeed, he cannot be
affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger. 34
and substantial matters raised therein, yet as early as in the
TRO Resolution dated January 16, 2012, the 11th Division
already took into consideration the matter of a threat by Moreover, a person not an aggrieved party in the original
NADECOR of rescission of its MOUs with St. Augustine. The proceedings that gave rise to the petition for certiorari, will not
CA also mentioned a letter from St. Augustine threatening to be permitted to bring the said action to annul or stay the
withdraw its "intended investment of around $2.5 Billion into injurious writ.35 Such is the clear import of Sections 1 and 2 of
the mining operations of NADECOR" because NADECOR Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. Thus, a person not a party to
"has ‘no unquestioned board’ to act on the conditions it set the proceedings in the trial court or in the CA cannot maintain
forth in its letter dated December 16, 2011."32 an action for certiorari in the Supreme Court to have the
judgment reviewed.36 Stated differently, if a petition
The TRO resolution also cited the claim of NADECOR that it for certiorari or prohibition is filed by one who was not a party
needed to submit to the DENR its Mining Project Feasibility in the lower court, he has no standing to question the
Plan (MPFP) by May 5, 2012, or risk losing both its assailed order.37
investment in the Pantukan mine and potential foreign
investments. The MPFP depended on the completion of the The complainants, who at various times served as elected
Bankable Financial Statement, which was funded by St. members of the Board of NADECOR, did not bother to
Augustine, and they were now threatening to cut off their intervene in the CA petitions, hence, they are not entitled to
funding. the service of pleadings and motions therein. Complainant
Fernandez was himself a defendant in SEC Case No. 11-164
in the RTC, but he chose not to join any of the four CA
Lastly, the CA 11th division noted that the plaintiffs Ricafort
could not be ignorant of the August 15, 2011 meeting. The petitions.1âwphi1
plaintiffs were the wife and children of JG Ricafort, who was
then the NADECOR President, and JG Ricafort and CH In this Court’s Resolution38 dated July 18, 2012 in G.R. No.
Ricafort still lived as husband and wife in the same house at 202218- 21, entitled "Jose G. Ricafort, et al. v. Court of
No. 8 Postdam Street, Northeast Greenhills, San Juan. 33 The Appeals [Special 14th Division], et al.," involving a petition
CA also noted that the plaintiffs Ricafort executed proxies for certiorari and prohibition filed by JG Ricafort, De Jesus,
and nominee agreements in favor of JG Ricafort, as well as Paolo A. Villar, and Ma. Nalen Rosero-Galang, also
cited an affidavit of Raymond H. Ricafort, a son of JG questioning the validity of the writ of preliminary injunction
Ricafort and CH Ricafort, that his mother CH Ricafort and his issued by the Special 14th Division of the CA, we ruled that
siblings had known about the August 15, 2011 stockholders’ persons who are not parties to any of the consolidated
meeting, and that his mother never went to any of the petitions have no personality to assail the said injunctive writ.
stockholders’ meetings of NADECOR.
In another Resolution,39 also promulgated on July 18, 2012,
From the foregoing, it will be seen that the CA Special 14th in G.R. No. 202257-60, a petition for certiorari and prohibition
Division needed only to rely on the TRO resolution of the filed by herein complainants to assail the validity of the writ of
11th Division as well as on the Comment Ad Cautelam of preliminary injunction in the aforesaid consolidated CA
respondents Ricafort to find a basis to issue its preservative petitions, we likewise dismissed the petition due to lack of
writ of preliminary injunction, and whether the third urgent personality of the petitioners, since they were non-parties and
motion of petitioners and their supplement thereto were strangers to the consolidated CA petitions. We pointed out
verified, or whether a hearing was held thereon, were that they should first have intervened below, and then filed a
immaterial to the issuance of the writ. motion for reconsideration from the questioned CA order. On
September 19, 2012, we denied their motion for
The members of the Special 14th Division acted reconsideration from the dismissal of their petition.
collectively and in good faith and their Resolution
granting a writ of preliminary injunction in the Having established that the herein complainants have no
consolidated CA petitions enjoys a presumption of personality to assail the writ of preliminary injunction issued
regularity. by the CA’s former Special 14th Division, we cannot now
permit them to harass the CA Justices who issued the same.
The CA 11th Division conceded that the petitioners in CA- For even granting that the issuance of the writ was
G.R. SP No. 122784 have reason to maintain the validity of erroneous, as a matter of public policy a magistrate cannot
the August 15, 2011 stockholders’ meeting. It agreed that the be held administratively liable for every discretionary but
voiding of the said meeting might seriously derail any erroneous order he issues.40 The settled rule is that "a Judge
necessary corporate actions needed on the demands of the cannot be held to account civilly, criminally or administratively
for an erroneous decision rendered by him in good
St. Augustine, which could lead to serious delays in the
development of the Pantukan mine, and eventually the recall faith."41 The case of Cortes v. Sandiganbayan42 is instructive.
We quote:
by the DENR of its MPSA. Thus, the CA feared that serious
damage could result to NADECOR and the stockholders’
investments if in fact St. Augustine had the resources and the It must be stressed that as a matter of policy, the acts of a
willingness to develop its gold-copper mine. judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary
action. He cannot be subjected to liability — civil, criminal or
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |53
administrative — for any of his official acts, no matter how On October 4, 2006, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith. Only judicial Butuan City and Agusan del Norte Chapter, likewise issued
errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad Resolution No. 2, Series of 2006,2 expressing disappointment
faith or deliberate intent to do an injustice will be over Judge Go’s inefficiency and incompetence, which has
administratively sanctioned. To hold otherwise would be to caused undue delay in the disposition of cases pending
render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try before his court. The Resolution was submitted to the OCA
the facts or interpret the law in the process of administering and was docketed as A.M. No. 07-9-221-MTCC.
justice can be infallible in his judgment.
In a Memorandum3 dated December 29, 2006, the OCA
It is also worth mentioning that the provisions of Article 204 of required Judge Go to take appropriate action on 1262
the Revised Penal Code as to "rendering knowingly unjust criminal cases and 32 civil cases that have not been acted
judgment" refer to an individual judge who does so "in any upon for a considerable length of time, to take appropriate
case submitted to him for decision" and has no application to action on 17 civil cases which have not been acted upon
the members of a collegiate court such as the since their filing, to resolve the pending incidents or motions
Sandiganbayan or its divisions, who reach their conclusions in 15 criminal cases and 88 civil cases that have remained
in consultation and accordingly render their collective unresolved beyond the reglementary period, and to decide
judgment after due deliberation. It also follows, consequently, with dispatch 21 civil cases that have remained undecided
that a charge of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt beyond the reglementary period. The OCA likewise directed
Practices Act on the ground that such a collective decision is Judge Go to resolve the pending motions or incidents in 30
"unjust" cannot prosper. cases and to decide 17 cases submitted for decision, all
within the reglementary period, and to furnish the OCA with
The remedy of the aggrieved party is not to file an copies of his orders, resolutions and decisions on the said
cases. Judge Go was additionally ordered (1) to render eight
administrative complaint against the judge, but to elevate the
assailed decision or order to the higher court for review and hours of service every working day pursuant to various
circulars4 of the Court; (2) to conduct the raffle of cases every
correction. An administrative complaint is not an appropriate
remedy where judicial recourse is still available, such as a Monday and/or Thursday pursuant to A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC
and to submit compliance within 15 days from notice. Lastly,
motion for reconsideration, an appeal, or a petition for
certiorari, unless the assailed order or decision is tainted with the OCA directed him to immediately issue orders on newly
fraud, malice, or dishonesty. x x x.43(Citations omitted) filed cases indicating whether the cases are being tried under
the regular procedure or under the summary procedure as
mandated by Section 2 of the Rules on Summary Procedure.
It was also emphasized in the above case that as an
established rule, an administrative, civil or criminal action
against a judge cannot be a substitute for an appea1. 44 On January 29, 2007, the Court resolved to treat the judicial
audit report as an administrative complaint for gross
inefficiency and gross neglect of duty against Judge Go and
WHEREFORE, premises considered, A.M. OCA IPI No. 12- his clerk of court, Ma. Elmer M. Rosales, and required them
201- CA-J is hereby DISMISSED. to comment within 15 days from notice.5 The audit report,
which was formerly docketed as A.M. No. 07-1-02-MTCC,
SO ORDERED. was also re-docketed as A.M. No. MTJ-07-1667.
Once again, in this administrative case, the Court is called to Very truly yours,
rule on the question of whether respondent Judge James V.
Go, presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (Sgd.)
(MTCC), Branch 2, Butuan City, is still fit to continue as a JAMES V. GO
member of the bench. The Court takes upon this matter Judge
again in light of the violations Judge Go subsequently
committed after he was found administratively liable by this
Court on September 27, 2007. Nonetheless, Judge Go transmitted copies of constancia,
orders and decisions7 but did not act on the remaining cases.
Neither did he respond to the issue of rendering eight hours
This administrative case stemmed from a judicial audit and of service every working day.
physical inventory of pending cases conducted from
September 25, 2006 to October 2, 2006 by the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA) in the said court. On September 27, 2007, the Court rendered a
decision8 finding Judge Go and his clerk of court
administratively liable. The Court held:
The audit team found that as of audit date, Judge Go failed to
immediately arraign the accused in 632 criminal cases, to
archive 140 criminal cases, to act on summons (should be ACCORDINGLY, we find:
subpoenas) issued in 477 criminal cases, to act on 13 cases
which had not been acted upon for a considerable length of xxxx
time, to resolve the pending incidents or motions in 15
criminal cases, to act on 17 civil cases from the time of their
filing, to take further action on 32 civil cases, and to resolve 2. Clerk of Court Ma. Elmer M. Rosales guilty of manifest
motions or incidents in 88 civil cases. The audit team also negligence in the performance of her duties and is ordered to
noted the reports of some court officials and employees that pay a FINE in the amount of ₱5,000.00, with WARNING that
Judge Go would always leave the court in the morning after a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more
finishing all hearings scheduled for the day and would return severely. She is also DIRECTED to inform the Court, through
only on the following day. When the audit team confronted the Office of the Court Administrator, of the status of Civil
the judge, he replied that he leaves early to rest as he Case Nos. 8141 and 8142;
suffered a stroke before, and that being a judge, he is not
required to render eight hours of service a day. The OCA 3. Judge James V. Go guilty of undue delay in rendering
recommended that the judicial audit report be treated as an decision or order and is hereby SUSPENDED from office for
administrative complaint against Judge Go. 1 three months without salary or other benefits effective upon
receipt of this Resolution. He is also FINED in the amount of
₱10,000.00 for his display of manifest indifference to the
Resolution of this Court and further REPRIMANDED for his
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |54
failure to strictly observe office hours. He is WARNED that a Thus, on February 2, 2011, the Court directed Judge Go to
repetition of the same or similar act/acts will be dealt with show cause why he should not be administratively dealt with
more severely. He is also DIRECTED to fully comply with the for noncompliance with the previous Resolution and
directives of the Memorandum dated December 29, 2006, reiterated the directive for him to submit copies of the
within sixty (60) days from receipt of this Resolution. decisions, orders, subpoenas and warrants issued in the
remaining cases subject of the March 9, 2009 Resolution,
Clerk of Court Rosales and Judge Go are DIRECTED to both within fifteen (15) days from notice. 18 Despite the lapse
of a considerable length of time, however, Judge Go still
inform this Court of the respective dates of receipt of this
Resolution. failed to fully comply with the Court’s directives in the
Resolutions dated March 9, 2009 and April 28, 2010.
A.M. No. RTJ-06-2000 On June 10, 2005, Judge Venadas, Sr. issued an
Order26 granting the Petition and, on June27, 2005, he issued
a Writ of Possession27 in favor of PNB.28
ATTY. REY FERDINAND T. GARAY, Petitioner,
vs.
JUDGE ROLANDO S. VENADAS, SR., Respondent. On June 22, 2005, PNB informed spouses Sombilon that
Atty. Garay’s offer to purchase the property had been
approved due to their failure to pay the full down payment. 29
DECISION
Furthermore, all tenants are hereby ordered to deposit any Anent its failure to file a Motion for Reconsideration prior to
rentals arising from the disputed property to the said Clerk of filing a Petition for Certiorari, PNB explains that in this case
Court. the filing of a Motion for Reconsideration may be dispensed
with as the issue involved is purely one of law, which is an
exception under prevailing jurisprudence. 58
SO ORDERED.41
Besides, there was no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
Ruling of the Court of Appeals available at the time considering that Judge Venadas, Sr.
issued the assailed Order, holding in abeyance the
On June 13, 2007, the CA rendered a Decision42 granting the implementation of the Writ of Possession, without affording
Petition for Certiorari. The CA found grave abuse of PNB the opportunity to be heard.59
discretion on the part of Judge Venadas, Sr. in holding in
abeyance the implementation of the Writ of Possession. 43The Lastly, PNB denies that it committed forum-shopping claiming
dispositive portion of the Decision reads: that it did not institute another action simultaneously with the
Petition for Certiorari it filed with the CA. 60
ACCORDINGLY, the petition for certiorari is hereby
GRANTED and the assailed July 14, 2005 Order of the court A.M. No. RTJ-06-2000
a quo is hereby SET ASIDE.
Meanwhile, on November15, 2005, Atty. Garay filed a
SO ORDERED.44 Verified Complaint61 against Judge Venadas, Sr., charging
him with Grave Abuse of Authority and Grave Misconduct
Spouses Sombilon moved for reconsideration45 but the CA when he proceeded with the hearing of spouses Sombilon’s
denied the same in its August 8, 2007 Resolution. 46 motion for reconsideration of the Order granting the issuance
of the Writ of Possession despite lack of notice to PNB and
for holding in abeyance the Writ of Possession he issued in
Hence, spouses Sombilon filed the instant Petition for Review Special Civil Case No. 375-05.
on Certiorari contending that:
Atty. Garay’s Arguments
THE [CA] COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR AND
GRAVELY ERRED IN GRANTING THE PETITIONFOR
CERTIORARI OF [ATTY. GARAY AND PNB] AND IN Atty. Garay claims that Judge Venadas, Sr. should be
DECLARING THAT THERE WAS GRAVE ABUSE OF administratively sanctioned for holding in abeyance the Writ
DISCRETION AMOUNT[ING] TO LACK OR EXCESS OF of Possession he earlier issued62 and for ignoring Sections
JURISDICTION COMMITTED BYTHE [RTC], BRANCH [8], 4,63 5,64 and 665 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court as he
MALAYBALAY CITY, WHICH IS CONTRARY [TO] LAW proceeded to hear the motion despite lack of notice to PNB.66
AND APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE HONORABLE
SUPREME COURT.47 Judge Venadas, Sr.’s Arguments
Spouses Sombilon’s Arguments In his defense, Judge Venadas, Sr. denies the charges
against him arguing that he did not annul the Writ of
Spouses Sombilon insist that the CA should have dismissed Possession but merely stayed its execution and
the Petition for Certioraridue to the failure of PNB and Atty. implementation to prevent any injustice.67 He insists there
Garay to file a Motion for Reconsideration of the assailed was no violation of due process because he immediately
Order.48 scheduled a hearing for PNB to present its evidence. 68
They also allege that PNB and Atty. Garay engaged in forum- Report and Recommendation of the
shopping when they filed a Motion to Recall Order with the
RTC, in addition to the Petition for Certiorari they earlier filed Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
with the CA.49
The OCA, in its Report,69 found Judge Venadas, Sr.
As to the assailed Order, they contend that Judge Venadas, administratively liable for grave abuse of authority bordering
Sr. did not commit grave abuse of discretion in holding in on gross ignorance of procedure.70 Although the OCA did not
abeyance the implementation of the Writ of Possession touch on the issue of whether Judge Venadas, Sr. should be
because PNB no longer has the legal personality to apply for administratively sanctioned for holding in abeyance the
a Writ of Possession considering that the subject property implementation of the Writ of Possession as it was still
had already been sold to Atty. Garay,50 who they claim is also pending with the CA at that time, it nevertheless found Judge
not entitled to the Writ of Possession as he is disqualified Venadas, Sr. guilty of blatantly disregarding Sections 4, 5,
from purchasing the subject property pursuant to paragraph and 6 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court when he acted on the
5, defective motion filed by spouses Sombilon. 71 It also pointed
out that PNB and Atty. Garay were deprived of their rights to
Article 1491 of the Civil Code.51 due process as no proper notice was sent to them. 72 Thus,
the OCA recommended that:
Atty. Garay’s and PNB’s Arguments
a) the instant administrative complaint be DOCKETED as a
regular administrative complaint;
Atty. Garay, on the other hand, argues that the CA did not err
in granting the Petition for Certiorari as Judge Venadas, Sr.
acted with grave abuse of discretion when he recalled the b) respondent Judge Rolando S. Venadas,Sr. be found guilty
Writ of Possession without notice to him and PNB. 52 He also of gross ignorance of procedure; and
ministerial upon the court. Thus, in view of his blatant disregard of the rules and his
grave abuse of discretion in issuing the assailed Order, and
A debtor has one year from the date the Certificate of Sale is considering that this is his first offense, we find Judge
registered with the Register of Deeds within which to redeem Venadas, Sr. guilty of grave abuse of authority bordering on
his property.75 During the one-year redemption period, the gross ignorance of the law and is hereby fined the amount of
purchaser may possess the property by filing a petition for ₱20,000.00. Incidentally, in the April 18, 2007 Resolution in
the issuance of a writ of possession before the court, upon A.M. No. 12600-Ret.,85 the Court approved the application of
the posting of a bond.76 But after the one-year period, the Judge Venadas, Sr. for disability retirement but withheld the
purchaser has a right to consolidate the title and to possess amount of ₱100,000.00 pending the final resolution of this
the property, without need of a bond.77 And once title is case. In view thereof, the fine of ₱20,000.00 herein imposed
consolidated under the name of the purchaser, the issuance on Judge Venadas, Sr. is to be deducted from the withheld
of the writ of possession becomes ministerial on the part of amount of ₱100,000.00.
the court; thus, no discretion is left to the court.78 Questions
regarding the regularity and validity of the mortgage or the WHEREFORE, in G.R. No. 179914, the Petition is hereby
foreclosure sale may not be raised as a ground to oppose or DENIED. The June 13, 2007 Decision and the August 8,
hold in abeyance the issuance of the writ of possession as 2007 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
these must be raised in a separate action for the annulment 00477-MIN are hereby AFFIRMED.
of the mortgage or the foreclosure sale. 79 The pendency of
such action is also not a ground to stay the issuance of a writ
of possession.80 In Administrative Matter No. RTJ-06-2000, Judge Rolando S.
Venadas, Sr. of the Regional Trial Court of Malaybalay City,
Bukidnon, Branch 8, is hereby found guilty of grave abuse of
In this case, the redemption period had long lapsed when authority bordering on gross ignorance of the law and is
PNB applied for the issuance of the Writ of ordered to pay a FINE of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS
Possession.1âwphi1 In fact, the title over the subject property (₱20,000.00) to be deducted from the withheld amount of
had already been consolidated in PNB’s name. Thus, it was ₱100,000.00 from his retirement benefits pursuant to the
ministerial upon Judge Venadas, Sr. to issue the Writ of April 18, 2007 Resolution in A.M. No. 12600-Ret.
Possession in favor of PNB, the registered owner of the
subject property.
SO ORDERED.
Though there are instances when the issuance of the Writ of
Possession may be deferred,81 we find none of these A.M. MTJ No. 04-1526 February 2, 2004
recognized exceptions present in the instant case. Spouses
Sombilon claim that the sale between PNB and Atty. Garay JOCELYN V. GRAGEDA, complainant
was invalid as it was done in violation of paragraph 5, Article vs.
1491 of the Civil Code. However, the alleged invalidity of the JUDGE NIETO T. TRESVALLES,* Municipal Trial Court,
sale is not a ground to oppose or defer the issuance of the Virac, Catanduanes, respondent.
Writ of Possession as this does not affect PNB’s right to
possess the subject property. Thus, there was no reason for
Judge Venadas, Sr. to hold in abeyance the implementation DECISION
of the Writ of Possession. Clearly, he committed grave abuse
of discretion in issuing the assailed Order holding in CALLEJO, SR., J.:
abeyance the implementation of the Writ of Possession
because PNB, as the registered owner, is entitled to the
possession of the subject property as a matter of right. The instant administrative case arose when Jocelyn V.
Grageda filed an Affidavit-Complaint1 dated January 18, 2000
charging Judge Nieto T. Tresvalles, Municipal Trial Court,
Regarding the failure of PNB and Atty. Garay to move for a Virac, Catanduanes, with gross ignorance of the law and
reconsideration of the assailed Order prior to the availment of abuse of authority relative to Criminal Case No. 5307 entitled
a special civil action for certiorari, we agree with PNB that the People v. Bernardo Tablizo, Jr. for murder.
filing of a motion for reconsideration may be dispensed with
where the decision is a patent nullity or where there is
violation of due process,82 such as in the instant case. The facts that led to the filing of the complaint as summarized
by Executive Judge Romulo P. Atencia, are as follows:
First Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Antonio C.A. Ayo, Jr. of According to the Executive Judge, the actual implementation
the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor thereafter conducted of a warrant of arrest is the responsibility of other
preliminary investigation (I.S. No. 00-30), ultimately functionaries of the government. In fact, the respondent
recommending the filing of an information for murder against issued the warrant of arrest on December 5, 2000, only four
Bernardo P. Tablizo, Jr. with the aggravating circumstances days after the case was filed in his sala on December 1,
of use of motor vehicle, treachery and evident premeditation. 2000. Thus, the respondent cannot be blamed in any wise if
No bail was recommended for the temporary liberty of the the accused was not arrested or held in custody prior to
accused. December 11, 2000.
Thereafter, an information charging Bernardo P. Tablizo, Jr. According to the Executive Judge, the charge that no bail
for murder was filed with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 43, was really granted for the provisional liberty of the accused in
which is now awaiting decision.2 the sum of P30,000 and that the said amount was merely
superimposed on the warrant of arrest is not supported by
The respondent was, thereafter, charged with gross the records. Since the respondent issued an Order on
ignorance of the law, conduct unbecoming of a member of December 5, 2000 fixing the bail at P30,000, the contention
the Bench, failure to conduct himself in a manner that would that no such order granting bail was issued is, likewise,
justify his continued stay in the judiciary, and violation of the devoid of merit. Thus, the Executive Judge concluded, even
Code of Judicial Conduct.3 According to the complainant, the assuming that there was such a superimposition on the
respondent judge granted bail to the accused in Criminal warrant of arrest, the same was merely made to conform to
Case No. 5307 without the requisite bail hearing, despite the the said Order.
fact that there was an eyewitness to the murder who made a
positive identification of the accused. The complainant also Anent the charge that the accused was not required to file a
alleged that the amount of P30,000.00 printed on the Warrant comment on the complaint, the Executive Judge found that
of Arrest issued by the respondent judge appeared to be no fault could be attributed to the respondent on this regard,
"snowpaked," an indication that another entry was previously as it is the prerogative of the accused to submit any pleading
made, possibly a "no bail recommendation." Furthermore, no in his defense. However, the respondent judge failed to make
counter-affidavit or answer was filed by the accused during any findings of facts and the law supporting his action as
the preliminary investigation conducted by the respondent mandated by Section 5, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court.
judge, and it took the police authorities seven days to arrest
the accused after the issuance of the warrant of arrest. Thus:
The Executive Judge also stated that at the time the
respondent judge granted bail to the accused on December
16. I hereby execute this Affidavit to respond to the call in 5, 2000, no application for bail had as yet been filed by the
(sic) to encouraging the public to report erring judges to the accused. Furthermore, no hearing was held to determine
Supreme Court and not to the media, as I am also very much whether the evidence of the prosecution on the guilt of the
concerned, not only of being a victim of injustice, but also of accused was strong or not.7 According to the Executive
being prejudicial to [the] government’s interest as a Judge, a hearing is required to afford the judge a basis for
consequence of incompetence, gross ignorance, misconduct determining the existence of the facts set forth under Section
of the Presiding Judge Nieto T. Tresvalles of the Municipal 6, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court in granting or rejecting a
Trial Court of Virac, Catanduanes in the granting of bail to the plea of bail. Thus, the grant of bail without due hearing
accused, even when the evidence of his guilt was strong and deprives the prosecution of procedural due process, a right to
without an Application for Bail, considering that a Complaint which it is equally entitled to as the defense. Thus:
for Murder was filed, and without an Order, to which the
The respondent’s argument that a hearing is "only necessary It is apparent that the aforementioned finding was made only
if there is an application for admission to bail" is erroneous. for purposes of issuance of a warrant of arrest, as at that
As found by the Executive Judge: time, the accused was still at large. Strictly speaking, this was
not yet a finding of any prima facie case upon which an
Information charging the proper offense should be filed in
…[T]he fact that the accused has not even filed yet any court. The respondent Judge was yet to issue a subpoena to
application for bail at the time bail was fixed on December 5, the accused attaching to it a copy of the complaint and its
2000 aggravates matters. To state the obvious, there was no supporting affidavits and documents as required under Sec. 3
occasion for the respondent Judge to exercise any discretion (a), Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. The accused has not yet
on the matter of bail at that point in time as the accused was submitted any counter-affidavit or has waived the submission
not asking to be released on temporary liberty. The thereof. In other words, preliminary investigation was not yet
respondent Judge should have followed the straight and terminated. Subsequently, however, the respondent Judge
trodden path, well-traveled by members of the bench, that never issued any other resolution on the result of the
bail should not be allowed in cases of murder. It might also preliminary investigation he conducted up to the time he
be worth mentioning, in passing, that the right to bail may be transmitted the records to the Office of the Provincial
waived considering its personal nature. It arises from the time Prosecutor. The respondent Judge did not make any findings
one is placed in the custody of the law. The fact that the of facts and the law supporting his action as mandated by
respondent Judge already granted bail when the accused Sec. 5, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. Therefore, his
has not been arrested yet compounds the aggravation. 10 original, premature finding of probable guilt made on
December 5, 2000 was already his verdict on the preliminary
Admission to bail presupposes the exercise thereof in investigation yet to be conducted. This cavalier disregard of
accordance with law and guided by the applicable legal procedural rules leaves much to be desired. 15
principles. The prosecution must first be accorded an
opportunity to present evidence because by the very nature A judge owes it to himself and his office to know by heart
of deciding applications for bail, it is on the basis of such basic legal principles and to harness his legal know-how
evidence that judicial discretion is weighed against in correctly and justly – anything less than that is constitutive of
determining whether the guilt of the accused is strong. In the serious charge of gross ignorance of the law, perhaps,
other words, discretion must be exercised regularly, legally, grave misconduct.16 In Celestina B. Corpuz vs. Judge
and within the confines of due process, that is, after the Orlando F. Siapno,17 we had the occasion to state, thus:
evaluation of the evidence submitted by the prosecution. 11 In
this case, the respondent judge motu proprio granted bail to
the accused. The prosecution was not even afforded an When a judge displays an utter unfamiliarity with the law and
opportunity to present its evidence, in accordance with the the rules, he erodes the confidence of the public in the
Rules. courts. A judge owes the public and the court the duty to be
proficient in the law and is expected to keep abreast of laws
and the prevailing jurisprudence. Ignorance of the law by a
We likewise agree with the finding of the Executive Judge judge can easily be the mainspring of injustice.18
that the respondent’s claim of good faith will not exonerate
him from administrative liability.
While the Executive Judge agreed that the respondent
should be held administratively liable, it was recommended
The respondent Judge also argues in his Position Paper that he be merely reprimanded, as "a balancing of the
submitted to the undersigned Executive Judge that there is equities involved should tilt the scales in favor of the
absolutely no evidence to show that he was motivated by bad respondent for his loyalty, diligence and reliability." Thus:
faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption in granting bail. As such,
he argues that his act which was done in his official capacity
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |60
There are six (6) first level courts in the Province of On July 7, 2009, respondent judge issued an Order 2 directing
Catanduanes. Of these, five (5) do not have incumbent the issuance of a TRO "effective seventy two (72) hours from
judges. As the only judge in the first level courts, respondent date of issue," without requiring Obico to put up a bond.
Judge Nieto T. Tresvalles has, for many years, been Acting Complainants allege that at that time, they were not yet in
Judge of all the other vacant courts which are scattered receipt of the summons and copy of the complaint, as well as
throughout the island province, accessible only through dirt Obico’s affidavit and bond. Complainants claim that this is
mountain roads. This necessarily entailed great sacrifices on violative of Section 4(c) and (d) of Rule 58 of the Rules of
the part of the respondent Judge, not to mention that the Court.
extra remuneration given to Judges for sitting in vacant salas
is a mere pittance. Inasmuch as this administrative matter
On July 14, 2009, respondent judge issued an
concerns the official acts of the respondent, equity demands Order3 extending the 72-hour TRO, which had already
that the bad be weighed together with the good.
expired, "for another period provided that the total period
should not exceed twenty days." Again, respondent judge
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the undersigned is inclined to failed to require Obico to put up a bond even as complainants
adopt the recommendation of the Office of the Court assert that it is already of judicial notice that a TRO under the
Administrator that the respondent Judge Nieto T. Tresvalles amended new rules has been elevated to the level of an
be FINED in the amount of P10,000.00 with a STERN injunction.
WARNING that a repetition of the same act shall be dealt
with more severely. However, considering that the said In his Resolution4 dated August 11, 2009, respondent judge
respondent is in the twilight of his career with the Judiciary, ordered, among others, the issuance of the writ of preliminary
as his compulsory retirement is scheduled in January of the injunction conditioned upon the application of a bond by
coming year which is barely two (2) months away, and Obico in the amount of ₱100,000.00. Complainants argue,
considering further that the respondent Judge did the
however, that said directive was violative of Section 5, Rule
yeoman’s job of single-handedly operating the judicial 58 of the Rules of Court since they were not required "to
machinery in the Province of Catanduanes for many years as
show cause, at a specific time and place, why the injunction
the only first level court Judge in the entire province, it is the should not be granted."
respectful recommendation of the undersigned that
respondent Judge Nieto T. Tresvalles be instead only
REPRIMANDED. …19 Due to these acts of respondent judge, complainants filed a
motion for inhibition5 from further hearing the case, since they
perceive that respondent judge was bereft of the cold
The records show that the respondent judge compulsorily
neutrality of an impartial judge. The motion was denied by
retired on January 22, 2004, having served thirty-four years respondent judge in his Resolution6 dated October 28, 2009.
in the judiciary. Under the circumstances, the Court finds that Complainants thus consider respondent judge’s non-
a fine of P10,000.00 is just and reasonable. inhibition as violative of the Code of Judicial Conduct, as it
denied them due process and equal protection of the law.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Nieto T. Tresvalles is
found GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law and is FINED in On November 11, 2009, respondent judge issued an
the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) to be Order7 upon Obico’s motion, directing the reduction of the
deducted from his retirement benefits. bond from ₱100,000.00 to ₱50,000.00.
(a) The application in the action or proceeding is verified, and The trial court, the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan or
shows facts entitling the applicant to the relief demanded; the Court of Tax Appeals that issued a writ of preliminary
and injunction against a lower court, board, officer, or quasi-
judicial agency shall decide the main case or petition within
(b) Unless exempted by the court, the applicant files with the six (6) months from the issuance of the writ.13
court where the action or proceeding is pending, a bond
executed to the party or person enjoined, in an amount to be Culled from the foregoing provisions, particularly with respect
fixed by the court, to the effect that the applicant will pay such to the second paragraph of Section 5, Rule 58 of the Rules of
party or person all damages which he may sustain by reason Court, as amended, it is clear that, on the matter of the
of the injunction or temporary restraining order if the court issuance of an ex parte 72-hour TRO, an executive judge of
should finally decide that the applicant was not entitled a multiple-sala court (applicable to respondent judge), or the
thereto. Upon approval of the requisite bond, a writ of presiding judge of a single-sala court, is empowered to issue
preliminary injunction shall be issued. the same in matters of extreme emergency, in order to
prevent grave injustice and irreparable injury to the applicant.
(c) When an application for a writ of preliminary injunction or However, it is also an unequivocal provision that, after the
a temporary restraining order is included in a complaint or issuance of the 72-hour TRO, the executive judge of a
any initiatory pleading, the case, if filed in a multiple-sala multiple-sala court is bound to comply with Section 4(c) of the
court, shall be raffled only after notice to and in the presence same rule with respect to the service of summons and the
of the adverse party or the person to be enjoined. In any documents to be served therewith.
event, such notice shall be preceded, or contemporaneously
accompanied by service of summons, together with a copy of The records of this case clearly show that respondent judge
the complaint or initiatory pleading and the applicant’s failed to cause the raffle of Civil Case No. 2009-905, since
affidavit and bond, upon the adverse party in the Philippines. RTC, Gingoog City, is a multiple-sala court, or to cause the
notification and service of summons to complainants after he
However, where the summons could not be served issued the 72-hour TRO. Respondent judge’s July 7, 2009
personally or by substituted service despite diligent efforts, or Order was explicit when the civil case was set for summary
the adverse party is a resident of the Philippines temporarily hearing on July 14, 2009, purportedly to determine whether
absent therefrom or is a nonresident thereof, the requirement or not the TRO issued could be extended for another period.
of prior or contemporaneous service of summons shall not Thus, it is manifest that respondent judge had directly
apply. assumed jurisdiction over the civil action and all together
disregarded the mandatory requirements of Section 4(c),
Rule 58, relative to the raffle in the presence of the parties,
(d) The application for a temporary restraining order shall and service of summons. This is gross error.
thereafter be acted upon only after all parties are heard in a
summary hearing which shall be conducted within twenty-four
What is more appalling is that respondent judge extended the Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court classifies gross
72-hour TRO, which had already and obviously expired, into ignorance of the law or procedure as a serious offense for
a full 20-day TRO. An already expired TRO can no longer be which the imposable sanction ranges from dismissal from the
extended. Respondent judge should have known that the
service to suspension from office, and a fine of more than
TRO he issued in his capacity as an acting executive judge ₱20,000.00 but not exceeding ₱40,000.00. Under the
was valid for only 72 hours. Beyond such time, the TRO
premises, this Court finds it appropriate to impose on
automatically expires, unless, before the expiration of the respondent judge the penalty of a fine in the amount of
said period, he, supposedly in his capacity as presiding judge
₱25,000.00.
to whom the case was raffled, conducted the required
summary hearing in order to extend the TRO’s lifetime.
Indubitably, a 72-hour TRO, issued by an executive judge, is WHEREFORE, Judge Godofredo B. Abul, Jr., of the Regional
a separate and distinct TRO which can stand on its own, Trial Court, Branch 43, Gingoog City, is found liable for Gross
regardless of whether it is eventually extended or not. It is Ignorance of the Law and Procedure, and is hereby meted a
not, as respondent judge attempts to impress upon us, a fine of ₱25,000.00, with a stern warning that a repetition of
mere part of the 20-day TRO issued by a presiding judge to the same, or any similar infraction in the future, shall be dealt
whom the case is raffled. with more severely.
In his Memorandum Report dated February 12, 2004, Court Complainant may strongly disagree with the decisions of the
Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. recommends that respondents but unsubstantiated allegations of grave
complainant be cited for contempt of court for filing an misconduct and gross ignorance of the law serve no purpose
unfounded or baseless complaint. He opines: other than to harass judges and cast doubt on the integrity of
the entire judiciary. As a member of the bar for half a
Complainant’s explanation is lacking in substance, and his century,24 complainant should know better than to file an
theory of conspiracy is based on mere suspicion and unfounded administrative complaint.
speculation. The connection which complainant seeks to
establish from the order to file ejectment case against him Verily, this Court is once again called upon to reiterate that,
and the decision reached in said case is tenuous, and that although the Court will never tolerate or condone any act,
the conclusion he seeks to draw that there was conspiracy is conduct or omission that would violate the norm of public
without any basis. accountability or diminish the peoples’ faith in the judiciary,
neither will it hesitate to shield those under its employ from
......... unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than
promote the orderly administration of justice. 25
...
You are likewise directed to make a return of the proceedings
taken thereon within sixty (60) days from receipt hereof. [5]
5. To declare the photocopies of all the aforesaid documents
The Sheriff returned the writ of execution unsatisfied. that were viewed, examined, and thoroughly scrutinized by
Defendant corporations filed their separate motions for the Court as aforesaid, vis--vis their originals as
reconsideration of the issuance of the writ of execution and unquestionably authenticated personally by the undersigned,
as faithful, true and correct copies of their respective
for the quashal thereof, insisting that there is nothing left to
execute since plaintiffs claims had already been paid in originals.
accordance with the compromise agreements. They prayed 6. And finally, to declare the proceedings in the above-
for the reception of evidence to prove their defense; that entitled case in this venue terminated and/or the task set out
respondent himself oversee and monitor the photocopying, to be done by the Court in coming to the Consulate Generals
certification and authentication of the individual release and Office of San Francisco, California, U.S.A. functus oficio. [8]
other related settlement documents which are in the
safekeeping of the law firm in Houston, Texas, U.S.A. They Complainant filed the instant administrative case against
likewise manifested that they are willing to defray the respondent alleging that respondent committed (1) grave
expenses of the proceedings in the U.S. Plaintiffs counsel abuse of discretion in issuing the Order dated June 30, 2003,
opposed such motions and argued that it is too late for the staying the service of the writ of execution and directing
presentation of evidence and objected to the presentation of himself and his staff to go to the U.S. for further reception of
evidentiary documents in the U.S. evidence; (2) direct bribery when he suspended the writ of
execution because defendants offered him free trip to the
On June 30, 2003, respondent issued an Order [6] granting U.S., with free passport and visa services, free round trip
defendants separate motions for reception of evidence in the tickets, free hotel accommodations, food and daily
U.S., at the expense of defendant corporations; and stating allowances for the duration of his stay therein; (3) violation
that further implementation of the writ of execution which was of B.P. Blg. 129 on territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
returned unsatisfied is held in abeyance or suspended until Court when he conducted court sessions in San Francisco,
the proceedings in the U.S. shall have been terminated California, U.S.A., from August 27 to September 29, 2003
and/or completed. without authorization from the Supreme Court; (4) violations
of Canons of Judicial Ethics (a) for not being studiously
Respondent wrote the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA) a letter dated July 3, 2003, requesting permission to careful to avoid even the slightest infraction of the law, and
(b) when he accepted the offer of defendants for a free trip
be on court duty pursuant to his Omnibus Order dated June
30, 2003 and/or for leave of absence after the completion of with accommodations to the U.S.; and (5) violation of Art. 206
such court duty to visit his daughter in New York, U.S.A. to of the Revised Penal Code by issuing an unjust Order dated
last not later than August 26, 2003.[7] September 29, 2003 ordering the stay of the execution of the
writ in order to gather, receive and appreciate xerox copies of
On July 18, 2003, respondent issued an Order to evidence submitted to him in the course of the illegal court
supplement/ implement his Order dated June 30, 2003 session held in the U.S.
outlining the details of the U.S. proceedings, to wit: members
of the parties, venue, duration, and the reasonable expenses Judge Grageda filed his comment which is summarized by
for travel, food and accommodations, personnel and the OCA in its Memorandum,[9] as follows:
equipment which shall be jointly shouldered by the
defendants. On the charge of Grave Abuse of Discretion
WHEREFORE, the Court, hereby, RESOLVES: 6. He vehemently denies that he made a complete turn-
around and ordered a stay of the writ of execution and
... directed himself and his staff to have a trip to USA in blatant
disregard of the rules of court. The complainant did not state
what particular rule was violated. On the contrary, the Order
2. To direct once more the Consulate Generals Office, again,
dated 30 June 2003 was arrived at by virtue of his authority in
through the support and assistance of Consul General Delia
the same manner and with the same bases as his other
Menez Rosal, Consuls Eduardo Malaya, and Leoncio
orders and issuances. In fact he cited in his said order the
Cardenas, and all their staff to transmit to Branch 4, Regional
rule and the law supporting his conclusions;
Trial Court, Hall of Justice, Panabo City, Davao del Norte,
Philippines, the evidentiary documents consisting of affidavits
of witnesses, separate and distinct Compromise Agreements, IV. On the charge of Direct Bribery
Amendment to the Compromise Agreement, Trust
Agreements, Court records pertaining to the probate of the 1. He denies the charge for being baseless;
Trust Agreement, the Releases in Full for the manufacturers
Dow, Occidental and Shell, the Releases in Full of Chiquita
and the Releases in Full of the Del Monte defendants, the 2. He did not order the suspension of the service of the writ of
checks and drafts duly authenticated, including microfilm execution, which was in fact served and implemented by the
copies and bank certificates, the bank documents pertaining sheriff;
to the deposit of the settlement amounts of the respective
settling defendants Dow, Occidental, Shell, Chiquita and Del
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |67
3. In support of complainants claim that the defendants proceedings abroad, as well as all the pleadings and
offered him a free trip to USA should he (Judge Grageda) documents on record, this Office finds that there are
suspend the service of the writ of execution are the reasonable grounds to hold the respondent administratively
pleadings/motions filed by the parties in the subject case, but liable.
nowhere in said pleadings/motions could they find support to
such claim; This Office received Judge Gragedas letter dated July 3,
2003, requesting permission to be on court duty in
4. As a judge, it is his bounden duty to act on all motions. His connection with an Omnibus Order dated 30 June 2003,
ruling on the motions filed before him or his orders and which he issued in the subject case. Full text of the said letter
issuances are correctible by ordinary appeal or certiorari, is quoted as follows:
which complainant dismally failed;
Sir,
5. His trip to San Francisco was prayed for by the defendants
and agreed by the plaintiffs. The reason for said trip is to May I ask your permission to be on court duty pursuant to
ferret out the truth regarding the diametrically conflicting Omnibus Order in Civil Case No. 95-45, dated 30th June
claims of the plaintiffs and the defendants as to payment of 2003, copy whereof I had caused you to be furnished but for
defendants obligations to plaintiffs pursuant to the your immediate reference I have hereto appended another
compromise settlement approved by the court. It is his lawful
copy and/or for leave of absence on my forfeitable leave after
discretion and duty under the law to hold in abeyance the the completion of the court duties in accordance with the
further implementation of the writ of execution to avoid a
above-mentioned order to visit relatives, particularly, a
miscarriage of justice; daughter in New York I have not seen for the last three (3)
years to last not later than August 26, 2003.
V. On the charge of Violation of BP 129 -
Trusting in your esteemed condescension on the matter with
1. The rationale for the conduct of proceedings in the my unstinting loyalty and devotion to the service, I am.
Philippines Consulate Generals Office, San Francisco,
California, U.S.A. was explained in full in his Order dated 30 Very truly yours,
June 2003;
3. To suit their ends, complainant grossly twisted and On a follow-up made by Judge Grageda, he was informed
misinterpreted his Order dated 18 July 2003, which he is that his request will be denied because a Filipino judge has
estopped to question because it was issued after due no legal authority to exercise judicial powers and render
deliberation in court and with the conformity of the parties; judicial services outside the Philippine territory. Thus, he filed
a letter dated August 11, 2003 asking instead permission to
travel to the United States only to visit a daughter. Full text of
VII. On the charge of Violation of Art. 206 of the Revised said letter-request is quoted as follows:
Penal Code -
Sir,
1. The charge is self-serving, baseless and erroneous or
twisted misinterpretation of his orders primarily because he
did not decide Civil Case No. 95-45 on 15 April 2003 and May I ask your permission to travel to the U.S. to visit a
neither did he issue an order to stay the execution of the writ daughter using my forfeitable leave from August 26-30, 2003
of execution on 29 September 2003; and from Sept. 1 to 15, 2003 and/or vacation leave.
RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the In fine, the court agrees with the movant defendants and
holds that the examination of documents to determine their
consideration and approval of the Honorable Court are to
(sic) recommendations that: existence, due execution or authenticity is imperative as such
examination will supply conclusive answers to the burning
questions on whether or not the plaintiffs have been paid, or
1. The matter be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative in the alternative, the defendants have satisfied or complied
matter; with their obligations under the settlements or compromise
agreements, approved by this court, which they respectively
2. Judge Jesus L. Grageda be suspended for a period of six entered into with the plaintiffs.
(6) months for Grave Misconduct in conducting judicial
proceedings at the Consulate Generals Office in San The approval of the proceedings prayed for by the movant
Francisco California USA, without authority from the defendants appear [s] to be squarely supported by the
Honorable Court. following provision of the Rules of Court thus:
We agree with the findings and recommendations of the OCA Means to carry jurisdiction into effect When by law jurisdiction
that respondent should be held administratively liable for is conferred on a court or a judicial officer, all auxiliary writs,
conducting the proceedings in the U.S. without the Courts processes and other means necessary to carry it into effect
approval. may be employed by such court or officer; and if the
procedure to be followed in the exercise of such jurisdiction is
It clearly appears in the records that respondent was granted not specifically pointed out by law or by these rules, any
authority to travel in the U.S. from August 26 to September suitable process or mode of processing may be adopted
15, 2003 for the sole purpose of visiting his daughter. While which appears conformable to the spirit of said law or rules
he did ask the permission of this Court to be on court duty for (Sec. 6, Rule 135, Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines,
the photocopying, certification, authentication and submission underscoring supplied).
of all original documents, relative to defendants claim of
payment of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 95-45, there is no
showing that the same was granted. In fact, Deputy Court WHEREFORE, pursuant to Sect. 6, Rule 135, supra,
Administrator (DCA) Christopher Lock had submitted to the defendants Shell Oils Amended Motion as well as the kindred
Court Administrator a memorandum dated July 18, 2003 motions of defendants Del Monte, Chiquita and Dow &
recommending for the denial of such request. Although, such Occidental for reception of evidence and or examination,
denial had not been submitted to and passed upon by the photocopying, authentication . . . etc. of documents, being
Court, respondent wrote another letter requesting permission meritorious are, hereby, GRANTED. Said defendants are
to travel to the U.S. to visit his daughter using his forfeitable ordered to submit to this court for examination. On August 4,
and/or vacation leave from August 26 to September 15, 2003 2003 and everyday thereafter until proceedings are
which was granted by the Court. However, as embodied in completed, all their documentary evidence, to wit: settlement
respondents Order dated September 29, 2003, he conducted or release documents with the plaintiffs, trust agreements
the proceedings from August 27, 2003 up to September 29, with commercial or banking institutions, payment checks to
2003 despite the fact that his authority to go to the U.S. was the latter and/or to the individual plaintiffs with the latters
only to visit his daughter from August 26 to September 15, acknowledgment receipts, authority of certain
2003. From September 16 onwards, he was already absent agents/attorneys to represent the plaintiffs and all other
without leave as his request for an extension made through related documents in an appropriate consular office of the
his daughter in Manila was denied by the Court because the Philippines in the United States pursuant to the principle of
same was not seasonably filed. extra-territoriality, the expenses, facilities, equipment and
support personnel to carry out in full the said court
Respondent claims that his action in conducting the proceedings to be borne proportionately by the movant
proceedings in the U.S. was motivated by his honest belief to defendants in accordance with their
ferret out the whole truth in very complicated issues. agreement/manifestations, supra, before this court; to
Pertinent portions of the June 30, 2003 Order read: expedite the conduct of the said proceedings herein ordered
to be undertaken, the defendants are likewise, pursuant to
To reiterate at the core of the pending matter(s) to be Sec. 3, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court directed to submit
resolved is whether or not on the bases of the settlements supporting affidavits of their witnesses attesting to the factual
entered into by the plaintiffs and defendants Shell Oil, DOW averments in their respective motion for reconsideration and
& Occidental, Del Monte and Chiquita the former have been to furnish plaintiffs with copies thereof within ten (10) days
paid or have received the monetary proceeds or benefits from receipt hereof and said witnesses should be made
arising from the said settlements which this Court approved available for cross-examination in the proceedings to be
by way of Judgment(s) on Compromise under the milestone conducted, as aforesaid, in the United States; action on the
omnibus order of December 20, 2002 under which, the motions for reconsideration of the order dated 15th April 2003,
plaintiffs moved for execution resulting in the questioned and on the Ex-Parte Motion for Amendment of the Writ of
order of April 15, 2003 and the equally questioned writ issued Execution, the further implementation, which to date has
on April 23, 2003. been returned by the sheriff, supra, unsatisfied, of the writ of
execution and the quashal or recall thereof are held in
abeyance or suspended until the said proceedings in the
United States shall have been terminated and/or completed.
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |69
Let copies of this order be immediately served upon the not been paid arising from the compromise settlement from
parties for their respective information, guidance and the defendants specially since the defendants have
compliance.[11] shown prima facie bases that they have documentary
evidence tending to prove that they have satisfied their
Respondents purpose for his action may be commendable obligations under the compromise agreement. Respondent
since he wanted to be sure that the contentions of defendant honestly believed that there was a need for further reception
corporations that plaintiffs had already been paid in of defendants documentary evidence proving payment
thereof, thus, he granted defendants motion for reception of
accordance with their settlement by the proofs of plaintiffs
execution of release and receipt documents. However, the evidence where the expenses for such trip will be
proportionately shared by the defendant corporations as
means in which he set his intention cannot have the approval
of the Court. It must be remembered that no matter how manifested. Clearly, respondent ordered the suspension of
the further implementation of the writ of execution only after
noble respondents intention was, he is not at liberty to
commit acts of judicial indiscretion. The proceedings the same was returned unsatisfied and because he was no
conducted by respondent abroad are outside the territorial longer sure of the validity and integrity of such issuance; and
jurisdiction of the Philippine Courts. He is the Presiding not because he was offered a free trip to the U.S. It just so
Judge of Branch 4 of the Regional Trial Court for the happened that the documentary evidence which would prove
Eleventh Judicial Region, the territorial jurisdiction of which is payment is in the U.S., hence defendants prayed for the
limited only to Panabo, Davao del Norte. [12] This Court had reception of evidence in the U.S. and offered to defray the
expenses. Respondent approved the conduct of the judicial
not granted him any authority to conduct the proceedings
abroad. proceedings abroad which, however, is improper for being
outside of his courts territorial jurisdiction and without the
Secondly, respondents reliance on Section 6, Rule 135 of the courts approval.
Rules of Court, i.e., when there is no specific law or rules to
carry out courts jurisdiction, he may adopt suitable process or Notably, respondent, in implementing his Order dated June
mode to effect the same, to justify his action is unacceptable. 30, 2003 for the reception of evidence in the U.S., issued
Notably, respondent, in his reply to DCA Locks another Order dated July 18, 2003, where he stated among
memorandum, admitted that he asked permission to conduct others, the persons who will represent the plaintiffs which
the proceeding abroad to receive evidence, thus he knew included plaintiffs counsel and herein complainant, whose
that he must first secure the Courts approval. It bears travel and accommodation expenses for the trip shall also be
stressing that cases are decided on the basis of evidence jointly shouldered by the defendants. Although plaintiffs
counsel did not attend the proceedings, records show that he
presented before the court, thus it is incumbent upon the
party who is to be benefited by such evidence to produce the received the said order since he even filed a motion to
include his wife as a member of the plaintiffs party. Clearly,
same, no matter how voluminous and burdensome, in
accordance with the rules for the courts appreciation and respondents action showed that he wanted all the parties to
evaluation. It is not respondents duty to secure these be represented and given the chance to examine the
documents for the defendants, as he is the judge in the documents and ferret out the truth.
pending case and not the counsel of the defendants. Judges Complainant charges respondent of violating Canon 22 of
in their zeal to search for the truth should not lose the proper Judicial Ethics which provides that the judge should be
judicial perspective, and should see to it that in the execution studiously careful himself to avoid even the slightest
of their duties, they do not overstep the limitations of their infraction of the law, lest it be demoralizing example to
power as laid by the rules of procedure. [13] The Court finds others. He contends that respondent violated the Canon
respondent guilty of gross misconduct in conducting the when he conducted an illegal court session in the U.S.
proceedings in the U.S. without the Courts authority. Although respondent erroneously conducted the proceedings
abroad, we find that his action was done in good faith. He
Complainant further claims that respondent abused his
discretion in issuing the Order dated June 30, 2003 was of the honest belief that it was sanctioned by law.
approving the reception of defendants evidence in the U.S. Complainant further accuses respondent of violating Section
Assuming respondent might have acted in abuse of 29 of Canons of Judicial Ethics which states that he should
discretion in issuing the orders complained of, it does not not accept any presents or favors from litigants or from
necessarily follow that he acted in bad faith. Abuse of lawyers practicing before him. He claims that respondent
discretion by a trial court does not necessarily mean ulterior accepted the offer when he issued the Orders dated June 30,
motive, arbitrary conduct or willful disregard of a litigants 2003 and July 18, 2003 directing himself and his staff to go to
rights.[14] As held in Balsamo vs. Suan,[15] we held: the U.S. for the reception of evidence. Again, the charge is
baseless. Records show that respondent indeed went to the
. . . [A]s a matter of policy, in the absence of fraud, U.S. for the purpose of receiving the evidence of the
dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial defendants. In his Compliance to DCA Locks Memorandum
capacity are not subject to disciplinary action even though dated October 27, 2003 directing him to explain (1) why he
such acts are erroneous. He cannot be subjected to liability conducted the court proceedings in the U.S. without authority
civil, criminal or administrative - for any of his official acts, no from the Court and while he was on leave, and (2) pointing
matter how erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith. In out that his travel authority was from August 26, 2003 to
such a case, the remedy of the aggrieved party is not to file September 15, 2003 thus after September 15, 2003 he was
an administrative complaint against the judge but to elevate considered AWOL, respondent submitted the following
the error to the higher court for review and correction. The explanations, thus:
Court has to be shown acts or conduct of the judge clearly
indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before the latter can be As early as 3 July 2003, I wrote a letter to the Hon. Presbitero
branded the stigma of being biased and partial. Thus, not J. Velasco, our indefatigable and esteemed Court
every error or mistake that a judge commits in the Administrator, asking permission to conduct the proceedings.
performance of his duties renders him liable, unless he is But, unfortunately, in my honest recollection, I did not receive
shown to have acted in bad faith or with deliberate intent to any information that action, whether favorable or not, was
do an injustice. Good faith and absence of malice, corrupt taken on my request. When the period determined in the said
motives or improper considerations are sufficient defenses in orders came about, things having been set irretrievably in
which a judge charged with ignorance of the law can find motion with all parties notified and preparations in the chosen
refuge. venue done, I did travel to San Francisco, California, U.S.A.
and conducted the proceedings in the Consulate Generals
Complainant likewise charges respondent of bribery when he Office of the said place by virtue of my duties and functions
ordered the suspension of the service of the writ of execution as presiding Judge over the said case. I did so in good faith
after he was allegedly offered by the losing party defendants and in the clear honest belief that as the sole judge over the
a free trip to the U.S. for the reception of further evidence said case I am, exclusively, in the first instance, absent any
despite plaintiffs vehement opposition. We find such claim as superior courts prohibition, called upon and mandated by law
mere conjecture. Notably, after the issuance of the writ of to resolve very difficult issues, as said above, brought up
execution on April 23, 2003, the sheriff implemented it the before me. I also honestly believe that as the sole judge over
following day by serving notices of garnishment to the head the said case I was indubitably vested by law not only with
offices of the various banks operating in the country based in incidental but express powers or authority to successfully
Metro Manila. However, these banks replied that defendants perform my job, however difficult, in the said case. I also
have no assets with them subject for garnishment, thus the honestly believe that I would be held accountable if I did not
writ of execution was returned unsatisfied. [16] Defendant act either way while indubitable empowered by law with the
corporations filed several motions for reconsideration of the exclusive discretion and authority to do so and, finally, I
order of execution and to quash the writ of execution. honestly believe that it is for such mandatory performance of
Respondent, after reviewing those motions, admitted that he duties and functions that I was duly appointed judge, qualified
was no longer sure on the claims of plaintiffs that they had and invested by law with the necessary powers and authority
to perform judicial duties, which modesty aside, with the
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |70
guiding hand of the Almighty I exactly did to the best of my initials, with decided, deliberate and purposeful rigorous
ability and without blemish in the more than eight (8) years scrutiny of the said documents in the faithful performance of
now that I have served the judiciary in the capacity of RTC the task of properly authenticating them, the raison detre for
judge. the Courts repairing(sic) to this venue in the Consulate
Generals Office of San Francisco, California, U.S.A.
With due respect, let me stress that I was thousands of miles
away in San Francisco, California, U.S.A. It was thus nigh The Court, after crossing the ocean from the Philippines and
impossible for me to personally file or execute a written coming to the friendly shores of San Francisco, fully realized
application for the extension of my leave of absence. The the magnitude of the task it was duty-bound to do. In the best
only way I thought would be feasible under the circumstances interest of truth as the only sound basis for the proper
to effectively reach the OCA was to ask, by texting mode administration of justice, after it has duly authenticated each
over a cellphone, the help of no less than a daughter of mine, and every photocopy of the documents consisting of
namely, Sheila Marie Grageda-Florendo, a Clerk III in Branch Compromise Agreements, Hold Harmless Agreements, and
47 of the RTC in Manila to do the errand for me. At first my Releases in Full and receipts of the settlement proceeds by
said daughter was reluctant to do my bidding but I told her: the plaintiffs from the defendant corporations, Shell Oil, Dow
go to the OCA and request an extension of my leave of and Occidental, Del Monte defendants and the Chiquita
absence. Identify yourself as my daughter and because you defendants, drafts, checks, and microfiche copies including
are my daughter they will believe you. 23 other releases and drafts for the plaintiffs whose status as
parties in the above-entitled case is not clear now, but ad
My said daughter did go to the OCA in accordance with my cautelum, have been provisionally received and/or admitted
instructions. But she was informed that my request was late by the Court to preclude the need for the Court to repair(sic)
because a request for an extension of a leave of absence back to this venue in case those individuals are indeed
plaintiffs in the above-entitled case.
had to be filed ten (10) days before expiration of the original
period of allowed leave of absence of the applicant. In the
face of such peremptory information from a person in the The Court also, viewed the originals and authenticated the
OCA my daughter easily lost heart at the requirement of ten- photocopies of the following documents: consisting of
days before and thus, I failed to get an extension of my leave affidavits of witnesses, five (5) separate and distinct
of absence. But I was in San Francisco not on a vacation, in Compromise Agreements of Shell, Dow, Occidental, Del
mid-stream drowned at hard work and compelled to proceed Monte and Chiquita, First Amendment to the Compromise
with the work until terminated as envisioned in the said order, Agreement (Shell, Dow, Occidental), trust Agreements, Court
supra, dated 30 June 2003. records pertaining to the probate of the Trust Agreement
(Shell, Dow and Occidental), the Releases in Full for the
Thus, definitely I had attempted to secure an extension from manufacturers Dow, Occidental and Shell, the Releases in
the OCA of my leave of absence but such attempt was, Full of Chiquita and the Releases in Full of the Del Monte
unfortunately unsuccessful due to an unexpected confluence defendants, the checks and drafts, including microfiche
of events and circumstances occasioned principally by copies and bank certificates, the bank documents pertaining
pressure of work aggravated by distance from the OCA. [17] to the deposit of the settlement amounts of the respective
settling defendants Dow, Occidental, Shell, Chiquita and Del
Monte, and related documents thereto.
...
In addition, consularized affidavits attached to faithful copies
With due respect, may I say that the proceedings I presided of statutes and cases were also received and marked as
over as a judge in San Francisco were done purely along the exhibits to prove the applicable Texas law.
lines of duty and in furtherance of justice. While admittedly
unprecedented, such proceedings, as said above, were
necessary for the resolution of very difficult and intractable Finally, also received and marked as exhibits were hundreds
issues raised by the parties in the said Civil Case No. 95-45 of settlements statements and payment vouchers containing
pending before my sala. photographs of the settling plaintiffs contained in two (2)
boxes sent by Fred Misko to Samuel Stubbs and received by
the latter while he was testifying in Court on September 23,
However, in embarking on the pursuance of such 2003. Also in the said boxes were photocopies of retainer
proceedings abroad I realized and regret in full that I may agreements executed by the plaintiffs and according to the
have incurred shortcomings, such as my unsuccessful testimony of Fred Misko, the originals thereof are in the
attempt to secure an extension of my leave of absence possession of Atty. Renato Ma. Callanta. Fred Misko also
pursuant to the usual regulation of the OCA. [18] sent a copy of the Final Judgment rendered by the Texas
Court in the RICO case he filed against Atty. Macadangdang,
Respondent performed his duties and conducted the DCAI, Alberto Lanohan and Edgardo Maquiran, without
proceedings abroad as evidenced by his Order dated prejudice to proper authentication in the future. [20]
September 29, 2003, to wit:
Considering that respondent went to the U.S. for the purpose
. . . From August 27, 2003 up to now, September 29, 2003, of conducting the proceedings, his travel was paid for by the
the court performed exactly the job it set out to do by virtue of defendant corporations pursuant to his June 30, 2003 Order
the said orders.[19] wherein it was provided that the expenses, facilities,
equipment and support personnel who would carry out in full
the court proceedings in the U.S. shall be borne
... proportionately by the defendants as manifested by them.
Thus, the payment of respondents expenses for the U.S. trip
In the course of the proceedings, the defendants called to the cannot be considered as acceptance of favors.
witness stand to testify on various pending issues no less
than twelve (12) witnesses, in the following order, namely Based on the foregoing, it would appear that respondents
Michael L. Brem, Fred Misko, Jr., Richard Burt Ballanfant, D. intention in going to the U.S. was really for the purpose of
Ferguson McNeil, Rue Lynn Allen, retired Supreme Court of conducting the proceedings in the Consulate Office and he
Texas Judge Ruby Kless Sondock, Laureen Suba, Beth merely used the reason of visiting his daughter to be granted
Defenbaugh, Mickey M.A. Mills, Samuel E. Stubbs, Robert a travel authority. His travel authority to visit his daughter was
Greig, and Stephen Ostrowski, six (6) of whom are besides granted from August 26 to September 15, 2003, and as soon
counsel or representatives of the defendant corporations as he was in the U.S., he started conducting the proceedings
faithfully performing specific tasks for the respective from August 27 to September 29, 2003.
defendants. They hailed from as far as New York City and Finally, complainant also charges respondent of knowingly
Dallas and Houston, Texas. In particular, said witnesses, rendering unjust judgment under Art. 206 of the Revised
under the direction and control of the respective defendants Penal Code, which constitutes a serious charge under
Philippine counsel brought to the Court tens of boxes of Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court,[21] for his Orders
voluminous documents in their original and photocopies, the dated June 30, 2003 and September 29, 2003. We find the
latter for marking as exhibits and for viewing, inspection, and same devoid of merit. As a rule, the acts of a judge which
authentication by the Court vis--vis their respective originals, pertain to his judicial functions are not subject to disciplinary
which the Court, through the undersigned, meticulously, in power unless they are committed with fraud, dishonesty,
fact, viewed, inspected, noted, authenticated, box after box, corruption or bad faith. To hold otherwise would be to render
volume after volume, page after page, entry upon entry, judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the
signature after signature, particularly and painstakingly facts or interpret the law in the process of administering
leaving nothing to chance, even a speck, color, condition of justice can be infallible in his judgment. [22] While respondent
the documents, or any discrepancy in spelling of names and issued the Order dated June 30, 2003 for the reception of
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |71
evidence in the U.S. and the Order dated September 29, that constitutes gross misconduct for which he should be
2003, which may not be in accordance with the rules, it administratively liable. Under Section 11, Rule 140 of the
cannot be a basis for administrative action under this charge Rules of Court, gross misconduct is a serious charge
since there was no showing that he intentionally and willfully punishable by dismissal from the service; suspension from
rendered it knowing it to be unjust. The failure of respondent office without salary and other benefits for more than three
to correctly interpret the law does not render him (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; and a fine of more
administratively liable. The ruling in Basa Air Base Savings & than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00. The fact that
Loan Association, Inc., vs. Judge Gregorio G. Pimentel, this is respondents first offense in his 9 years of judicial
Jr.,[23] is instructive: service with a good performance record is a mitigating
circumstance. Hence, we find that suspension for six months
A charge of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment without salary and other benefits is a just penalty to impose
upon respondent.
constitutes a criminal offense. The keyword in said offense is
knowingly. Thus, the complainant must not only prove WHEREFORE, finding respondent Judge guilty of gross
beyond reasonable doubt that the judgment is patently misconduct, he is hereby SUSPENDED from the service for
contrary to law or not supported by the evidence but that it six (6) months without salary and other benefits. He is
was also made with deliberate intent to perpetrate an WARNED that the commission in the future of the same or
injustice. A judges mere error in the interpretation or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
application of the law per se will not warrant the imposition of
an administrative sanction against him for no one is infallible. SO ORDERED.
Good faith and absence of malice, corrupt motives or
improper consideration are sufficient defenses that will
protect a judicial officer from the charge of rendering an A.M. No. CA-09-47-J February 13, 2009
unjust decision. [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-121-CA-J]
Moreover, the alleged error committed by respondent in GENARO SANTIAGO III, Complainant,
issuing the subject Orders pertains to the exercise of his vs.
adjudicative functions. Such error cannot be corrected JUSTICE JUAN Q. ENRIQUEZ, JR. of the Thirteenth
through administrative proceedings but should instead be [13th] Division, Court of Appeals, Respondent.
assailed through judicial remedies. [24] As held in Flores vs.
Abesamis:[25] DECISION
As everyone knows, the law provides ample judicial remedies CARPIO MORALES, J.:
against errors or irregularities being committed by a Trial
Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The ordinary remedies
By Ist Indorsement1 dated January 3, 2008, the Court
against errors or irregularities which may be regarded as
Administrator referred to this Court’s Clerk of Court for
normal in nature (i.e., error in appreciation or admission of
appropriate action the verified Complaint dated December
evidence, or in construction or application of procedural or
27, 2007,2 with enclosures, of Genaro Santiago III
substantive law or legal principle) include a motion for
(complainant) against Court of Appeals Justice Juan Q.
reconsideration (or after rendition of judgment or final order, a
Enriquez, Jr. (respondent), for gross ignorance of the law and
motion for new trial), and appeal. The extraordinary remedies
jurisprudence and gross incompetence in connection with his
against error or irregularities which may be deemed
rendering of alleged unjust judgment in CA-GR CV No.
extraordinary in character (i.e., whimsical, capricious,
84167, "Genaro C. Santiago III versus Republic of the
despotic exercise of power or neglect of duty, etc.) are, inter
Philippines," which was promulgated on December 3, 2007. 3
alia, the special civil action of certiorari, prohibition
or mandamus, or a motion for inhibition, a petition for change
of venue, as the case may be. The antecedent facts of the case follow:
Now, the established doctrine and policy is that disciplinary Complainant filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in
proceedings and criminal actions against Judges are not Quezon City a Petition for Reconstitution of Lost/Destroyed
complementary or suppletory of, nor a substitute for, these Original Certificate of Title No. 56, registered in the name of
judicial remedies, whether ordinary or extraordinary. Resort Pantaleona Santiago and Blas Fajardo.
to and exhaustion of these judicial remedies, as well as the
entry of judgment in the corresponding action or proceeding, By Decision of September 2, 2004, Branch 220 of the
are pre-requisites for the taking of other measures against Quezon City RTC granted the petition.4 The Republic of the
the persons of the judges concerned, whether of civil, Philippines through the Office of the Solicitor General
administrative, or criminal nature. It is only after the available appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals where it was
judicial remedies have been exhausted and the appellate docketed as CA-GR CV No. 84167.
tribunals have spoken with finality, that the door to an inquiry
into his criminal, civil, or administrative liability may be said to
have opened, or closed. The case was raffled to Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison
(Justice Gonzales-Sison) of the appellate court’s Thirteenth
Division of which respondent was Chairperson. Completing
Flores resorted to administrative prosecution (or institution of the composition of the Division (of three) was Justice Vicente
criminal actions) as a substitute for or supplement to the S.E. Veloso (Justice Veloso).
specific modes of appeals or review provided by law from
court judgments or orders, on the theory that the Judges'
orders had caused him undue injury. This is impermissible, On July 11, 2007, Justice Gonzales-Sison submitted her
as this Court has already more than once ruled. Law and Report,5 which was used as basis for the Division’s
logic decree that administrative or criminal remedies are consultation and deliberation.6 By letter of July 18, 2007
neither alternative nor cumulative to judicial review where addressed to Justices Gonzales-Sison and Veloso,
such review is available, and must wait on the result thereof. respondent expressed his dissent from the Report.7 Justice
Indeed, since judges must be free to judge, without pressure Veloso, who originally concurred in the Report, requested
or influence from external forces or factors, they should not Justice Gonzales-Sison, by letter of July 19, 2007, to take a
be subject to intimidation, the fear of civil, criminal or second look at respondent’s Dissenting Opinion, 8 as "the
administrative sanctions for acts they may do and reasons [Justice Enriquez] gave are strong enough to be
dispositions they may make in the performance of their duties ignored by plain technicality."9
and functions; and it is sound rule, which must be recognized
independently of statute, that judges are not generally liable In view of his dissent, respondent requested on August 23,
for acts done within the scope of their jurisdiction and in good 2007 the Raffle Committee of the Court of Appeals to
faith; and that exceptionally, prosecution of the judge can be designate two associate justices to complete the composition
had only if "there be a final declaration by a competent court of a Special Division of five.10 The Raffle Committee, by
in some appropriate proceeding of the manifestly unjust Special Order dated August 24, 2007, designated Justices
character of the challenged judgment or order, and ** also Edgardo P. Cruz (Justice Cruz) and Lucas P. Bersamin
evidence of malice or bad faith, ignorance of inexcusable (Justice Bersamin) as additional members of the Special
negligence, on the part of the judge in rendering said Division.11
judgment or order" or under the stringent circumstances set
out in Article 32 of the Civil Code.
Justice Veloso soon expressed his concurrence with
respondent’s Dissenting Opinion.12 Justice Bersamin
As earlier stated, it is the act of respondent in conducting the expressed his concurrence with the Report of Justice
judicial proceedings abroad without authority from the Court
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |72
Gonzales–Sison,13 while Justice Cruz expressed his The Court has to be shown acts or conduct of the judge
concurrence with respondent’s Dissenting clearly indicative of the arbitrariness or prejudice before the
Opinion.14lawphil.net latter can be branded the stigma of being biased and partial.
Thus, unless he is shown to have acted in bad faith or with
Respondent’s Dissenting Opinion thus became the majority deliberate intent to do an injustice, not every error or mistake
opinion of the Special Division and the Report-opinion of that a judge commits in the performance of his duties renders
Justice Gonzales-Sison with which Justice Bersamin him liable…The failure to interpret the law or to properly
appreciate the evidence presented does not necessarily
concurred became the Dissenting Opinion.
render a judge administratively liable.24 (Italics in the original;
underscoring supplied)
The Decision of the Special Division reversed and set
aside the September 2, 2004 Decision of the Quezon City
RTC. Complainant filed a Motion for Reconsideration which Assuming arguendo that respondent’s citation of cases in
was received by the appellate court on December 20, support of the Decision and his appreciation of the facts and
evidence were erroneous, since there is no showing that the
2007.15 On December 27, 2008, complainant filed the present
complaint. Decision, reconsideration of which was still pending at the
time the present complaint was filed, is tainted with fraud,
malice or dishonesty or was rendered with deliberate intent to
On January 9, 2008, complainant filed a Motion for cause injustice, the complaint must be dismissed.
Disqualification and/or Inhibition [of respondent] pursuant to
Paragraph 2, Section 1, Rule 13716 on the ground that he
The principle of "judicial immunity" insulates judges, and
(complainant) had filed this administrative complaint against
respondent. The appellate court denied the motion by even Justices of superior courts, from being held to account
Resolution of April 20, 2008.17 criminally, civilly or administratively for an erroneous decision
rendered in good faith.25 To hold otherwise would render
judicial office untenable. No one called upon to try the facts
In the present Complaint, complainant alleges, inter alia, that: or interpret the law in the process of administering justice
could be infallible in his judgment. 26
xxxx
. . . A judicial officer cannot be called to account in a civil
. . . despite the overwhelming evidence of complainant, all action for acts done by him in the exercise of his judicial
corroborated by several government agencies like the function, however erroneous. In the words of Alzua and
original duplicate certificate of OCT No. 56, certified copy of Arnalot v. Johnson, " … it is a general principle of the highest
Decree No. 1275, PC Crime Laboratory report, Bureau of importance to the proper administration of justice that a
Lands record, tracing cloth of survey plan, blue print plan, judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him, shall
certified technical description – all approved by the Bureau of be free to act upon his own convictions, without
Lands, among others and adduced and offered in evidence apprehension of personal consequences to himself." This
during trial, Associate Justice Enriquez deliberately twisted concept of judicial immunity rests upon consideration of
the law and existing jurisprudence to grant the appeal, to the public policy, its purpose being to preserve the integrity and
extreme prejudice of complainant. For this reason, this independence of the judiciary. This principle is of universal
administrative charge of GROSS IGNORANCE OF application and applies to all grades of judicial officers from
LAW/GROSS INCOMPETENCE is now being filed against the highest judge of the nation and to the lowest officer who
respondent Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. No one is sits as a court.27 (Italics in the original; emphasis and
above the law.18 (Emphasis and italics in the original; underscoring supplied)
underscoring supplied)
It bears particular stress in the present case that the filing of
In compliance with this Court’s Resolution of January 22, charges against a single member of a division of the
2008,19 respondent filed his Comment,20 branding the appellate court is inappropriate. The Decision was not
complaint as "a mere nuisance," a "dirty tactic" in order to rendered by respondent in his individual capacity. It was a
harass him for the purpose of making him inhibit from product of the consultations and deliberations by the Special
handling the case the decision on which was pending Division of five. Consider the following pronouncement
consideration. He denies any irregularities attendant to his in Bautista v. Abdulwahid:28
arrival at the Decision which, he maintains, has factual and
legal basis and is not contrary to law and jurisprudence. It is also imperative to state that the Resolution dated May
31, 2004 was not rendered by Justice Abdulwahid alone, in
At any rate, respondent contends that the administrative his individual capacity. The Court of Appeals is a collegiate
complaint was filed prematurely considering that court whose members reach their conclusions in consultation
complainant’s motion for reconsideration of the Decision was and accordingly render their collective judgment after due
pending, and that assuming that the Decision was indeed deliberation. Thus, we have held that a charge of violation of
unjust and contrary to law, then Justices Cruz and Veloso, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act on the ground that a
who concurred in his ponencia, should also be charged. collective decision is "unjust" cannot prosper.
Consequently, the filing of charges against a single member
of a division of the appellate court is
Finally, and at all events, respondent contends that the inappropriate. 29 (Underscoring supplied)
administrative complaint is not the proper forum for the
determination of whether the Decision is erroneous or
contrary to law and jurisprudence. In fine, while this Court will not shirk from its responsibility to
discipline members of the bench if they err, it too will not
hesitate to shield them if they are charged with unmeritorious
In compliance with the directive of the Court, 21 complainant charges that only serve to disrupt, rather than promote, the
filed a Reply dated 20, 2008 to respondent’s Comment 22 in orderly administration of justice.
which he contends that the cases cited by respondent to
support the Decision are not applicable.
WHEREFORE, the complaint is DISMISSED.
The complaint is bereft of merit.
SO ORDERED.
That cases cited to support a Decision are not applicable,
and the appreciation of evidence and facts is erroneous, do A.M. No. P-03-1757 December 10, 2003
not necessarily warrant the filing of an administrative
complaint against a judge, unless the Decision is tainted with GRIO LENDING SERVICES, complainant,
fraud, malice or dishonesty or with deliberate intent to cause vs.
injustice.23 SALVACION SERMONIA, CLERK IV, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 26, ILOILO CITY, respondent.
The remedy of the aggrieved party is not to file an
administrative complaint against the judge, but to elevate the RESOLUTION
assailed decision or order to the higher court for review and
correction. An administrative complaint is not an appropriate
remedy where judicial recourse is still available, such as a CALLEJO, SR., J.:
motion for reconsideration, an appeal, or a petition
for certiorari, unless the assailed order or decision is tainted
with fraud, malice, or dishonesty…
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |73
Before the Court is the Verified Complaint dated November 6, (b) The following shall be grounds for disciplinary action:
2002, filed against Salvacion Sermonia, Clerk IV of the
Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 26, for willful failure ...
to pay just debts.
As correctly pointed out by Deputy Court Administrator PRESENT: SERENO, CJ; CARPIO; VELASCO, JR;
Elepaño, despite the amicable settlement reached by the LEONARDO-DE CASTRO; PERALTA; BERSAMIN; DEL
parties, the respondent should nonetheless be held CASTILLO; PERLAS-BERNABE*; LEONEN; JARDELEZA;
administratively liable for her actuations. Significantly, it was CAGUIOA; MARTIRES**; TIJAM; REYES, JR AND
only when the verified complaint was filed against her that GESMUNDO, JJ
respondent exerted efforts to make arrangements to pay her
obligation to the complainant. Before the filing of the Promulgated: January 30, 2018
complaint, the respondent consistently ignored the
complainant’s repeated demands.
DECISION
The respondent is, thus, liable under Section 46, Chapter 7, PER CURIAM:
Title I, Subtitle A, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987
(Executive Order No. 292) which covers the respondent as a A.M. No. P-09-2633 stems from the result of the financial
court personnel. The said provision reads in part: audit conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Santiago City,
Isabela while A.M. No. RTJ-12-23381 is an offshoot of A.M.
No. P-09-2633. The Financial Audit Team found, among
Section 46. Discipline: General Provisions. – (a) No officer or
others, shortages in the judiciary funds, tampering of official
employee in the Civil Service shall be suspended or
receipts, and overwithdrawal of cash bonds allegedly
dismissed except for cause as provided by law and after due
committed by Angelina C. Rillorta (Rillorta), Officer-in-Charge
process.
(OIC), Regional Trial Court, Santiago City, Isabela (now
retired). The administrative complaint in A.M. No. RTJ-12-
... 2338 was filed by Rillorta against Judge Fe Albano Madrid
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |74
(Judge Madrid), formerly Presiding Judge, Regional Trial respectively, in order to finalize the audit on said accounts x x
Court, Branch 21, Santiago City, Isabela (now retired), for x
dishonesty, involving the same audit findings in A.M. No. P-
09-2633. xxx
The facts, as narrated by the Office of the Court (4) to DIRECT Mrs. Angelina C. Rillorta, Officer-in-Charge,
Administrator (OCA), are as follows: Regional Trial Court, Santiago, Isabela to RESTITUTE within
fifteen (15) days from receipt of notice, the shortages
A.M. No. P-09-2633 incurred in the JDF, General Fund and Sheriff’s General
Fund amounting to Twenty-Three Thousand Eight Hundred
In OCA Memorandum dated March 12, 2009, the Financial Thirty-Nine Pesos and 67/100 (P23,839.67), Seven
Audit Team reported shortages in the Judiciary Development Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty-Four Pesos and 65/100
Fund (JDF), General Fund (GF) and Sheriff’s General Fund (P7,884.65) and Twelve Pesos (P12.00), respectively, in
(SGF) of the former Officers in-Charge as follows: order to finalize the audit on the said accounts, x x x
a) Rolando C. Tomas - P18,639.50 (JDF) and P14,538.45 (5) to require Mrs. Rillorta to SUBMIT to the Fiscal Monitoring
(GF) Division, CMO, OCA the machine-validated deposit slip(s) as
proof of compliance;
b) Angelina Rillorta - P23,839.67 (JDF); P7,884.65 (GF) and
P12.00 (SGF) (6) to require Mrs. Rillorta to SUBMIT to the Fiscal Monitoring
Division, Court Management Office, Office of the Court
A review of the court orders and acknowledgment receipts of Administrator, the Court orders and acknowledgment receipts
the withdrawn cashbonds to determine the Fiduciary Funds of the withdrawn cashbonds (Annexes A, B & C) to finalize
also revealed a shortage amounting to Six Million Five the audit on the Fiduciary Fund account within thirty (30)
Hundred Fifty-Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty-Nine days from receipt of notice with information that non-
Pesos and 70/100 (P6,557,959.70). submission of the. supporting documents will incur a
shortage amounting to Six Million Five Hundred Fifty- Seven
Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty-Nine Pesos and 70/100
Balance per LBP SA# 1361- (P6,557,959.70) for the Fiduciary Fund, x x x
0025-27 as of 4/30/04
However, in case the following supporting documents of the
Add: Deposit on 5/26/04 based P5,969,511.40 cash bonds will be submitted, the shortage shall be reduced
on the initial findings of the to One Hundred Thirteen Thousand Two Hundred Eighty-Six
Audit Team 936.000.00 Pesos and 16/100 (P113,286.16) x x x
Total P6,905,511.40 xxx
Less: Net Interest (withdrawn Complying with the above directives, Mrs. Angelina Rillorta,
on 4/26/05 P3,516.18 in her undated letter, informed the Court that she has already
3,566.18
deposited the shortages incurred in the JDF, GF and the
Unwithdrawn interest
SGF. She argued that she did not misappropriate any money
50.00 P6,901,945.22
and explained that she committed a mistake in depositing her
collections in the proper account for which the Commission
Adjusted Bank Balance as of
o[n] Audit (COA) had called her attention. With regards to the
4/30/04
submission of the orders and acknowledgment receipts in
support of the withdrawn cash bonds, she claimed that she
Beginning Balance only secured copies of some orders and acknowledgment
receipts because some case records were not made
Collections for the period P32,539.30 available to her. She also explained that she has submitted
10/18/91 to 4/30/04 her monthly financial report from December 1994 to April
16,419,498.96 2005 together with copies of the orders and acknowledgment
Balance receipts to the Accounting Division, Financial Management
P16,452,038.26
Office (FMO), OCA and if there was anything wrong or
Less: Valid Withdrawals (same irregular in her reports, the Accounting Division should have
2,993,533.34
period) called her attention or asked her to explain. Further, she
P13,458,504.92 argued that if the amount of the cash bonds was not given to
Unwithdrawn Fiduciary Fund the persons who requested the withdrawal thereof, a lot of
as of 4/30/04 complaints could have been filed against her in Court. She
added that in order to comply with the directive of the Court,
the Accounting Division, FMO, OCA, be directed to produce
Unwithdrawn Fiduciary Fund the financial reports and that she be given time to follow-up
as of 4/30/04 the said records with the said office.
P13,458,504.92
Less: Adjusted Bank Balance In her Supplemental Explanation dated September 3, 2009,
6,901,945.22
as of 4/30/04 Mrs. Rillorta narrated that when she assumed as Officer-In-
P6,556,559.70 Charge, OCC, on March 10, 1995, the court’s financial
Balance of Accountabilities/ records were not formally turned over to her. She had to
Shortage figure out by herself what to do. She explained that the
monthly financial reports were submitted to Executive Judge
Fe Albano Madrid for approval and signature and every time
the latter went over the reports, she would change or correct
The shortage referred to above represents the cash bonds
the entries to conform with the entries in the passbook for the
which were withdrawn but with incomplete documents such
fiduciary account. After the corrections were incorporated in
as court orders and acknowledgment receipts. However,
the report, Judge Madrid would sign it.
according to the Financial Audit Team, if the supporting
documents of the withdrawn cash bonds would be submitted, Mrs. Rillorta further narrated that sometime in January 2003,
the shortages would be reduced to One Hundred Thirty-Six she reviewed the financial records and discovered that the
Thousand Eight Hundred Eighty-Six Pesos and 16/100 monthly report did not jibe with the bank book entries. Hence,
(P136,886.16). she requested the COA, Tuguegarao City, to audit her books
of account and after a preliminary audit, she was instructed to
On April 22, 2009, the Court, through the First Division,
inform Judge Madrid of the discrepancies. She immediately
issued a Resolution, the decretal portion of which reads:
informed Judge Madrid and the latter made some
xxx adjustments to the report. She alleged that on May 24, 2004,
a team from the OCA came to conduct a financial audit.
(2) to DIRECT Mr. Rolando C. Tomas, former Officer-in- When the audit was about to be completed, an exit
Charge, Regional Trial Court, Santiago City, Isabela to conference was held. She was expecting to be called to
RESTITUTE within fifteen (15) days from receipt of notice, attend the conference, hence, she asked the team leaders if
the shortages incurred in the JDF and General Fund her presence was needed and was told "Di ka naman
Amounting to Eighteen Thousand Six Hundred Thirty-Nine pinatawag ni Judge. ” She was never required to respond to
Pesos and 50/100 (P18,639.50) and Fourteen Thousand Five any findings and was therefore under the impression that
Hundred Thirty-Eight Pesos and 45/100 (P14,538.45) Judge Madrid had sufficiently explained the discrepancies. It
was only when she was going over the records of the court
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |75
that she discovered that an Observation Memorandum dated This is an offshoot of A.M. No. P-09-2633. On March 3, 2011,
May 17, 2004 prepared by the audit team was given to Judge Mrs. Rillorta filed the instant administrative complaint against
Madrid. Thus, she requested the Court for a reinvestigation Judge Madrid praying that an investigation be conducted and
and hearing on the complaint which was referred to the OCA that Judge Madrid be directed to answer or explain the
on December 16, 2009. charges against her. In her Affidavit- Complaint, Mrs. Rillorta
reiterated the allegations in her Supplemental Explanation in
Complying with the directive of the Court, the OCA, in its A.M. No. P-09-2633. She averred that the monthly reports did
Memorandum dated May 20, 2010, recommended that the not dovetail with the bank book entries, that is, the amount
motion to conduct another investigation be denied because it collected appearing in the monthly report was only
was no longer necessary considering that Angelina Rillorta P700,000.00 while the amount appearing in the bank account
has already remitted her shortages and that she was directed was more or less P6,000,000.00. This discrepancy alarmed
to explain in writing why she should not be dismissed from her, so she voluntarily submitted herself to an audit by the
the service for violation of OCA Circular No. 22-94 dated April COA in Tuguegarao City. She informed Judge Madrid about
8, 1994 (Re: Guidelines in the Proper Handling and Use of the COA findings and in order to balance the discrepancies
Official Receipts), it appearing that official receipts were found, Judge Madrid instructed her and Susan[a] Liggayu to
tampered: make some adjustments in the official receipts issued by the
court. For instance, in the bail bond posted by then retired
xxx Judge Alivia of the RTC, Cauayan City for his client, Judge
Madrid asked for the General Fund receipts and instructed
The OCA added that only the supporting documents such as her to write in the original receipt the true amount of the
court orders and acknowledgment receipts of the withdrawn bailbond but to reflect the amount of P20.00 or P30.00
cash bonds with incomplete documents should be submitted (clearance fee) in the duplicate and triplicate copies. She
in order to finalize the accountabilities of Mrs. Rillorta in the then asked Judge Madrid “Ma’am, why not issue na lang
Fiduciary fund. Court Order para minsanan na ma-withdraw yung bina-
balance mo ” to which she replied “No, this is better. ” She
On June 1, 2011, the Court adopted the OCA’s claimed that every time Judge Madrid instructed her to do it,
recommendation and noted the Ex Parte Manifestation dated she asked Susan[a] Liggayu to make a list so that they would
February 22, 2010 of Executive Judge Anastacio D. Anghad have a record of the amounts collected for the Fiduciary
and Clerk of Court, Norbert Bong S. Obedoza, both of the Fund. She also narrated that Judge Madrid instructed her to
RTC Santiago City, praying that respondent Rolando C. alter the amounts of the cash bond withdrawn. For instance,
Tomas’ death on February 10, 2010 be considered with if the amount of the bail bond deposited was P110 ,000.00,
humanitarian consideration in the resolution of this case. the amount to be withdrawn would be P110,000.00. This
happened on several occasions. Likewise, in Criminal Case
In another Memorandum dated June 13, 2011, the OCA Nos. 4161 and 4162 (People vs. Pua) and Criminal Case No.
requested that (a) the recommendation in its Memorandum of 21-4225 (People vs. Alejandro Ramos), the release orders
May 20, 2010 denying the motion of Mrs. Rillorta for the did not indicate the Official Receipt (O.R.) number which is
conduct of another investigation be set aside; (b) the Land the usual practice of the court.
Bank of the Philippines, Santiago City, Isabela Branch, be
directed to submit a certification as to the authorized Again, in her Second Supplemental Affidavit dated April 6,
signatory from August 1991 to April 30, 2004, for Savings 2011, Mrs. Rillorta described how Judge Madrid effected the
Account No. 1361-0025-27 of the Fiduciary Fund of the RTC, adjustments in the official receipts issued by the court. In
Santiago City; (c) Judge Madrid be required to submit her Criminal Case No. 3423, Judge Madrid added zero “0” in
comments on the unsigned letter and additional Supplement O.R. No. 10706949 in between the digits three “3” and zero
to the Motion for the Conduct of Another and/or Additional to make it appear that the amount received was Thirty
Investigation both dated September 28, 2010 filed by Mrs. Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) and superimposed the letter
Rillorta; and (d) the motion to conduct another investigation “y” at the end of the word three (in the box amount in words
as well as the manifestation of the heirs of respondent to jibe with Thirty Thousand Pesos). She also alleged that
Rolando Tomas be held in abeyance pending the submission every time there was an excess in the amount withdrawn,
of Judge Madrid’s comment. OCA’s recommendations were she or Susan[a] Liggayu delivered the same to Judge Madrid
adopted by the Court in its Resolution of August 03,2011. by leaving the money on her table. The amounts were always
put inside an envelope which was labelled by Susan[a]
In compliance with the June 1, 2011 Resolution, Mrs. Rillorta Liggayu by writing the corresponding case number. There
filed her Explanation with Motion for Reconsideration dated were times when the withdrawals were done in the afternoon
July 24, 2011 alleging that she was denied her right to due and in those instances, the excess amounts were delivered
process when she was not allowed to participate in the exit to Judge Madrid’s house. She further alleged that Judge
conference with the Financial Audit Team. She also informed Madrid drafted her answer in A.M. No. P-09-2633 but did not
the Court that she filed a Complaint-Affidavit against Judge submit the same because said comment made her admit the
Madrid before the OCA x x x. charges. Judge Madrid even insisted that she submit the
same to avoid dismissal from the service since the argument
For her part, Judge Madrid, in her undated Compliance which
raised was that she acted in good faith. She thus suspected
was received by the OCA on October 20, 2011, stated that
that she was made a sacrificial lamb. She admitted that she
she was not aware of the unsigned letter dated September
was not knowledgeable in accounting procedures which was
27, 2010 and additional supplement to the motion for the
why she never questioned the acts of Judge Madrid and
conduct of another and/or additional investigation filed by
followed her orders and instructions.
Mrs. Rillorta. She claimed that the latter executed an Affidavit
dated March 3, 2011 and two Supplemental Affidavits which For her part, Judge Madrid, in her Comment dated April 6,
were the basis of OCA IPI No. 11-3614-RTJ pending in the 2011, alleged that Mrs. Rillorta is a stenographer but could
OCA, and requested a copy thereof if the said letter referred not take stenographic notes in open court. Her work then was
to a different matter for her to comment thereon. On the other to assist Clerk of Court Teofilo Juguilon and to type
hand, the Land Bank of the Philippines, Santiago Branch, decisions. After the retirement of Atty. Juguilon, she thought it
Isabela, issued a Certification dated October 24, 2011 stating wise to designate her as OlC-Clerk of Court because she
that Account No. 1361-0025-27 RTC, Branch 21 (Fiduciary was already familiar with the workings of the office. In the
Fund) was opened on March 29, 1993 by Judge Madrid who beginning, she strictly monitored the collections and
was the authorized signatory. disbursements until Mrs. Rillorta gained her complete trust
and confidence. So she just let Mrs. Rillorta do her work with
On December 3, 2012, the Court granted the request of Mrs.
little supervision. At that time, the court was a single sala
Rillorta for the conduct of another and/or additional
court and had many cases to attend to which left her little
investigation and referred the matter to the Associate Justice
time for financial management. She added that she could not
of the Court of Appeals who was designated to investigate
remember if there was a formal turnover of the court’s
A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-3614-RT[J] (Re: Angelina C. Rillorta vs.
financial reports to Mrs. Rillorta, but an inventory of the
Honorable Fe A. Madrid, Presiding Judge, Branch 21, RTC,
records was received by the latter. Mrs. Rillorta prepared the
Santiago City) [now A.M. No. RTJ-12-2338] for a joint
monthly reports which she would note and sign after a review
investigation. The Court also directed the Financial
of the attached official receipts, order and acknowledgment
Management Office, OCA, to deduct the amount of
receipts, as well as deposit slips and withdrawal slips.
P33,177.95 from the equivalent money value of the total
Corrections were made to conform to the supporting
earned leave credits of the late Rolando Tomas who was
documents or to correct wrong computations. She does not
dismissed from the service pursuant to the Resolution of the
have her own separate records as alleged by Mrs. Rillorta. A
Court in A.M. No. P-09-2660 (Francisco C. Taguinod vs.
separate record would be an extra work which she would not
Deputy Sheriff Rolando Tomas, Branch 21, RTC, Santiago
like to do. She admitted that the monthly reports did not jibe
City).
with the bank book in that, the money in the bank is more
than what is stated in the monthly reports. However, this did
OCA IPI No. 11-3614-RTJ
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |76
not alarm her because there was more money which meant P947,000.00 - P11,200.00 = P936,000.00 in her own
there was no shortage. handwriting. When she went out of Judge Madrid’s room,
Susan[a] Liggayu was waiting and handed her the piece of
Judge Madrid further claimed that she did not know that Mrs. paper which Judge Madrid gave and they both counted the
Rillorta had voluntarily submitted herself for audit to the COA money. Susan[a] Liggayu then prepared the deposit slip
but knew that the COA has always been auditing the financial based on the amount they counted and what was written on
records of the court because Mrs. Rillorta has been regularly the piece of paper, after which she gave the prepared deposit
submitting the monthly reports to the COA Office in Ilagan, slip to Judge Madrid who affixed her signature. This incident
Isabela. She was then informed by Mrs. Rillorta about the proved that monies were delivered to Judge Madrid and
discrepancy between the monthly reports and the money in when the amount was needed to be deposited, it was readily
the bank but denied instructing Mrs. Rillorta and Susan[a] and immediately produced by Judge Madrid for deposit and
Liggayu to make some adjustments on the official receipts. return.2
She could not remember asking Mrs. Rillorta to give her the
GF receipts in connection with the bail bond posted by retired In his Report, Investigating Justice Elihu Ybanez detailed
Judge Alivia. She could have asked for the GF receipts to how Judge Madrid manipulated the Fiduciary Fund, to wit:
check on something but not to show how to tamper the bail
bond receipts. Also, after the financial audit, the audit team First. In Criminal Case No. 21-4225, entitled People vs.
informed her of the P900,000.00 shortage in the court’s Alejandro Ramos, for Violation of COMELEC Resolution No.
collection. She told the audit team to call Mrs. Rillorta so that 6076, the Undertaking executed by the accused and his
she could be given a chance to produce the money and Bondsman, appears that the cash bail posted is only
conduct a cash count. However, the audit team said that no P20,000.00 without the Official Receipt issued was stated in
cash count could be done because some receipts were the Undertaking but a marginal note ‘NO RECEIPT ISSUED’
tampered. She immediately talked to Mrs. Rillorta about the admitted by respondent Judge as her own handwriting.
audit team’s observations and told her to deposit the Despite the fact that the bailbond posted was only
shortage right away. In addition, she could not remember if P20,000.00 and respondent Judge [wrote a] marginal note
she was given an Observation Memorandum by the audit that no proper receipt was issued for the cash bond of
team except for a piece of paper that was shown to her by P20,000.00, respondent Judge still authorized the withdrawal
the audit team. She also confirmed that she is the signatory and release of P120,000.00 which is over and above the
of the LBP account and that the withdrawals she signed were actual amount of the cash bail posted of P20,000.00. How
supported by official receipts and court orders. She also could respondent Judge in good faith sign the withdrawal slip
confirmed that she helped Mrs. Rillorta prepare her answer to after checking on the Undertaking which stated that cash bail
the administrative charge against her but did so only upon posted was only P20,000.00 and by her own handwriting
her request and that she only included those statements even noted in the same Undertaking that there was no
which Mrs. Rillorta told her and of her fear of dismissal Official Receipt issued for the cash bond posted. Per
because of the charge of dishonesty and told her that she admission of respondent-complainant, she tampered with
could plead good faith because there was no intention on her Official Receipt No. 1721363 dated 2 June 2003 to make the
part to be dishonest. P120,000.00 upon the instruction of respondent Judge.
Repondent-complainant testified further that from the
Judge Madrid also argued that all instructions given to Mrs. withdrawn amount of P120,000.00, P100,000.00 went to
Rillorta and the other court employees were lawful and respondent Judge and P20,000.00 was released to the
proper and expected that the instructions be carried out. The Bondsman.
corrections she made in the monthly reports were all proper
and did not make any alterations or adjustments on any Second. Respondent Judge signed the withdrawal slip
official receipts, deposit slips, withdrawal slips or despite the fact that the original Official Receipt which is
acknowledgment receipts. being presented by the Bondsman/ Party and attached to the
documents for the release of the cash bonds provides for a
In her Comment on the Supplemental Complaint dated April much smaller amount or different in amount than the amount
28, 2011, Judge Madrid maintained that the same is a for withdrawal for the refund/ release of the cash bond
repetition of her original affidavit to which a comment had posted.
already been made. She claimed that she only signs the
orders of release and it was Mrs. Rillorta who processed the Third. Respondent Judge transferred the RTC Santiago City
documents which presented to her for signature. The order of Bank Accounts by her as the lone signatory. This, without
release is a standard form and it was the duty of the OIC to following the guidelines set by the Supreme [C]ourt requiring
check that the documents are complete before they are a co-signatory to the account who are the Executive Judge
brought to her for signature. With regards to the undertaking and the Clerk of Court/OIC. Being the lone signatory to the
attached to the complaint, she claimed that she did not know RTC Santiago City General Fund, Fiduciary Fund and JDF
who prepared it but the blanks were filled up with the use of Bank Accounts, respondent Judge had full control of the
Mrs. Rillorta’s typewriter. She does not usually scrutinize the amount[s] deposited to and withdrawn from the RTC Bank
word and every document presented in connection with the Accounts. It would be far[-] fetched that funds of the court
bail bond and if she noticed the typewritten insertions, she would be dissipated without respondent Judge knowing what
could have asked what they meant considering that the is happening because she is the sole signatory to the bank
typewritten insertions are alien to the documents. deposits of the Fiduciary Funds of the RTC, Santiago City. In
fact, respondent Judge on cross examination acknowledged
Refuting the allegations in the Supplemental Affidavit- full responsibility of the deposits to and withdrawals from the
Complaint, Judge Madrid, in her Comment dated June 6, accounts.
'2011, denied that she inserted the letter “O” and
superimposed the letter “Y” in Official Receipt No. 10706946. Fourth. Respondent Judge had the final say on what should
She claimed that she had no access to the documents which be stated in the Monthly Report of Collections/ Deposits/
were in the custody of the monitoring team as they did not Withdrawals and Disbursements such that she had full
show her any documents when they talked to her after the knowledge early on if and when any amounts have been
audit. She also vehemently denied that the alleged excess in receipted, deposited, and/or withdrawn. Respondent-
the withdrawn amount was delivered to her by Mrs. Rillorta or complainant Angelina Rillorta, witnesses Jaime Gumpal,
Susan[a] Liggayu either in the office or in her house. The only Virginia Manuel and Susan[a] Liggayu all confirmed that
money she received were those withdrawn from the bank respondent Judge would change the data contained in the
when she requested Mrs. Rillorta to encash her salary Monthly Report before she signed it.
checks. When she confronted Susan[a] Liggayu about the
tampering and withdrawals, the latter denied any knowledge Fifth. The evidence points to the fact that after the OCA Audit
about them and even executed an affidavit to that effect. In Team completed the court financial audit, respondent Judge
addition, she admitted to be the lone signatory of withdrawals returned the amount of P936,000.00 which respondent-
but this was not by any sinister design as alluded to by Mrs. complainant Rillorta and witness Susan[a] Liggayu deposited
Rillorta. When the Clerk of Court retired from the service, the to the Landbank. Respondent- complainant testified on cross-
money was transferred to the RTC which is represented by examination that respondent Judge called her in the Judge’s
her being then the Executive Judge. However, she did not Chamber and gave her the blue SM plastic bag containing
personally make withdrawals and has always authorized Mrs. the P900,000.00 plus money. Respondent Judge also wrote
Rillorta to do the withdrawals instead. in a piece of paper P947,200.00 minus P11,200[.00] =
P936,000.00, which is the amount to be deposited
In her Reply Affidavit dated June 13, 2011, Mrs. Rillorta representing the missing funds. The testimony of respondent-
narrated that Judge Madrid called her in her chambers on complainant is corroborated by witness Susan[a] Liggayu
May 26, 2004, at around 1:30 [p.m.] to 2:00 p.m. Judge who testified on cross examination that she saw Judge
Madrid told her to go to the bank and deposit the money Albano Madrid hand to Angelina Rillorta a blue plastic bag
wrapped in a newspaper and placed inside a plastic bag. She containing money which she and Angelina Rillorta counted.
also handed her a piece of paper indicating the amount of She further testified that she prepared the corresponding
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |77
deposit slip and handed it to Angelina Rillorta which the latter (P10,000.00) with a stern warning that repetition of the same
in turn gave to Judge Madrid for the Judge’s signature. or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. 5
Afterwards, she and Angelina Rillorta deposited the money to
Landbank. While respondent Judge claims that it was The OCA recommended the following:
respondent-complainant who returned the P936,000.00
money, however, respondent-complainant could not have 1. Judge Fe Albano Madrid (formerly Presiding Judge,
returned the amount as she was not the one informed by the Branch 21, Regional Trial Court, Santiago City, Isabela, now
OCA Audit Team but respondent Judge who in return did not retired) be found GUILTY of serious dishonesty and gross
tell respondent-complainant of the amount, x x x. misconduct and that all her retirement benefits, except her
accrued leave benefits, be ordered FORFEITED, with
Sixth. Respondent Judge took undue interest in preparing the prejudice to re-employment in any branch of the government,
pleadings for respondent-complainant or even went the extra including government-owned or controlled corporations;
mile to control what will be written in the pleadings. The first
draft answer made by respondent Judge for respondent- 2. Judge Fe Albano Madrid be DIRECTED to SHOW CAUSE
complainant was that the latter kept the money which was not why she should not be DISBARRED for violation of Canons 1
agreed to by respondent-complainant. Respondent Judge and 7 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional
forced respondent-complainant to submit to the Supreme Responsibility;
Court the answer (Exhibit 14) she made for her but
respondent-complainant refused, and submitted a different 3. Angelina C. Rillorta, Officer-in-Charge, Office of the Clerk
answer without saying that she kept the money. of Court, Regional Trial Court, Santiago City, Isabela, now
retired, be found GUILTY of gross misconduct and that all her
While respondent Judge claims that she only took pity on retirement benefits and accrued leave benefits be
respondent-complainant, so she prepared the pleadings for FORFEITED, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch
her, the draft pleadings tell that respondent Judge wanted to of the government, including government-owned or controlled
make it appear that it was respondent-complainant who took corporations;
the missing funds. She was also discouraged by [respondent
Judge] in approaching DCA Villanueva when the latter was in 4. The Employees Leave Division, Office of Administrative
Tuguegarao City; also prevented respondent-complainant Services, Office of the Court Administrator be DIRECTED to
from telling anyone about the shortages. Withal, respondent compute the balance of the earned leave credits of Angelina
Judge also encouraged if not stopped respondent- Rillorta and forward the same to the Finance Division,
complainant from consulting a lawyer after she received the Financial Management Office, Office of the Court
notice from the OCA re the missing Judiciary Funds. Administrator, for the computation of the monetary value of
her earned leave credits. The amount as well as other
Seventh. The assurances of respondent Judge on benefits Angelina Rillorta may be entitled to shall be applied
respondent- complainant that the latter won’t be accused of as partial restitution of the computed shortages in the amount
malversation because respondent Judge already returned the of P6,555,559.70;
money, referring to the P936,000.00 deposited after the audit
conducted by the SC, is also indicative of her hand in the loss 5. Angelina C. Rillorta be DIRECTED to RESTITUTE her
and return/ deposit of the fiduciary funds. shortages in the Fiduciary Fund after deducting the money
value of her accrued leave credits and other benefits; and
Eighth. The testimony of respondent Judge’s witness Arcelio
F. [De] Castillo, former Legal Researcher of RTC Branch 21, 6. [T]he Legal Office, Office of the Court Administrator be
Santiago City, who testified on the strict and meticulous DIRECTED to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings
character of respondent Judge only bolstered the fact that the against Judge Fe Albano Madrid and Angelina C. Rillorta in
incidents of tampering, non-deposit and overwithdrawal could light of the above findings.6
not have passed respondent Judge without her knowledge
and understanding. The issues in this case are whether Judge Madrid is guilty of
grave misconduct and serious dishonesty and whether
xxx3 Rillorta is guilty of grave misconduct.
The same Report highlighted Judge Madrid’s telling The Court adopts the findings of the OCA and agrees in its
admissions: recommendations, except as to the computation of the
amount to be restituted by Rillorta.
x x x [R]espondent Judge admitted that: (1) General Fund,
Fiduciary Fund and JDF Accounts are by the Judge only; (2) Judge Madrid is Guilty of Grave Misconduct and Serious
she was the lone signatory to the Fiduciary Funds and the Dishonesty
General Fund Accounts explaining that the decision was
made at the time when the Clerk of Court retired and the Public office is a public trust. This constitutional principle
latter had to transfer to her the account; (3) she was also the requires a judge, like any other public servant and more so
lone signatory not only to the bank accounts and likewise to because of his exalted position in the Judiciary, to exhibit at
the reports; (4) she did not bother to change the signatory to all times the highest degree of honesty and integrity. As the
the accounts after COC Atty. Suguilon retired because the visible representation of the law tasked with dispensing
RTC only had an OIC not a Clerk of Court; (5) respondent justice, a judge should conduct himself at all times in a
Judge knew and was aware of the SC Circular re the manner that would merit the respect and confidence of the
required signatories to the court funds; (6) notwithstanding people.7
the guidelines set by the Supreme Court requiring a co-
signatory for the account saying that the said circular was Judge Madrid failed to live up to these exacting standards. In
only issued after [the] RTC Santiago City became a multiple this case, the Court agrees with the findings of the OCA,
sala court emphasizing that the OIC was not a Clerk of Court; which affirmed the evaluations of the Investigating Justice,
(7) respondent Judge being the only signatory, “that official receipts were tampered and that there were
acknowledged full responsibility of the deposits and overwithdrawals from the Fiduciary Fund account amounting
withdrawals thereon[.]4 to Nine Hundred Thirty Six [Thousand] (P936,000.00) Pesos.
The Audit Team’s findings were not refuted by Judge Madrid
The Investigating Justice recommended the following: and Mrs. Rillorta during the investigation.”8 These acts of
tampering of official receipts and overwithdrawals from court
(1) Judge Fe Albano Madrid be held liable for SERIOUS funds clearly constitute grave misconduct and serious
DISHONESTY and GROSS MISCONDUCT. All her dishonesty.
retirement benefits, except her accrued leave benefits be
ordered forfeited in favor of the government, if any, with Misconduct is defined as a transgression of some established
prejudice to re-employment in any branch of the government, and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of
including government-owned or controlled corporations. Any duty, unlawful behavior, willful in character, improper or
computed shortages of the Fiduciary Fund yet to be restituted wrong behavior.9 The misconduct is grave if it involves any of
be charged against said accrued leave benefits. the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate
the law, or to disregard established rules, which must be
Judge Albano Madrid be likewise DISBARRED for violation of established by substantia] evidence. As distinguished from
Canon[s] 1 and 7 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to
Responsibility and her name ORDERED STRICKEN from the violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule must
Roll of Attorneys; and be manifest in a charge of grave misconduct. 10
(2) Angelina C. Rillorta be liable for SIMPLE NEGLECT OF Dishonesty, on the other hand, is defined as a disposition to
DUTY and be meted a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of
integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack
The Court likewise sustains the OCA’s finding that Judge The Court likewise rejects Rillorta’s claim that when she
Madrid’s only witness, Arcelio F. De Castillo (De Castillo), assumed the position of OIC, the court’s financial records
then Court Legal Researcher, did not help her case as the were not formally turned over to her and she was not
latter had no knowledge of the tampering of official receipts. knowledgeable in accounting procedures. Unfamiliarity with
In his Judicial Affidavit,13 De Castillo stated that payments of procedures will not exempt Rillorta from liability. As a Clerk of
bailbonds were made in the office of the OlC-Clerk of Court; Court, she is expected to keep abreast of all applicable laws,
that he had not seen payments of bailbonds made inside the jurisprudence and administrative circulars pertinent to her
office or chambers of Judge Madrid; that he had not office.21 Further, Rillorta had been the OIC for nine years
participated in any transactions involving the payment of when the financial audit was conducted, and therefore, she
bailbond; and that it was the criminal docket clerk Jaime U. was presumed to know her functions and responsibilities.22
Gumpal (Gumpal) who attended to the posting of bonds and
his only participation was the review of documents after the Penalties on Judge Madrid and Rillorta
requirements were completed.
As this Court has repeatedly stated, the conduct and
On the other hand, the Judicial Affidavits 14 of Gumpal, Court behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with
Interpreter, and Susana B. Liggayu (Liggayu), Clerk III, both the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the
of Branch 21, Regional Trial Court, Santiago City, bolstered lowest clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden
the fact that Judge Madrid manipulated the Fiduciary Fund of responsibility.23 The Court has not hesitated to impose the
collections and reports submitted to the OCA. Liggayu ultimate penalty on those who have fallen short of their
testified, among others, that Judge Madrid ordered the accountabilities. Any conduct that violates the norms of public
tampering of official receipts; and that she and Rillorta made accountability and diminishes, or even tends to diminish, the
a list to monitor Judge Madrid’s overwithdrawals and faith of the people in the justice system has never been and
undeposited amounts because Rillorta was already worried will never be tolerated or condoned by this Court. 24
how much Judge Madrid would still order withdrawn.
Since Judge Madrid is found guilty of the grave offenses of
As recommended by the OCA, this administrative case grave misconduct and serious dishonesty, the penalty of
against Judge Madrid for grave misconduct and serious dismissal from the service is proper even for the first offense
dishonesty shall also be considered as a disciplinary in accordance with Section 46A(1), Rule 10 of the Revised
proceeding against her as a member of the Bar,15 in Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. However,
accordance with A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC, which provides: since Judge Madrid has already retired from the service, the
penalty of dismissal can no longer be imposed. Instead, all of
Some administrative cases against Justices of the Court of her retirement benefits, except accrued leave benefits, are
Appeals and the Sandiganbayan; judges of regular and forfeited, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch of
special courts; and court officials who are lawyers are based the government, including government-owned or controlled
on grounds which are likewise grounds for the disciplinary corporations.
action of members of the Bar for violation of the Lawyer’s
Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the With regard to Rillorta’s offense and penalty, the OCA’s
Canons of Professional Ethics, or for such other forms of recommendation differed from that of the Investigating
breaches of conduct that have been traditionally recognized Justice’s.
as grounds for the discipline of lawyers.
The Investigating Justice found Rillorta guilty of simple
In any of the foregoing instances, the administrative case neglect of duty25 while the OCA found Rillorta guilty of gross
shall also be considered a disciplinary action against the misconduct. The Investigating Justice noted that there were
respondent Justice, judge or court official concerned as a mitigating circumstances favoring Rillorta. These were “(1)
member of the Bar. The respondent may forthwith be making a list noting the non-deposit of cash bonds,
required to comment on the complaint and show cause why underdeposit to and overwithdrawals from the Fiduciary Fund
he should not also be suspended, disbarred or otherwise made at the instance of Judge Albano Madrid, (2) in going
disciplinarily sanctioned as a member of the Bar. Judgment in regularly to the COA Regional Office for Audit, (3) immediate
both respects may be incorporated in one decision or restitution of the missing funds as ordered by the Supreme
resolution. Court, (4) her previous administrative sanctions
notwithstanding because as admitted by Judge Albano
Accordingly, Judge Madrid is directed to show cause why she Madrid, she actually directed [Rillorta] to continue to function
should not be disbarred for violation of the Code of as Officer-in-Charge x x x despite the resolution of the
Professional Responsibility, particularly Canons 1 16 and Supreme Court suspending [Rillorta] x x x, (5) the moral
717 and Rule 1.0118 thereof. ascendancy and control exercised over her by Judge Albano
Madrid x x x, and (6) her staunch and determined efforts in
Rillorta is Guilty of Grave Misconduct pursuing the administrative complaint against Judge Albano
Madrid x x x.”26
Rillorta is liable for grave misconduct for her participation in
the tampering of receipts, non-deposit to and On the other hand, the OCA found that this is not the first
overwithdrawals from the Fiduciary Fund. time Rillorta has been administratively sanctioned by this
Court. In Antonio T. Quebral v. Angelina C. Rillorta, Officer-
Rillorta admitted having tampered some official receipts. in-Charge/ Clerk of Court, and Minerva B. Alvarez, Clerk IV,
However, she claims that the tamperings were upon the both of RTC, Branch 21, Santiago City, Isabela,27 she was
instructions of Judge Madrid. This does not excuse her from found guilty of neglect of duty for violation of Administrative
any liability because obviously tampering of such official Circular No. 3-2000 which requires fees to be duly collected
documents is unlawful which should never be countenanced. and receipted in case clearances are issued by the trial court
The Court sustains the OCA’s statement that “as a public and was suspended for three months without pay, with a
officer, her duty was not only to perform her assigned tasks, stern warning that a repetition of the same would warrant a
but to prevent the commission of acts inimical to the judiciary more severe penalty. In that case, Rillorta issued court
and to the public, in general.”19 It is grave misconduct when clearances free of charge to people who are “friends of court
Rillorta participated or consented to the commission of the employees” which the Court found to be highly irregular as
unlawful acts of tampering receipts and overwithdrawals from she had no power, authority, or discretion to dispense with
court funds simply because of following the orders or the payment of the said fees. Also, in Re: Anonymous
instructions of her superior, Judge Madrid. Complaint against Angelina Casareno-Rillorta, Officer-in-
Charge, Office of the Clerk of Court,28 Rillorta was found
As correctly found by the OCA, “[w]hen Judge Madrid guilty of gross misconduct for performing her duties/ reporting
ordered [Rillorta] to alter an official receipt at the first for work while under preventive suspension by the Court.
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |79
Since Rillorta’s grave misconduct, aside from her previous corporations. Angelina C. Rillorta is DIRECTED to
infractions, undermined the people’s faith in the courts and, RESTITUTE her shortages in the Fiduciary Fund after the
ultimately, in the administration of justice, the OCA’s computation of the exact amount of the shortages.
recommended penalty of dismissal is proper.
The Accounting Division, Financial Management Office of the
In Office of the Court Administrator v. Pacheco,29 the Court Office of the Court Administrator is DIRECTED to produce
found Pacheco guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct, and the orders and acknowledgment receipts in its custody, if
gross neglect of duty and consequently dismissed her from there are any, related to these consolidated cases and
the service when she tampered with receipts and incurred forward the same to the Office of the Court Administrator for
cash shortages. reconciliation and computation of the exact amount of the
shortages within ten (10) days from receipt of this Decision.
Similarly, in Office of the Court Administrator v.
Recio,30 Recio was found guilty of gross misconduct, The Office of the Court Administrator is DIRECTED to
dishonesty, and gross neglect of duty for failing to remit cash recompute the amount of the shortages incurred by Angelina
collections and misappropriating the same. She was also C. Rillorta after the submission of the orders,
found to have tampered with receipts and the cash book and acknowledgment receipts and other supporting documents
failed to submit the required monthly reports which the Court for reconciliation and to submit its findings within ten (10)
considered as acts which “evince a malicious and immoral days from receipt of the documents, if any, from the Financial
propensity.”31 Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator.
The circumstances which the Investigating Justice The Legal Office, Office of the Court Administrator is
considered mitigating do not overcome the fact that Rillorta DIRECTED to initiate the appropriate criminal proceedings
repeatedly committed offenses which aggravated the grave against Judge Fe Albano Madrid and Angelina C. Rillorta in
offense she committed in this case. However, since Rillorta view of the foregoing findings.
has already retired from the service, the penalty of dismissal
can no longer be imposed. Instead, all of her retirement SO ORDERED.
benefits, except accrued leave benefits, are forfeited, with
prejudice to re-employment in any branch of the government,
A.M. No. RTJ-01-1638 December 8, 2003
including government-owned or controlled corporations.
The Court notes that there is a finding in the report of the ATTY. MANUEL T. MOLINA, complainant,
Financial Audit Team that “in case the following supporting vs.
documents of the cashbonds will be submitted, the shortages JUDGE BENEDICTO A. PAZ, Regional Trial Court,
would be reduced to One Hundred Thirteen Thousand Two Branch 6, Aparri, Cagayan and JUDGE SEGUNDO B.
Hundred Eighty-Six Pesos and 16/100 CATRAL, Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Aparri,
(P113,286.16).”32 Rillorta insists that with regard to the Cagayan, respondents.
submission of the orders and acknowledgment receipts in
support of the withdrawn cash bonds, she only secured
DECISION
copies of some orders and acknowledgment receipts
because some case records were not made available to her.
She also explained that she had submitted her monthly CARPIO, J.:
financial report from December 1994 to April 2005 together
with copies of the orders and acknowledgment receipts to the The Case
Accounting Division, Financial Management Office, OCA.33
If the copies of the orders and acknowledgment receipts are This administrative case stemmed from a Letter dated 5
indeed in the custody of the Accounting Division, Financial February 19971 and a Sworn Statement2 executed by Atty.
Management Office of the OCA, then the amount of the Manuel T. Molina ("Atty. Molina") charging respondents
shortages Rillorta incurred will certainly be reduced. There is Judge Benedicto A. Paz ("Judge Paz") of the Regional Trial
no doubt that Rillorta has been remiss in her duty to retain Court of Aparri, Cagayan, Branch 6 ("RTC-Branch 6") and
copies of the supporting documents of the withdrawn cash Judge Segundo B. Catral ("Judge Catral") of the Regional
bonds; however, this does not automatically carry with it the Trial Court of Aparri, Cagayan, Branch 8 ("RTC-Branch 8"),
restitution of P6,557,959.7034 if this is not the exact amount with misconduct and grave abuse of authority. Atty. Molina
of the shortages. It appears that there are means to reconcile filed a Supplemental Complaint dated 21 April 19973 charging
the records available to Rillorta with the records available to respondents with grave misconduct and dishonesty.
the Financial Audit Team and the Accounting Division,
Financial Management Office of the OCA and to compute the The Court will delve into the merits of the administrative
exact amount of the shortages. The finding that the shortages complaint only as against respondent Judge Paz because in
would be reduced to P113,286.16 if the supporting the Resolution dated 6 May 2002, we dismissed the
documents of the withdrawn cash bonds would be submitted administrative complaint against Judge Catral for lack of
clearly means that the Financial Audit Team was able to merit.
compute a much reduced amount of shortages based on
available records. To order Rillorta to restitute the amount of
P6,557,959.70 as shortages when in fact this amount is The Facts
incorrect is without basis. Therefore, in the interest of justice,
Rillorta should be given the opportunity to reconcile the Mayor Licerio Antiporda, Jr. ("Mayor Antiporda") and Atty.
records available to her, including the supporting documents Franklin Tamargo ("Atty. Tamargo") were candidates for the
already submitted to this Court, and the monthly reports mayoralty post in Buguey, Cagayan in the 8 May 1995
allegedly containing the orders and acknowledgment receipts elections. On the night of election day, seven persons
supposedly in the custody of the Accounting Division, belonging to the political group headed by Mayor Antiporda
Financial Management Office of the OCA for the computation were killed in Barangay Pattao. On the same date, three
of the exact amount of the shortages that should be political followers of Atty. Tamargo were killed and one
restituted. person was injured in Barangay San Isidro. Cases for
multiple murder and attempted murder were filed against
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Judge Fe Albano Madrid, Licerio, the son of Mayor Antiporda, and other John Does.
formerly Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, These cases were raffled to RTC-Branch 8, presided by
Santiago City, Isabela, now retired, GUILTY of grave respondent Judge Catral, and docketed as Criminal Cases
misconduct and serious dishonesty and all her retirement Nos. 08-879 to 08-882. This Court subsequently ordered the
benefits, except her accrued leave benefits, are FORFEITED, transfer of the murder cases to the Regional Trial Court of
with prejudice to re-employment in any branch of the Manila, Branch 22. However, the seven cases for multiple
government, including government-owned or controlled murder filed against Attys. Molina and Tamargo, Godofredo
corporations. Judge Fe Albano Madrid is further DIRECTED Flores, Roy Flores, Quirino Cabeza and ten other John Does
to SHOW CAUSE why she should not be DISBARRED for were raffled to respondent Judge Paz.4
violation of Canons 1 and 7 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
In the instant administrative complaint, Atty. Molina alleges
The Court finds Angelina C. Rillorta, Officer-in-Charge, Office that sometime in November 1996, respondent Judge Paz and
of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Santiago City, Mayor Antiporda sought his help in settling the cases filed
Isabela, now retired, GUILTY of grave misconduct and all her against Licerio, the son of Mayor Antiporda. Attys. Molina and
retirement benefits, except her accrued leave benefits, are Tamargo were the private prosecutors in the criminal cases
FORFEITED, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch against the mayor’s son. Atty. Molina claims that at a meeting
of the government, including government-owned or controlled held at the Rembrandt Hotel in Quezon City respondent
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |80
Judge Paz assured Atty. Molina that the criminal cases for The Investigating Justice likewise found no sufficient
murder against Attys. Molina and Tamargo would be evidence to establish the charges of grave misconduct,
dismissed should there be a settlement of the cases of the abuse of authority and dishonesty against respondent Judge
mayor’s son. Paz. However, the Investigating Justice recommended that
respondent Judge Paz be fined ₱1,000 for improper conduct.
Atty. Molina further claims that at another meeting held in Good faith and an earnest desire to forge a reconciliation
December 1996, respondent Judge Paz and Mayor Antiporda between the parties may have motivated respondent Judge
Paz to intervene as mediator. However, the Investigating
asked him to go to Buguey, Cagayan to convince the
Tamargo group to settle the cases against the mayor’s son. Justice believed that respondent Judge should have
remembered the cardinal rule that judges should avoid not
Judge Paz allegedly reminded Atty. Molina that it would be
best to settle the cases of the mayor’s son so that the cases just impropriety in their conduct but also even the mere
appearance of impropriety.
against Atty. Molina and his co-accused could also be
settled. Judge Paz purportedly told Atty. Molina that Judge
Catral had been urging the transfer of the cases to the latter’s The case was referred to the Office of the Court
court, which had been designated a special court for heinous Administrator ("OCA") for evaluation, report and
crimes. Judge Catral, according to Judge Paz, would recommendation. The OCA agreed with the findings and
certainly issue a warrant of arrest since he knew Atty. Molina conclusions of the Investigating Justice and adopted in
as the counsel of Flaviano Cortes who had filed numerous toto the latter’s recommendation.
administrative cases against Judge Catral.
On 6 May 2002, this Court issued a Resolution adopting the
Atty. Molina claims that at a meeting held on 11 January recommendation of the Investigating Justice to dismiss the
1997, he informed respondent Judge Paz and Mayor administrative complaint for lack of merit only as against
Antiporda that the complainants in the murder cases did not respondent Judge Catral.
want to settle the cases against the mayor’s son. Respondent
Judge Paz allegedly expressed his disappointment and Thus, in the instant case, the Court will resolve only the
remarked that he did not issue a warrant of arrest against administrative case against respondent Judge Paz.
Attys. Molina and Tamargo hoping that the cases would be
settled. Atty. Molina claims that respondent Judge Paz then
asked him to postpone the hearing of the cases pending in The Court’s Ruling
Manila for a "cooling-off period," to which Atty. Molina
agreed. Respondent Judge Paz compulsorily retired from the service
on 21 September 1998 and has not received his retirement
On 20 January 1997 during the next hearing of the Manila benefits because of this pending administrative case. In the
cases, Atty. Molina as requested by respondent Judge Paz Resolutions5 dated 7 June 2000 and 7 August 2000, this
asked for postponement of the hearing. However, when Court denied his request6 for partial release of his retirement
Attys. Molina and Tamargo left the judge’s chamber, benefits considering the gravity of the charges against him
policemen from Buguey, Cagayan, armed with a warrant and the ongoing investigation. On 20 December 2000,
issued by Judge Catral, arrested them and brought them to respondent Judge Catral filed a Motion to Resolve and/or to
the Manila City Hall Police Detachment. There they were Dismiss the case because of the Manifestation dated 24 July
presented, in handcuffs, before media reporters and then 2000 of Atty. Molina to "discontinue to prosecute his
brought directly to Buguey jail. complaint."7
Atty. Molina claims that Judge Catral hastily issued the The retirement of a judge or any judicial officer from the
warrant of arrest because the logbook of respondent Judge service does not preclude the finding of any administrative
Paz does not show that the records of the murder cases had liability to which he should still be answerable. 8 The
been transferred to Judge Catral. withdrawal or recantation of the complainant by the
administrative charges does not necessarily result in the
dismissal of the administrative case. We have repeatedly
In his Supplemental Complaint, Atty. Molina accuses ruled that:
respondent Judge Paz of unlawfully using the power of his
office when Judge Catral issued another warrant of arrest
after the Court of Appeals had granted the petition for writ of xxx, withdrawal of a complaint or subsequent desistance by
habeas corpus filed by him and Atty. Tamargo. the complainant in an administrative case does not
necessarily warrant its dismissal. Administrative actions
cannot depend on the will or pleasure of the complainant who
For his part, respondent Judge Paz admits having facilitated may, for reasons of his own, condone what may be
the meeting of Atty. Molina and Mayor Antiporda but claims it detestable. Neither can the Court be bound by the unilateral
was out of sheer compassion, devoid of bias and prejudice.
act of the complainant in a matter relating to its disciplinary
Respondent Judge Paz claims he accepted the invitation of power. The Court does not dismiss administrative cases
Mayor Antiporda to act as mediator between the warring
against members of the Bench merely on the basis of
political opponents solely to restore peace in the Municipality withdrawal of the charges. Desistance cannot divest the
of Buguey, Cagayan. Court of its jurisdiction to investigate and decide the
complaint against the respondent. To be sure, public interest
This Court referred the administrative case to Justice Ruben is at stake in the conduct and actuations of officials and
T. Reyes ("Investigating Justice") of the Court of Appeals for employees of the judiciary. And the program and efforts of
investigation, report and recommendation. this Court in improving the delivery of justice to the people
should not be frustrated and put to naught by private
Report of the Investigating Justice arrangements between the parties.9
A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of ROGELIO PESOLE, complainant,
impropriety in all activities. vs.
MUNICIPAL JUDGE LUCIO L. RODRIGUEZ, of Tabogon,
RULE 2.01. - A judge should so behave at all times as to Cebu. respondent.
promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of
the judiciary. RESOLUTION
xxx
RULE 2.04. – A judge shall refrain from influencing in any ANTONIO, J.:
manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before
another court or administrative agency. In his verified complaint, dated may 16, 1974, complainant
Rogelio Pesole of Cebu City charged respondent Lucio L
Even the personal behavior of judges in their everyday lives Rodriguez, Municipal Judge of Tabogon, Cebu, with
should be beyond reproach. Judges should avoid even the "Misconduct and/or Misbehavior" for having acted as counsel
slightest infraction of the law.13 Those who occupy exalted of one Pedro Apa in the preliminary investigation for
positions in the administration of justice must pay a high price falsification before the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Cebu,
for the honor bestowed on them. Their private as well as their and for having notarized the documents of said Pedro Apa,
official conduct must be always free from the appearance of which documents became the basis of the falsification
impropriety.14 charge.
Judges should be extra prudent in associating with litigants Required to comment on the complaint, respondent Judge
and counsel appearing before them to avoid even a mere vehemently denied the charged, explaining that he notarized
perception of possible bias or partiality. Judges need not live the affidavit of Pedro Apa in his capacity as ex-officio notary
in seclusion, nor avoid all social interrelations. When time public and that during the preliminary investigation of the
and work commitments permit, judges may continue to relate falsification charge against Pedro Apa, a cultivator of a piece
to members of the bar in worthwhile endeavors in such fields of land belonging to him (respondent), he acted not as
of interest as are in keeping with the noble objectives of the counsel but as "moderator" or amicus curiae", with the
legal profession. implied permission of the Fiscal. Subsequent to the filing of
said comment, respondent filed with this Court no less than
However, in pending or prospective litigations before them, four (4) petitions, all praying for the formal investigation of the
judges should be scrupulously careful to avoid anything that complaint or its dismissal for being malicious or groundless.
may tend to awaken the suspicion that their personal, social
or sundry relations could influence their objectivity. Not only Pending investigation of the administrative charges, the
must judges possess proficiency in law, they must also act President of the Philippines accepted respondent's courtesy
and behave in such manner that would assure litigants and resignation. In view thereof, this Court, in a Resolution dated
their counsel of the judges’ competence, integrity and March 10, 1976 be set aside and that his urgent petition
independence.15 dated May 7, 1976 praying, among other things, for formal
investigation of this case at the earliest date convenient to
the Court, be entertained. On august 10, 1976, this Court
In the present administrative case, respondent Judge Paz
admitted to facilitating a meeting between Atty. Molina and resolved to set aside its previous order and to refer the
Mayor Antiporda with the aim of forging a settlement between complaint to the Executive Judge of the Court of First
the warring political factions. Respondent Judge Paz saw Instance of Cebu City for investigation, report and
himself as a mediator between the contending political recommendation.
factions in the Municipality of Buguey. However, Atty. Molina
was at that time facing a multiple murder case in the sala of Pursuant to said referral, Judge Mariano A. Zosa, Executive
respondent Judge Paz and the victims of the multiple murder Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu City, set the
case were the political followers of Mayor complaint for hearing on September 20, 21, and 22, but
Antiporda.1âwphi1 In short, respondent Judge Paz held a because the complainant was not duly notified thereof, the
private meeting with Atty. Molina, who was then accused of hearing was reset to October 6, 8, and 11, 1976. Meanwhile,
multiple murder before respondent Judge. Respondent Judge Judge received a letter, dated September 30, 1976, from
Paz knew that Atty. Molina was a private prosecutor in the complainant Rogelio Pesole formally withdrawing his
criminal cases against the mayor’s son pending with another complaint against respondent on the ground of lack of
court. The disputes between the political factions involved interest with the further information that he was no longer
grave felonies, which respondent Judge Paz should have appearing in the scheduled investigation to substantiate his
known could not be the subject of compromise. complaint.
Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a Notwithstanding the formal withdrawal of the complaint by the
judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of complainant, respondent insisted on presenting his evidence
impropriety in all his activities. A judge must not only be which the Investigating Judge accordingly received on
impartial, he must also appear to be impartial. Public October 6, 1976. The evidence presented by the respondent
confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or to prove the falsity of the charges consisted of documents,
improper conduct of judges. Fraternizing with litigants namely: letter of the respondent dated August 13, 1974
tarnishes this appearance.16 address to the Provincial' Fiscal of Cebu requesting for -
clarification on the quest-Ion of whether or not he appeared
Respondent Judge Paz’s actuation constitutes simple as counsel for Pedro Apa (Exhibit "1"), and the 1st
misconduct, which for a first offense is punishable with Indorsement thereon dated August 19. 1974 of Provincial
Fiscal Santiago N. Medina stating that as per record of the
suspension of one month and one day to six
months.17 However, respondent Judge Paz had retired investigation there is no such appearance (Exhibit "1-A");
certification of the stenographer during the formal
compulsorily on 21 September 1998. In lieu of suspension,
respondent Judge Paz should be fined, not ₱1,000 as investigation, stating that nobody entered his appearance
recommended by the Investigating Justice, but ₱20,000 counsel for Pedro Apa (Exhibit "2"): transcript of stenographic
considering that simple misconduct is a less serious notes evidencing that, respondent did not enter any
charge.18 appearance a counsel for Pedro Apa (Exhibit "5"); and the
certification of Judge Eusebio Arnoco, Acting Municipal
Judge of Tabogon, Cebu, to the effect that the affidavit
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Benedicto A. Paz is executed by Pedro Apa was subscribe and sworn to before
adjudged guilty of SIMPLE MISCONDUCT and FINED respondent Judge in his capacity as Municipal Judge and ex-
Twenty Thousand Pesos (₱20,000) to be deducted from his officio notary public of Tabogon Cebu.
retirement benefits. Let the retirement benefits of respondent
Judge Benedicto A. Paz be released immediately, subject to
the deduction of the ₱20,000 fine and the usual clearances. In his Findings and Recommendation the Investigating Judge
recommends the dismissal of the complaint and the
exoneration of the respondent on the ground that the charges
SO ORDERED. have not been substantiated.
The story of Lo Chi Fai that he and five other business We are not unmindful of the fact that in a few other recent
associates from Japan and Hongkong separately brought the decisions, this Court also applied the doctrine of res ipsa
foreign currencies into the Philippines for a business venture loquitur in judging the errant Judge’s misdeeds. (People v.
and that he tried to declare his US$50,000.00 and Yen Valenzuela, 135 SCRA 712 [1985]; Cathay Pacific Airways v.
8,500,000.00 upon arrival but the Central Bank representive Romillo, 142 SCRA 262 [1986]; Prudential Bank v. Castro,
refused to accept his declaration pending confirmation from 142 SCRA 223 [1986]; and Consolidated Bank and Trust
the Hongkong source is, as we ruled, palpably concocted. Corporation v. Capistrano, 159 SCRA 47 [1988] We
Instead of looking for criminal intent, the respondent should differentiate this case from these cited cases.chanrobles
have immediately rejected the unbelievable story. virtual lawlibrary
This notwithstanding, there is no clear indication from the In these res ipsa loquitur resolutions, there was on the face of
records that the respondent’s assailed decision was inspired the assailed decisions, an inexplicable grave error bereft of
by corrupt motives or a reprehensible purpose to set the any redeeming feature, a patent railroading of a case to bring
plainly guilty free. There is gross misjudgment — yes, but not about an unjust decision, or a manifestly deliberate intent to
a deliberate twisting of facts to justify his decision. His plea wreak an injustice against a hapless party. The facts
that because the penalty for violation of CB Circular No. 960 themselves, previously proven or admitted, were of such a
was that provided for in the Revised Penal Code, he believed character as to give rise to a strong inference that evil intent
that intent or malice was an essential element of the offense was present. Such intent, in short, was clearly deducible from
of course deserves but scant consideration. But because what was already of record. The res ipsa loquitur doctrine
such belief is clearly wrong does not rule out its being held does not except or dispense with the necessity of proving the
and acted upon in good faith, not from improper motives. facts on which the inference of evil intent is based. It merely
There is likewise no question that he did not transgress the expresses the clearly sound and reasonable conclusion that
procedural requirements needed for the rendition of a when such facts are admitted or are already shown by the
judgment in a criminal case. The facts are all stated in the record, and no credible explanation that would negative the
decision. It was his egregiously erroneous interpretation of strong inference of evil intent is forthcoming, no further
the law which led us to discipline the Respondent. hearing to establish them to support a judgment as to the
culpability of a respondent is necessary.
In our February 23, 1988 resolution, we stated that" (A) judge
can not be held to account or answer, criminally, civilly, or Thus, when asked to explain the clearly gross ignorance of
administratively, for an erroneous decision rendered by him law or the grave misconduct irresistibly reflecting on their
in good faith." (Emphasis supplied) The foregoing doctrine integrity, the respondent Judges were completely unable to
remains the law.chanrobles virtualawlibrary give any credible explanation or to raise reasonable doubt
chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph which have justified a more lenient judgment of their conduct.
We do not, by any means, exonerate the respondent from all Respondent Judge Dizon has, in our view, sincerely evinced
blame nor do we completely overlook the erroneous a humble repentance. He admits his errors in interpreting the
judgment. His act remains unjustified. It does not speak well law but he pleads that they are not of such gravity as to
of an officer who must "read, study and ponder" and deserve a penalty of "virtually capital punishment." Even as
"personify learning and equanimity." (Lopez v. Fernandez, 99 he asked for "mercy, compassion, and humanity in the light
SCRA 603 [1980]). In the case of Fajota v. Balonso (105 of his good faith and long years of dedication and devoted
SCRA 1, 4 [1981]), this Court reiterated the strong service to the government," he begs leave to state that "no
admonition of former Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando in man is perfect" and that he himself "is subject to commission
his concurring opinion in Quizon v. Baltazar, Jr. (65 SCRA of mistakes." He submits, however, that his error "was not
293, 299 [1975]), to wit:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph motivated by any improper considerations." The respondent
"sincerely declares that he respects the wisdom of this
"It is a truism that the learning process in law does not stop Honorable Court, its unquestionable disciplinary authority
upon graduation from college and admission to the Bar. over the members of the bench and the lofty purposes sought
There should be, on the contrary, more sustained intellectual to be subserved by the exercise of such constitutional
effort on the part of the members of the legal profession. power." He ends his motion for reconsideration with a
Certainly, judges are not exempt from this obligation. It is "respectful and earnest prayer" that we reconsider our
even more incumbent on them as they are thought of as the Resolution in this administrative matter.
oracles of law.’ There is likely then to be a disillusionment in
the judicial process if, as did happen here, an occupant of the Our decision to dismiss the respondent Judge took effect on
bench was found to be woefully lacking in legal knowledge. . . February 23, 1988. On the basis of the foregoing
. The efforts for improvement in the mode of administering considerations, we feel he has been sufficiently punished for
the government in all its manifold complexity would come to the administrative infraction. We, therefore, order his
naught if our people can harbor the suspicion that judges do reinstatement.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
not even know what the law is."cralaw virtua1aw library
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the motion
While the Court does not require perfection and infallibility, it for reconsideration is hereby GRANTED. The judgment in the
reasonably expects a faithful and intelligent discharge of duty Resolution of this Court dated February 23, 1988 is
by those who are selected to fill the positions of MODIFIED. Respondent Judge Baltazar R. Dizon is
administrators of justice. considered suspended from office without pay for the period
from February 23, 1988 to the date this resolution is
In considering the respondent’s humble submission which promulgated. He may, therefore, be REINSTATED to office
"respectfully entreats the kind of indulgence and sympathetic immediately. Let a copy of this resolution be attached to the
understanding of this most Honorable Supreme Court," we respondent’s personal record.
have taken into account the overloaded dockets of Metro
Manila trial judges, the unceasing strain caused by daily
hearings on complex cases and the sad lack of libraries, G.R. No. L-64276 March 4, 1986
decent courtrooms, office equipment, supplies, and other
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |85
CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS, LTD., petitioner, The following day, February 23, CPA filed a notice of appeal.
vs. This was, however, declared by the trial court to have filed
HON. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR., ETC., ET out of time, for which reason, the records of the case have
AL., respondents. never been elevated to the appellate court.
PLANA, J.: It was against this backdrop that petitioner has filed the
instant petition assailing the order of default and the default
This is a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with judgment, and praying that the said order and judgment be
prayer for a temporary restraining order directed against annulled and set aside, that respondent Judge be enjoined
respondent Judge's order declaring petitioner in default, from executing the assailed decision, and that he be ordered
judgment by default, and the order denying petitioner's to admit petitioner's answer and proceed to set the case for
motion to set aside said order and judgment. pretrial and trial on the merits.
Samir Beiruty and Mohammed Al-Sulain arrived at the Manila Upon the filing of the petition, the Court issued a temporary
International Airport via Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. (CPA) restraining order enjoining the respondents from executing
from Hongkong, but they were denied entry for lack of visas the judgment by default dated November 9, 1982 and from
and they had to return to Hongkong. holding any aircraft or properties of petitioner preparatory to
execution. (Rollo, p. 130.)
f) the costs of suit. (Rollo, p. 68.) It should be borne in mind that the policy of the law is to have
every litigated case tried on the merits as much as possible.
It is for this reason that judgments by default are frowned
Copies of the decision including the order of default were upon.
served on CPA on December 9, 1982. It was only then that
CPA came to know of the order of default.
The needless delay and trouble spawned by the unfortunate
order of default and judgment by default assailed in the
Within thirty days from receipt of the decision or on January instant case warrant calling attention once more to a previous
7, 1983, CPA filed a motion to lift the order of default and set reminder made by this Court through Mr. Justice Claudio
aside the default judgment. Teehankee:
The motion was denied in an order dated February 15, 1983 Time and again the Court has enjoined trial judges to act with
(received by CPA on February 22, 1983) principally on the circumspection and not to precipitately declare parties in
ground that the motion was filed almost seven months from default, needlessly compelling the aggrieved party to undergo
the issuance on June 30, 1982 of the default order and the the additional expense, anxiety and delay of seeking the
decision by then (February 15, 1983) had already become intervention of the appeciate courts and depriving them of the
final and executory. much needed time and attention that could instead have well
been devoted to the study and disposition of more complex
On February 22, 1983, the trial court granted a writ of and complicated cases and issues. (Akut vs. Court of
execution, also on the ground that the judgment by default Appeals, 116 SCRA 213, 220.)
had become final and executory, the motion to lift the order of
default and set aside the judgment filed by defendant not Accordingly, the questioned order of default dated June 30,
having the effect of suspending the period for perfecting an 1982, the default judgment of November 9, 1982, the order of
appeal. February 15, 1983 denying the motion to lift the said order
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |86
and judgment, and all proceedings taken thereafter in the It would seem incongruous for the Supreme Court to allow
court a quo are hereby annulled and set aside. The Executive convicted felons out on bail to hear and adjudicate cases in
Judge of the Regional Trial Court in Pasay City is directed to its courts.
cause the re-raffle of Civil Case No. 0018-P (Beiruty and Al-
Sulain vs. Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd.). The lower court is 4. Finally, as a sitting judge who wields power over all
ordered to admit thereafter petitioner's answer and set the persons appearing before her and has immeasurable
case for pretrial and trial on the merits, after which another influence within the judicial system as one of its members,
judgment shall be rendered upon the evidence presented.
Judge Angeles could definitely cause pressure to bear, not
Treble costs against private respondents, only on the members of the Court of Appeals and, possibly,
the Supreme Court, but also on the Office of the Solicitor
Respondent Judge is hereby ordered to show cause within General that prosecutes her case on appeal. Only temporary
ten (10) days from notice why he should not be dealt with suspension from official function, pending resolution of her
administratively for having awarded in favor of private case, will neutralize her judicial clout and clear the air of any
respondents what per se appear as outrageously exorbitant kind of suspicion that justice is not going well in her case.
damages.
On July 27, 2006, the matter was referred to the OCA for
SO ORDERED. comment and recommendation.6
A.M. No. 06-9-545-RTC January 31, 2008 On the basis of SSP Velasco's letter and by virtue of this
Court's Resolution7 dated March 31, 1981, the OCA
submitted to this Court a Report8 dated August 25, 2006 with
Re: CONVICTION OF JUDGE ADORACION G. ANGELES, an attached Administrative Complaint,9 the dispositive portion
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 121, CALOOCAN of which reads as follows:
CITY IN CRIMINAL CASE NOS. Q-97-69655 to 56 FOR
CHILD ABUSE
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this
administrative complaint be given due course and,
DECISION respondent be ordered to file her Comment within ten (10)
days from receipt. Considering the evidence is prima facie
NACHURA, J.: strong, it is respectfully recommended that she
be INDEFINITELY SUSPENDED pending the outcome of the
instant case or until further orders from this Court. It is further
Before this Court is yet another administrative case
recommended that after the Comment is filed, the
confronting respondent Adoracion G. Angeles (respondent),
administrative proceeding be suspended to await the final
Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch
outcome of the criminal cases filed against her.
121, Caloocan City (sala) filed by the Office of the Court
Administrator1 (OCA) recommending that she be suspended
pending the outcome of this administrative case. In a Resolution10 dated September 18, 2006, this Court's
Second Division approved all of these recommendations,
thus, suspending respondent from performing her judicial
The Facts
functions while awaiting the final resolution of her criminal
cases or until further orders from this Court.
On July 17, 2006, the RTC, Branch 100, Quezon City
rendered a Decision2 in Criminal Case Nos. Q-97-69655-56
On October 6, 2006, respondent filed an Urgent Motion for
convicting respondent of violation of Republic Act (RA) No.
Reconsideration11 of the aforementioned Resolution.
7610.3 The criminal cases are now on appeal before the
Respondent claimed that the suspension order was wielded
Court of Appeals (CA).4
against her without affording her the opportunity to be heard
since she was not furnished copies of SSP Velasco's letter
On July 25, 2006, Senior State Prosecutor Emmanuel Y. and OCA's Administrative Complaint. Thus, respondent
Velasco (SSP Velasco) of the Department of Justice (DOJ) submitted that her suspension is essentially unjust.
wrote a letter5 to then Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban Moreover, respondent manifested that the two criminal cases
inquiring whether it is possible for this Court, in the public against her are on appeal before the CA and have, therefore,
interest, motu proprio to order the immediate suspension of not yet attained finality. As such, respondent still enjoys the
the respondent in view of the aforementioned RTC Decision. constitutional presumption of innocence and her suspension
SSP Velasco opined: clashes with this presumption and is tantamount to a
prejudgment of her guilt.
1. Judge Angeles now stands convicted on two counts of a
crime, child abuse under Republic Act 7610, which involves On the other hand, on October 11, 2006, SSP Velasco filed
moral turpitude. Until she clears her name of such conviction, an Urgent Appeal/Manifestation12 to the Court En Banc on
her current moral qualification to do the work of a judge is the alleged unethical conduct of respondent, seeking the
under a dark cloud. Litigants seeking justice in our courts are immediate implementation of this Court's Resolution dated
entitled to a hearing by judges whose moral qualifications are September 18, 2006. On October 16, 2007, SSP Velasco
not placed in serious doubt. filed an Opposition to the said Motion for
Reconsideration,13 manifesting that respondent continuously
2. Although her conviction is not yet final, the presumption of defied this Court's Resolution dated September 18, 2006 as
innocence that Judge Angeles enjoyed during the pendency she did not desist from performing her judicial functions
of the trial has already been overcome by its result. The despite her receipt of said Resolution on October 6, 2006.
presumption today is that she is guilty and must clear her SSP Velasco stressed that an order of suspension issued by
name of the charges. this Court is immediately executory notwithstanding the filing
of a motion for reconsideration. Moreover, SSP Velasco
reiterated that due to her conviction on two counts of child
xxxx abuse, respondent no longer enjoys the constitutional
presumption of innocence and should remain suspended in
It simply would not be right to have a person presumably order to erase any suspicion that she is using her influence to
guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude to hear and obtain a favorable decision and in order to maintain and
adjudicate the cases of others. reaffirm the people's faith in the integrity of the judiciary.
3. Under section 5 of Rule 114 of the Rules of Criminal Correlatively, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Caloocan,
Procedure, since the RTC of Quezon City convicted Judge Malabon, Navotas Chapter (IBP-CALMANA Chapter),
Angeles of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion through its Public Relations Officer (PRO) Atty. Emiliano A.
perpetua or life imprisonment, she no longer has a right to Mackay, wrote a letter14 dated October 18, 2006 addressed
bail and, therefore, should ordinarily be held in prison to the Second Division of this Court inquiring as to the
pending adjudication of her appeal. That the RTC of Quezon effectivity of the Resolution suspending the respondent so as
City chose not to sow confusion among the legal practitioners and party
litigants with pending cases before the respondent's sala.
Likewise, the IBP-CALMANA Chapter manifested that
to exercise its discretionary power to nonetheless grant her respondent did not cease to perform her judicial functions as
bail does not change the fact that, except for the bail, Judge evidenced by a Commitment Order15 issued by respondent
Angeles' rightful place by reason of conviction is within the on October 16, 2006, and handwritten manifestations 16 of
confinement of prison. some party litigants attesting that on various dates they
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |87
attended hearings before respondent's sala. In the same subordinate of then National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
vein, in an undated letter17 addressed to Associate Justice Director Epimaco Velasco (Director Velasco), father of
Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, the Concerned Trial Lawyers in
the City of Caloocan raised the same concern before this herein party SSP Velasco, thus, CA Lock's ill motive against
Court. respondent is clear; (4) that CA Lock should not use the OCA
to harass a member of the judiciary; (5) that the decision in
In her Reply18 to SSP Velasco's Opposition, respondent the aforementioned criminal cases has not yet become final;
admitted that she continued discharging her bounden duties (6) that the acts for which she was convicted are totally alien
in utmost good faith after filing her motion for reconsideration. to her official functions and have nothing to do with her
She averred that she did not have the slightest intention to fitness and competence as a judge; (7) that there is no
defy or ignore this Court's Resolution which did not wisdom in the imposition of the suspension which in this case
categorically state that the said suspension is immediately is preventive in character because respondent cannot do
executory. Respondent reiterated her arguments against the anything through her office that could possibly cause
suspension order on the grounds that she was deprived of prejudice to the prosecution of the child abuse case; (8) that
due process; that her conviction is not yet final; and that the the lifting of the suspension order retroacts to the date of its
crimes for which she was convicted have nothing to do with issuance; (9) that the instant case should be struck down
the discharge of her official duties. Lastly, respondent because the judgment of conviction was contrary to law and
claimed that the instant case is but another harassment suit jurisprudence; and (10) that under the circumstances, all the
filed against her by SSP Velasco because she earlier filed an charges were merely concocted by respondent's detractors in
administrative complaint against the latter for maliciously order to embarrass, humiliate and vex her.
indicting respondent with respect to another case of child
abuse. In his Motion for Reconsideration27 of this Court's Resolution
dated February 19, 2007, SSP Velasco argued that
On October 25, 2006, respondent filed a Manifestation of respondent's deprivation of her right to due process was
Voluntary Inhibition19 stating that she is voluntarily inhibiting cured when she filed her motion for the reconsideration of the
from handling all cases scheduled for hearing before her sala suspension order; thus, there is no need to lift such order. He
from October 25, 2006 to November 13, 2006. reiterated his previous statement that "as a sitting judge who
wields power over all persons appearing before her and thus
has immeasurable influence within the judicial system as one
On October 27, 2006, the OCA conducted a judicial audit in
respondent's sala. Per Report20 of the judicial audit team, it of its members, Judge Angeles could definitely cause
pressure to bear, not only on the members of the Court of
was established that from October 6, 2006 to October 23,
2006, respondent conducted hearings, issued orders, Appeals and, possibly, the Supreme Court, but also on the
decided cases and resolved motions, acting as if the order of Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) that prosecutes her
suspension which the respondent received on October 6, case on appeal. Only her suspension from official function,
2006 was only a "mirage." The Report was brought to the pending resolution of her case, will neutralize her judicial
attention of Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno by Court clout and clear the air of any kind of suspicion that justice is
Administrator Christopher O. Lock (CA Lock). 21 not going well in her case."28
On October 30, 2006, SSP Velasco filed an Administrative In response, respondent filed a Comment/Opposition to the
Complaint against respondent for violation of the Court's said motion with a Motion to Declare SSP Velasco in
Circulars, the New Code of Judicial Conduct, and the Civil contempt of Court29 due to this aforementioned statement.
Respondent argued that such statement betrays SSP
Service Rules and Regulations, and for Gross Misconduct,
asseverating, among others, that the suspension order was Velasco's cheap and low perception of the integrity and
independence of this Court, of the CA and of the OSG. It also
immediately executory22 and that integrity as mandated by
the New Code of Judicial Conduct is essential not only to the shows his utter lack of respect for the judicial system.
Moreover, respondent added that since she was not
proper discharge of the judicial office but also to the personal
demeanor of judges. furnished a copy of the OCA Administrative Complaint, the
issuance of the suspension order deprived her of her right to
due process and prevented her from fully ventilating her
In her Comment,23 respondent, in addition to her previous arguments. Respondent, likewise, questioned SSP Velasco's
contentions, argued that the Resolution dated September 18, legal personality in this case as it was the OCA which, motu
2006 ordering her suspension was issued only by a Division proprio, initiated the filing of the said case.
of this Court contrary to Section 11, Article VIII of the
Constitution, which provides that "the Supreme Court en
banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower In a Resolution dated July 4, 2007, this Court, among others,
courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the directed SSP Velasco to file his comment on respondent's
Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the motion to cite him for contempt. On August 21, 2007, SSP
Velasco filed his Comment claiming that he has legal
issues in the case and voted thereon."
personality to file pleadings before this Court because it was
he who initiated the filing of this case through his letter to
On November 9, 2006, SSP Velasco filed a Supplement to then Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban on July 25, 2006.
the Opposition to Respondent's Urgent Motion for He admitted that the allegedly contemptuous statements
Reconsideration24 of the Resolution dated September 18, were merely lifted from said letter. He argued that the former
2006. Thereafter, numerous pleadings 25 were filed by both Chief Justice or the Court for that matter, did not find any
parties practically repeating their previous allegations. contemptuous statement in the letter. Taking the letter in its
entire context, SSP Velasco posited that he did not commit
Subsequently, in a Resolution dated February 19, 2007, this any act of disobedience to the orders of this Court; neither
Court lifted the suspension of respondent on the ground that: did he bring the Court's authority and the administration of
law into disrepute nor did he impede the due administration
of justice. Nowhere in the letter was it stated that this Court,
Upon verification, it appears that the Office of the Clerk of the CA and the OSG could be pressured; the letter merely
Court, Second Division, indeed failed to attach a copy of the stated that respondent could cause pressure. SSP Velasco
OCA complaint to the copy of our resolution dated pointed that the letter to the then Chief Justice, in itself,
September 18, 2006 sent to Judge Angeles. Due process shows his respect for the judiciary and the promotion of the
requires that Judge Angeles be accorded the opportunity to administration of justice.
answer the complaint.
In her Reply30 to said Comment, respondent argued that it
Respondent was then given a fresh period of ten (10) days cannot be said that somebody could cause pressure if no one
from the receipt of the OCA Administrative Complaint within is believed to be susceptible to pressure. Thus, the use of
which to file her comment. this kind of language tends to degrade the administration of
justice and constitutes indirect contempt. She stressed that
On March 15, 2007, respondent filed her Comment 26 with the SSP Velasco's act of misrepresenting himself as the
following material assertions: (1) that CA Lock as Court complainant in this case while it is clear from the Resolution
Administrator and who in behalf of the OCA stands as the of this Court that the OCA motu propriofiled the same, is per
complainant in this case, has no personal knowledge of the se contemptuous.
facts, issues and evidence presented in the criminal cases;
(2) that the instant case, filed eleven (11) years after the Meanwhile in its Memorandum,31 the OCA reiterated its
criminal charges for child abuse were filed by Nancy Gaspar earlier position that respondent should be suspended
and Proclyn Pacay, smacks of malice and bad faith on the pending the outcome of this administrative case. The OCA
part of CA Lock; (3) that CA Lock is a friend and former opined that the Resolution lifting the suspension order was
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |88
basically premised on the ground that respondent was not particulars and certified true copies of documents or
accorded her right to due process. By filing her Comment papers involved therein, and upon full compliance with
raising arguments against her suspension, respondent has the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings for civil
fully availed herself of such right. However, the OCA actions in the court concerned . . . . (Emphasis supplied)
submitted that respondent's arguments are devoid of merit on
the following grounds: (1) the Court Administrator need not A charge of indirect contempt must be filed in the form of a
personally know about the criminal cases of respondent verified petition if it is not initiated directly by the court against
because the instant case is based on a public document, i.e.,
which the contemptuous act was committed. On previous
the decision of the RTC convicting the respondent of child occasions, we clarified that such petition is in the nature of a
abuse; (2) the fact that said decision has not attained finality
special civil action. Certified true copies of related documents
is of no moment for what is being sought is merely preventive must be submitted with the petition and appropriate docket
suspension. Thus, in the event that respondent is acquitted in
fees must be paid. The requirement of a verified petition is
the criminal cases of which she stands accused, she will mandatory. As Justice Florenz D. Regalado has explained:
receive the salaries and other benefits which she would not
receive during her suspension; (3) even if the acts of child
abuse have no connection with respondent's official functions This new provision clarifies with a regulatory norm the proper
as a judge, it is established that the private conduct of judges procedure for commencing contempt proceedings. While
cannot be dissociated from their official functions; (4) such proceeding has been classified as a special civil action
respondent's preventive suspension shall serve an important under the former Rules, the heterogeneous practice,
purpose: it will protect the image of the judiciary and preserve tolerated by the courts, has been for any party to file a mere
the faith of the people in the same; and motion without paying any docket or lawful fees therefor and
without complying with the requirements for initiatory
pleadings, which is now required in the second paragraph of
(5) citing the case of Leonida Vistan v. Judge Ruben T.
[Section 4].34
Nicolas,32 the RTC decision convicting respondent of child
abuse is prima facie evidence that respondent committed the
said crime which indicates the moral depravity of the offender On the charge of indirect contempt of court, we therefore find
and, as such, warrants the punishment of dismissal from the that SSP Velasco's statement, while irresponsible, did not
service. Thus, the OCA recommended that respondent be necessarily degrade the administration of justice as to be
suspended pending the outcome of this administrative case considered contumacious. The salutary rule is that the power
and that the CA be directed to resolve the criminal cases with to punish for contempt must be exercised on the
dispatch. preservative, not vindictive principle, and on the corrective
and not retaliatory idea of punishment. A lawyer's remarks
explaining his position in a case under consideration do not
The Issues necessarily assume the level of contempt that justifies the
court's exercise of the power of contempt. 35 We note that
There are two ultimate issues in this case: SSP Velasco's statement was made in support of his
argument for the imposition of preventive suspension, i.e., to
First, whether or not grounds exist to cite SSP Velasco for prevent the respondent from using her current position to
indirect contempt of Court; and alter the course of the investigation and the disposition of the
appealed criminal cases.
We resolve the first issue in the negative. Canon 8. Rule 8.01 - A lawyer shall not, in his professional
dealings, use language which is abusive, offensive or
In Pilar Barredo-Fuentes v. Judge Romeo C. Albarracin,33 we otherwise improper.
held:
Canon 11. A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect
Contempt of court is a defiance of the authority, justice or due to the courts and to judicial officers and should insist on
dignity of the court, such conduct as tends to bring the similar conduct by others.
authority and administration of the law into disrespect or to
interfere with or prejudice parties, litigant or their witnesses A lawyer is an officer of the Court. It is a lawyer's sworn and
during litigation. moral duty to help build and not unnecessarily destroy the
people's high esteem and regard for the courts so essential
There are two kinds of contempt punishable by law: direct to the proper administration of justice.
contempt and indirect contempt. Direct contempt is
committed when a person is guilty of misbehavior in the A lawyer's language may be forceful but should always be
presence of or so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the dignified;
proceedings before the same, including disrespect toward the
court, offensive personalities toward others, or refusal to be
sworn or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe an affidavit emphatic but respectful, as befitting an advocate. Arguments,
or deposition when lawfully required to do so. Indirect whether written or oral, should be gracious to both court and
contempt or constructive contempt is that which is committed opposing counsel, and should use such language as may be
out of the presence of the court. Any improper conduct properly addressed by one person to another.36
tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade
the administration of justice would constitute indirect We likewise resolve the second issue in the negative. The
contempt. Court cannot fully agree with the recommendation of the
OCA.
In her Comment/Opposition with Motion to Declare SSP
Velasco in contempt of Court, respondent espoused the view Pertinent is our ruling in Emmanuel Ymson Velasco v. Judge
that SSP Velasco is guilty of indirect contempt for using Adoracion G. Angeles,37 which involved the same parties and
language which tends to degrade the administration of where we held:
justice. But if this were so, respondent should have availed
herself of the remedy in accordance with Section 4, Rule 71 An act unrelated to a judge's discharge of judicial functions
of the Rules of Court, viz: may give rise to administrative liability even when such act
constitutes a violation of penal law. When the issue is
SEC. 4. How proceedings commenced. - Proceedings for administrative liability, the quantum of proof required is only
indirect contempt may be initiated motu proprio by the court substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence
against which the contempt was committed by an order or which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show support a conclusion. Evidence to support a conviction in a
cause why he should not be punished for contempt. criminal case is not necessary, and the dismissal of the
criminal case against the respondent in an administrative
In all other cases, charges for indirect contempt shall be case is not a ground for the dismissal of the administrative
case. Conversely, conviction in the criminal case will not
commenced by a verified petition with supporting
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |89
automatically warrant a finding of guilt in the had made sure that his son be assigned to the library to
administrative case. We emphasize the well-settled rule enable the latter to conveniently adjust his schedule in
that criminal and civil cases are altogether different from reviewing for the bar examination.
administrative matters, and each must be disposed of
according to the facts and the law applicable to it. Neither was SSP Velasco spared. Of him, the respondent
said: "A reading of the motion for reconsideration readily
In Nuñez v. Atty. Arturo B. Astorga,38 the Court held that the discloses that it is mainly anchored on SSP Velasco's
mere existence of pending criminal charges against the malicious speculations about the guilt of the
respondent-lawyer cannot be a ground for disbarment or undersigned. Speculations, especially those that emanate
suspension of the latter. To hold otherwise would open the from the poisonous intentions of attention-seeking
door to harassment of attorneys through the mere filing of individuals, are no different from garbage that should be
numerous criminal cases against them. rejected outright";49 and "His malicious insinuation is no less
than a revelation of his warped mindset that a person's
position could cause pressure to bear among government
By parity of reasoning, the fact of respondent's conviction by
the RTC does not necessarily warrant her suspension. We officials. This brings forth a nagging question. Did SSP
Velasco use his position at the DOJ to 'cause pressure to
agree with respondent's argument that since her conviction of
the crime of child abuse is currently on appeal before the CA, bear' and obtain a favorable disposition of the administrative
the same has not yet attained finality. As such, she still cases lodged against him by the undersigned? Is he afraid of
enjoys the constitutional presumption of innocence. It must his own ghost?"50
be remembered that the existence of a presumption
indicating the guilt of the accused does not in itself destroy It must be stressed again that, as a dispenser of justice,
the constitutional presumption of innocence unless the respondent should exercise judicial temperament at all times,
inculpating presumption, together with all the evidence, or the avoiding vulgar and insulting language. She must maintain
lack of any evidence or explanation, proves the accused's composure and equanimity. The judicial office circumscribes
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Until the accused's guilt is the personal conduct of a judge and imposes a number of
shown in this manner, the presumption of innocence restrictions. This is the price that judges have to pay for
continues.39 In Mangubat v. Sandiganbayan,40 the Court held accepting and occupying their exalted positions in the
that respondent Sandiganbayan did not act with grave abuse administration of justice.51
of discretion, correctible by certiorari, when it ruled
that despite her convictions, "Preagido has still in her favor One final word. The parties herein have admitted in their
the constitutional presumption of innocence x x x (and until) a
various pleadings that they have filed numerous cases
promulgation of final conviction is made, this constitutional against each other. We do not begrudge them the
mandate prevails." The Court therein further held that such prerogative to initiate charges against those who, in their
ruling is not bereft of legal or logical foundation and cannot, in opinion, may have wronged them. But it is well to remind
any sense, be characterized as a whimsical or capricious them that this privilege must be exercised with prudence,
exercise of judgment. So also must we hold in this case. when there are clearly lawful grounds, and only in the pursuit
of truth and justice. This prerogative does not give them the
Moreover, it is established that any administrative complaint right to institute shotgun charges with reckless abandon, or
leveled against a judge must always be examined with a allow their disagreement to deteriorate into a puerile quarrel,
discriminating eye, for its consequential effects are, by their not unlike that of two irresponsible children.
nature, highly penal, such that the respondent judge stands
to face the sanction of dismissal or disbarment. 41 As
Judge Angeles and SSP Velasco should bear in mind that
aforementioned, the filing of criminal cases against judges they are high-ranking public officers whom the people look up
may be used as tools to harass them and may in the long run
to for zealous, conscientious and responsive public service.
create adverse consequences. The OCA, as well as SSP Name-calling hardly becomes them.
Velasco, failed to prove that other than the fact that a
judgment of conviction for child abuse was rendered against
the respondent, which is still on appeal, there are other lawful Cognizant of the adverse impact and unpleasant
grounds to support the imposition of preventive suspension. consequences this continuing conflict will inflict on the public
Based on the foregoing disquisition, the Court is of the service, we find both officials wanting in the conduct
resolve that, while it is true that preventive demanded of public servants.
suspension pendente lite does not violate the right of the
accused to be presumed innocent as the same is not a WHEREFORE, the instant administrative complaint is
penalty,42 the rules on preventive suspension of judges, not hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Nevertheless,
having been expressly included in the Rules of Court, are respondent Adoracion G. Angeles, Presiding Judge of the
amorphous at best.43 Likewise, we consider respondent's Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 121, is
argument that there is no urgency in imposing preventive hereby REPRIMANDED for her use of intemperate language
suspension as the criminal cases are now before the CA, and in her pleadings and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition
that she cannot, by using her present position as an RTC of the same or similar act shall merit a more severe sanction.
Judge, do anything to influence the CA to render a decision
in her favor. The issue of preventive suspension has also
been rendered moot as the Court opted to resolve this Senior State Prosecutor Emmanuel Y. Velasco of the
administrative case. Department of Justice is hereby WARNED that he should be
more circumspect in the statements made in his pleadings
and that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more
However, even as we find that the OCA and SSP Velasco severely. The motion to cite him for contempt is DENIED for
have not clearly and convincingly shown ample grounds to lack of merit.
warrant the imposition of preventive suspension, we do note
the use of offensive language in respondent's pleadings, not
only against SSP Velasco but also against former CA Lock. The Court of Appeals is DIRECTED to resolve CA-G.R. CR
To reiterate our previous ruling involving the respondent, her No. 30260 involving respondent Judge Adoracion G. Angeles
use of disrespectful language in her Comment is certainly with dispatch.
below the standard expected of an officer of the court. The
esteemed position of a magistrate of the law demands SO ORDERED.
temperance, patience and courtesy both in conduct and in
language.44 Illustrative are the following statements: "CA
Lock's hostile mindset and his superstar complex";45 "In a A.C. No. 134-J January 21, 1974
frenzied display of arrogance and power"; 46 "(CA Lock's)
complaint is merely a pathetic echo of the findings of the trial IN RE: THE HON. RAFAEL C. CLIMACO, JUDGE OF THE
court";47 and "when (CA Lock) himself loses his objectivity COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL,
and misuses the full powers of his Office to persecute the BRANCH I, SILAY CITY.
object of his fancy, then it is time for him to step down." 48 In
the attempt to discredit CA Lock, respondent even dragged
CA Lock's son into the controversy, to wit: RESOLUTION
In the Resolution of this Court dated October 22, 1968, On January 30, 1969, this Court, through Justice
Fernando, promulgated its Resolution dismissing the
the complaint was given due course, and respondent
was required to file, an answer to the complaint within appeal (G.R. No. L-29599). In the meantime, on October
ten (10) days from notice thereof, and after the filing of 15, 1968, the aforementioned complaint against
respondent's answer, the case was referred on respondent was instituted as aforestated..
December 17, 1968 to the Hon. Nicasio Yatco, Associate
Justice of the Court of Appeals, for investigation and In his Report, the investigator stated:
report. On April 11, 1968, after conducting the requisite
investigation thereon, the investigator submitted his Under the first indictment, complainants bewail as gross
Report recommending the exoneration of respondent. malfeasance in office and gross ignorance of the law, the
following behaviour of the respondent Judge in the case:
It appears from the record that Acting City Fiscal
Norberto L. Zulueta, of Cadiz, Negros Occidental, filed a I. GROSS MALFEASANCE IN OFFICE
charge for Robbery in Band with Homicide against
thirteen (13) persons as principals, seven (7) persons as
accomplices, and two (2) persons as accessories, with and
the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, in
Criminal Case No. 690.<äre||anº•1àw> The case was GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW
assigned to Branch I, Silay City, presided over by the
respondent. Out of the 13 persons charged as principals
for the crime, only Carlos Caramonte was arrested and After both parties submitted their respective
tried (the six other alleged principals, including Isabelo Memorandum attached herewith as Annexes "C" and
Montemayor, remained at large), while of the persons "D", Criminal Case No. 690 for "Robbery in Band with
charged as accomplices and accessories, the case with Homicide" was closed and submitted for Decision on
respect to them was dismissed at the instance of the July 1, 1968.
prosecution or with its conformity, in the following
manner: About one and a half (1-½) months thereafter, or at about
3:00 o'clock in the afternoon of Sunday, 11 August 1968,
(a) Before arraignment: — respondent judge made a secret ocular inspection of the
poblacion of the City of Cadiz. Without anybody to guide
him, he visited the places which he thought erroneously
Jorge Canonoyo were the scene of the robbery where the Chief of Police
was killed by the Montemayor gang at about 11:00
(b) After arraignment: — o'clock of the dark night of December 31, 1967. It should
be noted that Cadiz City is 65 kms. away from Bacolod
City, the capital of the province. Because of that
Agustin Cañete undeniably biased ocular inspection, the honorable trial
Rosendo Cañete judge, who is reputed to be brilliant, issued a reckless,
Arsenio Luyao
extremely senseless and stupid order dated 5 September
Elias Giducos 1968, to wit:
Pedro Layon
Antonio Placencia
The parties are notified that the Court intends to take
judicial notice that the Mateo Chua-Antonio Uy
(c) Accused Luciano Salinas was discharged from the Compound in Cadiz City is the hub of a large fishing
information and utilized as state witness; and
industry during industry operating in the Visayas; that
the said compound is only about 500 meters away from
(d) Accused Honorato de Sales, Paulino Quijano, Cristeta the Police Station and the City Hall in Cadiz; and that the
Jimenez, Constancio Pangahin, Julio Elmo, Primitivo neighborhood is well-lighted and well-populated.
Mata, and Rene Fernandez before the Amended
Information of April 26, 1968, were dropped. SO ORDERED. —
After the case was submitted for decision, respondent which Order, as any student of law would tell you, is null
issued an order, dated September 5, 1968, which reads
and void, and illegal per se. Why respondent Honorable
as follows: Judge went out of his way to gather those immaterial
and "fabricated" evidence in favor of the accused is
The parties are notified that the Court intends to take shocking to the conscience. To say the least, it is gross
judicial notice that the Mateo Chua-Antonio Uy ignorance of the law. Why did respondent judge show
Compound Cadiz City is the hub of a large fishing his hand unnecessarily and prematurely? Perhaps, a
industry operating in the Visayas; that the said psychologist or a psychiatrist would explain that the
compound is only about 500 meters away from the Order of September 5th is that of an anguished mind; an
Police Station and the City Hall in Cadiz; that the Order issued by a Judge who for the first time had to
neighborhood is well-lighted and well-populated. SO violate his oath of office; by a judge who, due to political
ORDERED. pressure and against his will and better judgment, had to
acquit councilor Carlos Caramonte of the municipality of
Thereafter, or more particularly, on September 21, 1968, Bantayan, province of Cebu. Like an amateur murderer
respondent judge left telltale clues all around. A
respondent promulgated his decision in the case
acquitting Carlos Caramonte. murderer, however, may have a strong motive. But what
of a judge who knowingly commits a "revolting injustice"
or through gross ignorance of the law?
Subsequently, Acting City Fiscal Zulueta appealed
aforementioned decision to this Court; and when
required to comment on said appeal, Solicitor General It could be gleaned from a careful perusal of the
complaint that complainants bemoaned the fact that the
Antonio P. Barredo, now an Associate Justice of this
Court, submitted his comment on November 28, 1968 to respondent Judge conducted a "secret ocular
inspection" of the poblacion of the City of Cadiz at about
the effect that prosecution cannot appeal from the
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |91
3:00 o'clock in the afternoon Sunday, August 11, 1968, Q — What did the robbers do with your wife and
without anybody to guide him, less in the presence of children?
the prosecution and concluded that such alleged secret A — Because I was hogtied and was lying flat on the
ocular inspection was the basis of the Order of floor face down, I
September 5, 1968. A painstaking scrutiny of the records cannot tell what did they do to my wife and children.
as well as the evidence presented by the parties does Q — What did the robbers do in your house?
not show any concrete proof that respondent Judge did A — They ransacked my house.
conduct a "secret ocular inspection" of the poblacion of Q — How many minutes did the armed robbers stay pin
the City of Cadiz as seriously charge by the your house?
complainants. In fact, the lone witness presented by the A — Almost one hour.
complainants in this case did not even make an xxx xxx xxx
insinuation supporting such serious allegation of said Q — After nearly one hour, did the robbers who came up
complainants. The fact is, from the order of September 5, your house leave?
1968, the respondent Judge took judicial notice "that the A — I don't know because I was lying flat on the floor.
Mateo Chua-Antonio Uy Compound in Cadiz City is the Q — How did they come out, you cannot tell?
hub of a large fishing industry operating in the Visayas; A — No, sir.
that the said compound is only about 500 meters away Q — Who untied you that evening?
from the Police Station and the City Hall in Cadiz; and A — My son untied me after the men left.
that the neighborhood is well-lighted and well-populated. Court —
Nowhere therefrom could it be deduced that respondent This witness did not identify any of the accused?
Judge took judicial notice of these facts by virtue of an Fiscal —
ocular inspection he conducted on the date alleged by No, Your Honor.
the complainants. On her part, Mrs. Ong Sy San (wife of Uy) related on the
witness stand that:
In any event, there is likewise nothing in the record to Q — Please tell the Court what unusual thing happened
support the charge of the complainants that the order of that evening
September 5, 1968, was made by the respondent Judge in your house?
as the sole basis for the acquittal of Carlos Caramonte. A — The robbers broke into our house.
In fact, the decision of the respondent Judge shows that Q — More or less, how many robbers broke into your
house that evening of
in rendering judgment of acquittal in the case before
him, said respondent entertained serious doubts as to Dec. 31, 1967?
A — About four or five.
the guilt of Caramonte because of the failure of anyone
— in the Chua and in the Uy households, the security Q — Were they armed?
guards, the policemen who engaged the robbers in battle A — Yes, sir.
— to identify Caramonte as one of the participants in the xxx xxx xxx
alleged crime. Thus, the decision pertinently reads: Q — After the four or five persons fired their shots inside
your house, what did
they do?
Is Caramonte guilty? A — We were downstairs when they broke into our
house, using the axe at the
In spite of the admission of Caramonte's Exh. C and the door and then after entering the first floor they went up.
damaging inferences derived from his staying from the xxx xxx xxx
ceremony when the newly-elected officials of Bantayan Q — Can you identify any of the robbers that came up
were inducted into office, there is doubt in the mind of your house from among
the Court as to his actual participation in then bold raid the accused in courtroom?
in Cadiz City on December 31, 1967, because of the A — I cannot, because I was frightened, I did not have a
failure of anyone — the adults and the children in the chance to look at them.
Chua and in the Uy households, the security guards, the The bold assault did not take place in absolute darkness.
policemen who engaged the robbers in battle — to say Why could no one in the Chua and Uy households say
on the stand that Caramonte was indeed one of the that Carlos Caramonte was one of the team of robbers?
robbers. The police battled with the raiders from a distance of
about 60 meters, according to Patrolman Armando
Maravilla. Two security guards employed by Uy
The Uy spouses and Mateo Chua all took the stand. They (Placencia and Giducos) remained with the besieged
and the other members of the household were tied up by families thru the raid.
the robbers, who then ransacked the two houses for Security Guard Elias Giducos gave this testimony:
about an hour. Thereafter, some of them were taken to Q — At about 10:00 o'clock of that same evening of
the seashore to prevent the police from firing on the December 31, 1967, do you remember if there was
retreating robbers: anything unusual that happened?
A — Yes, sir.
Mateo Chua said at the trial: Q — What was that which happened?
Q — At about 9:30 in the evening of Dec. 31, 1967, where A — At about that time we heard a voice of a man and
were you? woman and they asked us where we were guarding.
A — I was in my house. Q — What did you answer?
Q — Do you remember anything unusual that happened A — At that time we were on duty at the gate of the
that evening in house of Mateo Chua and then we heard the voice of a
your house? man and a woman.
A — Yes, sir. Q — After you heard those voices of a man and a
Q — Please tell the Court what happened? woman, what happened?
A — Several men, pirates, came up my house and broke A — Then we were told not to go to the seashore
into my house. because there were armed men.
Q — About what time did you notice those pirates forced Q — What did you do after hearing that?
themselves A — My companion Antonio Placencia called me
inside your residence? because he was the one who had talked to those
A — Between 9:30 and 10:00 that evening. persons. He told me not to go to the seashore because
Q — What was the first thing you noticed when the there were armed men there.
pirates as you said Q — What did you do after that?
arrived? A — My companion also suggested that we better call
A — I was about to sleep when they came up, three of the Police Department by telephone because that was
them went already 10:50 in the evening.
straight up my house. Q — Were you able to call the Police Department by
Q — How many floors has your house? telephone?
A — Two floors. A — We went to the house of Erning Tan because there
xxx xxx xxx is a telephone there connected with the Police
Q — What did the robbers do when they came up your Department and the stand is also at the window
house? overlooking the Caltex Station. So Antonio Placencia
A — They hogtied me and made me lie flat on the floor told me to call the Police Department and tell them that
face down. there are armed men in the seashore.
Q — At that time were not your family inside your Q — What did you do after that?
house? A — Then we saw Erning Tan entered his store to use
A — Yes, sir, my children and my wife. the telephone and then we saw Antonio (Kaya) Uy on the
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |92
other side so we went to him and told him that there failed. There is, indeed, a paucity of proof that
were armed men in the seashore and Antonio Uy told us. respondent Judge has acted partially, or maliciously, or
"If anything happen don't resist because my children corruptly, or arbitrarily or oppressively.
might be hit."
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
Q — So what did you do after that?
A — Because there was a policeman there, we asked him
where our companion security guard was. In issuing the order of Sept. 5, 1968, respondent Judge
Q — And what was his answer? as stated in his answer, was guided by the Model Code
A — The policeman informed us that he did not report for of Evidence cited by Chief Justice Moran in his
duty and that it was Guarino who reported for duty that Comments on the Rules of Court. Whether in taking
evening. judicial notice of the facts stated in the order of
xxx xxx xxx September 5, 1968, respondent Judge erred or not, it is
Q — When you went down, what happened? believed, this is not the proper forum to dwell on the
A — When I went down, Antonio Uy saw me so he matter. Since this is an administrative case against him
reprimanded me. He said, "Why are you walking there? the controlling factor should be the circumstances
Come up." surrounding the issuance of such
Q — And then you obeyed his order? You came up. order — whether in doing so the respondent Judge was
A — Yes, sir. arbitrary, corrupt, partial, or oppressive. As heretofore
xxx xxx xxx stated, the undersigned finds no proof beyond
Q — What did Kaya Uy do when he heard the news? reasonable doubt along that line.
A — Our employer Antonio Uy told us not to resist. He
said, "If they want to get something, just allow them to Furthermore, it appears from the record that the Office of
get it." the City Fiscal received a copy of the Order of September
Q — What happened after that? 5, 1968 on September 13, 1968. If it were true as alleged
A — Because we were there with him, we went to office by the complainants that the issuance of such order was
to hide. and that the matters taken judicial notice of therein were
Q — Did you notice anything while you were hiding wrong, it behooves upon Fiscal Zulueta, as the
there? prosecutor of the case, to seek for the reconsideration of
A — Yes, sir, we heard something. such order and at the same time to invite the attention of
Q — What did you hear? the court to the alleged errors, if there were any. But as
A — We heard several shots. the records show, the prosecution in the said case did
xxx xxx xxx not take any steps — from September 13 to September
Q — After the shots lasted, where did you go? 21, or a span of eight — to protect the interests of the
A — After the shooting stopped, the mother of Antonio State against what complainants herein term to be an
Uy came to him and informed Mr. Uy that his wife was "illegality." Of course, the complainants herein lean on
brought along by the armed men. the argument that —
Q — What did Mr. Uy do because you were there.
A — He went down and returned to his own house.
Q — When Mr. Uy went down and returned to his own Fiscal Zulueta —
house, what did you do?
A — I followed him. Because if I do that, Your Honor, respondent Judge
Q — Where did you go? would realize his mistake which we believe malicious (p.
A — To his house and I called the rest of the guards. 29, t.s.n.).
Q — Were you able to reach his house?
A — Yes, sir. —
which indicates that many people in the compound must It may be pertinent to state at this juncture, that this
or could have seen some or all of the robbers — and no attitude of the prosecution in Criminal Case No. 690 does
one could say that Caramonte was one of them. appear to be commendable. A prosecutor should lay the
court fairly and fully every fact and circumstance known
to him to exist, without regard to whether such fact tends
The Court takes notice that the Uy Chua compound is to establish the guilt or innocence of the accused
the hub of a large fishing industry, and is located barely (Malcolm, Legal and Judicial Ethics, p. 123) and to this
500 meters from the Cadiz police station and City Hall. may be added without regard to any personal conviction
Also that there are many houses in the neighborhood. or presumption of what the Judge may do or is disposed
Under the circumstances, the failure of anyone — to do. Prosecuting officer presumed to be men learned in
members of the Chua and Uy households, the security the law, of a high character, and to perform their duties
guards and other employees of the fishing business, the impartially and with but one object in view, that being
police, the neighbors — to perceive the presence of that justice may be meted out to all violators of the law
Caramonte at the time of the attack raises doubts as to and that no innocent man be punished (Malcolm, p. 124).
his participation therein. (Decision, pp. 12-16). In the pursuit of that solemn obligation, therefore,
personal conviction should be ignored lest it may lead to
Be that as it may, under Section 173 of the Revised a sacrifice of the purpose sought to be achieved.
Administrative Code, the grounds for removal of a judge Fortunately, in Criminal Case No. 690, the very witness of
of first instance are (1) serious misconduct and (2) the complainants affirmed the correctness of the matters
inefficiency. For serious misconduct to exist, there must taken judicial notice of by the respondent Judge. Thus,
be reliable evidence showing that the judicial acts Mr. Agustin Javier, lone witness for the complainants,
complained of were corrupt or inspired by an intention to testified —
violate the law, or were in persistent disregard of well-
known legal rules. (In re Impeachment of Hon. Antonio Atty. Aquino —
Horrilleno, 43 Phil. 212). In the case at bar, there has
been no proof that in issuing the order of September 5,
1968 (Exh. B), and in rendering a judgment of acquittal Q — When Fiscal Zulueta on September 13, 1968 showed
the respondent Judge was inspired by a dishonest or you that order of Judge Climaco wherein he stated that
corrupt intention which prompted him to violate the law he was taking judicial notice that Mateo Chua-Antonio Uy
or to disregard well-known legal rules. In fact, in spite of Compound in Cadiz City is a hub of a large fishing
the biting language of the complainants in their industry operating in the Visayas; that said compound is
complaint and in their memorandum, they admit that the only a five hundred (500) meters from the City Hall in
respondent Judge is not dishonest as far as they know. Cadiz and that the neighborhood is well-lighted and well-
Of course, there has been an insinuation that populated, after reading that order, did you make any
"respondent Judge prostituted this Court and acquitted, comment to Fiscal Zulueta?
obviously in bad faith, Councilor Caramonte of
Bantayan, province of Cebu, in all likelihood because of A — No, sir.
the dirty hands of power politics." Inasmuch as Q — But the statements here in the order are true?
proceedings against judges as the case at bar, have A — Yes, you mean the "Uy-Chua Compound"?
been said to be governed by the rules of law applicable Q — I mean the statements in the order are true?
to penal cases, the charges must, therefore, be proved A — Yes, sir. (pp. 64-65, t.s.n.)
beyond reasonable doubt (In re Horrilleno, supra), and it The charges impute upon respondent (a) dereliction of
is incumbent upon the complainants to prove their case duty or misconduct in office ( prevaricacion), which
not by a preponderance of evidence but beyond a contemplates the rendition of an unjust judgment
reasonable doubt, and in this venture, it is believed they knowingly, and/or in (b) rendering a manifestly unjust
A lawyer is an officer of the courts; he is, "like the court itself, The prosecution alleged that during the aforementioned
an instrument or agency to advance the ends of justice." cockfight, Abad's gamecock lost to the one owned by Ponce.
(People ex rel. Karlin vs. Culkin, 60 A.L.R. 851, 855.). His A remark by Ponce that complainant's cock was weak and
duty is to uphold the dignity and authority of the courts to lacked more care (mahina, kulang sa alaga) led to a heated
which he owes fidelity, "not to promote distrust in the argument between the two but they were pacified by certain
administration of justice." (In re Sotto, 82 Phil. 595, 602.). local officials Abad then went to the cockpit carinderia to take
Faith in the courts a lawyer should seek to preserve. For, to a snack. Ponce followed him shouting, "Where is the Colonel,
undermine the judicial edifice "is disastrous to the continuity walang Colonel Colonel sa akin, papatayin ko yan, babarilin
of government and to the attainment of the liberties of the ko yan." As Ponce was approaching and holding a gun aimed
people." (Malcolm, Legal and Judicial Ethics, 1949 ed., p. at Abad, the latter grabbed a glass and hurled it at Ponce
160.). who was hit at the head, causing him to fall down in a sitting
position. While thus seated, Ponce's gun was taken by his
Thus has it been said of a lawyer that "[as] an officer of the bodyguard, Francisco Sabater. Jr. Abad was then advised by
court, it is his own and moral duty to help build and not a certain Captain Diaz to go home. Outside the cockpit gate,
destroy unnecessarily that high esteem and regard towards bodyguards of Ponce approached Abad and engaged him in
the court so essential to the proper administration of justice. a fistfight. At this juncture, Francisco Sabater, Jr., upon the
(People vs. Carillo, 77 Phil. 572, 580.). order of Ponce, fired six (6) shots at Abad, the last one hitting
him on the chest, the slug exiting at the back of his right
shoulder. Abad was rushed to the Cavite Medical Center in
... It has been said that "[a] lawyer's language should be Cavite City where he underwent an operation. On the 4th day
dignified in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession." he was transferred to the V. Luna Hospital at Quezon City
(5 Martin, op. cit., p. 97.). It is Sotto's duty as a member of where he was again operated on-to remove the slug
the Bar "[t]o abstain from all offensive personality and to imbedded in his back. He stayed in the hospital for 123 days.
advance no fact prejudicial to the honor or reputation of a
party or witness, unless required by the justice of the cause
with which he is charged." (Section 20 (f), Rule 138, Rules of Sabater and Ponce presented a contrary version of the
Court.). incident.
We have analyzed the facts, and there is nothing on the Potenciano Ponce testified that on his way out of the cockpit,
basis thereof which would in any manner justify their Abad uttered obscenities against him which he answered in
inclusion in the pleadings. kind. However, common friends like Mayor Jamir of Imus,
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |94
Barangay Captain Enrique Diaz, and Cavite City Fiscal G.R. Adm. Matter No. 584-CJ, March 30, 1977; Lopez v.
Gabriel pacified them. After cooling off, Ponce decided to go Corpuz, G.R. Adm. Matter No. 425-MJ, Aug. 31, 1977).
home but on his way out of the main gate of the cockpit,
Abad, who was drinking beer at a carinderia, hurled Indeed, assuming that Ponce really pulled out his gun and
invectives at him. Ponce then approached Abad to ask for an pointed it at Abad as he approached him, it would not be
explanation. Abad hit him on the forehead with a bottle of easy to fault respondent's reasoning that Ponce had ample
beer causing him to fall down unconscious. Upon regaining opportunity to fire the gun at the victim if he had the intention
consciousness, he was brought to the Cavite Medical Center.
to kill him. All what Ponce had to do was to press the trigger
Ponce denied having aimed his gun at Abad, insisting that his while Abad was about to hurl the bottle, or glass at him. On
gun was never taken out of its holster. He also contradicted
this point, Justice Luis B. Reyes' Revised Penal Code (p.
the testimony of Abad that his permit to carry his firearm 100, 1981 ed) has this to say:
outside of his residence was no longer valid on July 19, 1981,
stressing that his permit expired on November 18, 1981.
To constitute attempted homicide the person using a firearm
must fire the same, with intent to kill at the offended party,
Francisco Sabater, Jr. testified that he was at the cockpit that without however inflicting a mortal wound on the latter.
same afternoon as a bet taker or casador. He declared that
at about 5:30 in that afternoon, he heard Abad utter the
following words at Ponce: "Putang-ina mo, Pare pipilipitin ko On the matter of the non-imposition by respondent of
ang leeg mo." Ponce reacted by approaching Abad who then subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, the decision
took hold of a beer bottle from the table and hurled it at did not mete out the penalty of fine on Sabater. There being
Ponce hitting him on the forehead. Ponce fell down. none, subsidiary imprisonment could not have been imposed,
Thereupon, Francisco Sabater, Jr., took the gun of Ponce pursuant to Art. 39 of the Revised Penal Code.
and as Abad refused to be pacified, he went outside the
cockpit and fired the gun five (5) times upwards to call the Respondent, however, was in error in appreciating as a
attention of the authorities. When Abad approached him, mitigating circumstance "lack of intention to kill the victim" in
holding a broken bottle of beer and tried to stab him with it, fixing the penalty imposed on Sabater.
he was forced in self-defense to fire the gun at Abad who
was hit on the chest.
xxx xxx xxx
On August 11, 1984, the respondent judge promulgated his
decision, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows: The kind of weapon used by Sabater which was a .38
revolver and the location of the wound of Abad would
undoubtedly give the presumption that Sabater had the intent
WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. B-82-119, to kill and which inevitably led respondent to convict him of
entitled People v. Pontenciano Ponce y Dayacap, for the crime of frustrated. For in attempted/frustrated homicide
Attempted Homicide, said accused is hereby ACQUITTED for the offender must have the intent to kill the victim. If there is
insuffiency of evidence, with cost de oficio. The case bond no intent to kill on the part of the offender he is only liable for
posted in his favor is ordered reimbursed to him by the physical injuries. Therefore, the fact alone that respondent
Municipal Treasurer of Bacoor, Cavite. found Sabater guilty of the crime of frustrated homicide would
prove that he had no doubt in his mind that Sabater had the
In Criminal Case No. B-82-57, entitled People v. Francisco intent to kill Abad. Respondent's appreciation as mitigating
Sabater, Jr. for Frustrated Homicide, said accused is hereby circumstance of lack of intent to kill in favor of Sabater is
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of palpably out of place. Presumably, what respondent had in
Frustrated Homicide as defined and penalized under Art. 250 mind was to consider the mitigating circumstance of lack of
of the Revised Penal Code, with the mitigating circumstances intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed
of voluntary surrender, incomplete self-defense and without under Art. 13 of the Revised Penal Code, which is different
any intention to kill the victim, without any aggravating from lack of intention to kill.
circumstances to offset the same and applying the
Indeterminate Sentence Law as amended, he is sentenced to It is believed that while respondent committed an error thus
suffer imprisonment ranging from four (4) months and twenty described, the same was done without malice or deliberate
(20) days of arresto mayor, as minimum, and to indemnify the intent to perpetrate an injustice. But in any case, there was
victim the sum of P9,750.00 for medical and hospital negligence for which he should be reprimanded.
expenses, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency and to pay the cost.
ACCORDINGLY, the undersigned recommends that
respondent be reprimanded, with warning that a similar
It is this decision which forms the basis of Abad's complaint. transgression in the future will be more severely dealt with.
On August 23, 1985, we referred this case to Associate
Justice Santiago Kapunan of the then Intermediate Appellate
Court for investigation and recommendation. The The recommendation is well taken although the reprimand
investigating Justice submitted the following may be dispensed with considering the respondent's poor
recommendation: health and his impending retirement.
Coming to the question of respondent's culpability of the As a matter of public policy, in the absence of fraud,
charges thus levelled against him on the basis of the facts, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial
the arguments and the applicable provisions of law, it capacity are not subject to disciplinary action, even though
appears inescapable that respondent has not committed any such acts are erroneous (Revita v. Rimando, 98 SCRA 619).
wrongdoing to evoke disciplinary action in acquitting Ponce of However, while judges should not be disciplined for
attempted homicide. The ground for acquittal was inefficiency on account merely of occasional mistakes or
insufficiency of evidence due to inconsistencies of the errors of judgment, yet it is highly imperative that they should
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses which he be conversant with basic legal principles (Ubongon v. Mayo,
specifically pointed out in the decision. In addition, 99 SCRA 30) They are called upon to exhibit more than just a
respondent found that Ponce never pulled the gun tucked at cursory acquaintance with statutes (Aducayen v. Flores, 51
his waist during the incident, although prosecution witnesses SCRA 78) and to keep themselves abreast of the latest laws,
testified otherwise. In the face of conflicting evidence, it is rulings and jurisprudence affecting their jurisdiction (Vasquez
difficult to impute dishonesty and unfairness to respondent in v. Malvar, 85 SCRA 10).
arriving at his conclusion as to which side told the truth. And
even if he made an error in his perception of the facts as he In the case of Ajeno v. Inserto (71 SCRA 166, 172), this
saw them, it cannot be justly presumed that he did it in bad Court held that: ... Even in the remaining years of his stay in
faith or with malicious intent. For not every error or mistake of the judiciary, he should keep abreast with the changes in the
a judge in the performance of his duties makes him liable law and with the latest decisions and precedents. Although a
therefor. To hold a judge administratively accountable for judge is nearing retirement, he should not relax in his study of
every erroneous ruling or decision he renders, assuming that the law and court decisions. Service in the judiciary means a
he has erred, would be nothing short of harassment and continuous study and research on the law from beginning to
would make his position unbearable. (Dizon v. De Borja, G.R. end...
Adm. Case No. 163-J, Jan. 28, 1971; Gamo v. Cruz, G.R.
Adm. Matter No. 467-NJ, October 22, 1975; Rodrigo v.
Quijano, G.R. Adm. Matter No. 731-MJ, Sept 9, 1977; Sec. of The records fail to show malice, ill-will or even bias on the
Justice v. Marcos, G.R. Adm. Matter No, 207-J April 22, part of respondent judge. His decision pointed out, one by
1977). For no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the one, the glaring inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence
law can be infallible in his judgment (Paulino v. Guevarra, which led to the exculpation of defendant Ponce. In Pabalan
PALE JUS SUSP DISC |95
v. Guevarra (74 SCRA 53, 58), this Court held that ... Even independence2, and for violating the Rules of the Judicial and
on the assumption that the judicial officer has erred in the Bar Council (JBC) which disqualifies from nomination any
appraisal of the evidence, he cannot be held administratively applicant for judgeship with a pending administrative case.3
or civilly liable for his judicial action. A judicial officer cannot
be called to account in a civil action for acts done by him in According to the complainant, respondent, during his JBC
the exercise of his judicial function however erroneous... interviews, deliberately concealed the fact that he had
pending administrative charges against him.
The second case docketed as Administrative Matter No.
R561-RTJ was filed by Crisanto P. Cruz on December 11, She disclosed that, on behalf of Community Rural Bank of
1985, against Bleza for knowingly rendering a wrong Guimba (Nueva Ecija), Inc., she had filed criminal and
judgment. This case originated from the decision in an action administrative charges for grave abuse of authority, conduct
for damages filed by one Pacifico Ocampo against prejudicial to the best interest of the service and violation of
complainant Cruz. Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code against respondent in
the Office of the Ombudsman on July 23, 2003.
Pacifico Ocampo alleged in the damage suit that on April 16,
1984, he filed with the Manila International Airport Authority At that time a public prosecutor, respondent allegedly
(MIAA) an administrative complaint against a certain Ricardo committed certain improprieties4 and exceeded his powers by
F. Ortiz; that complainant Cruz persuaded Him to withdraw
overruling the Secretary of Justice in a reinvestigation he
the complaint with a threat that if he would not withdraw the conducted.
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 On March 24, 2004, the Ombudsman dismissed the
inefficiency and serious neglect of duty, insubordination, charges.5 It also denied the complainant’s motion for
absenteeism, and habitual tardiness; that because of that reconsideration.6
baseless complaint, he has suffered embarrassment, mental
shock, anxieties, sleepless nights, and loss of appetite. In his Thereafter, the complainant filed a petition for review7 on
answer, Cruz denied knowledge of the administrative case October 28, 2004 in the Court of Appeals (CA). In a
between Pacifico Ocampo and Ricardo Ortiz and averred that decision8 dated November 25, 2005, the appellate court held
Ocampo's inefficiency, absenteeism, and tardiness are that it could not take cognizance of the criminal charges
substantiated by company records. against respondent on the ground that all appeals from the
decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman pertaining to
After trial, the respondent judge ruled in favor of Pacifico criminal cases should be taken to the Supreme Court by way
Ocampo. He ordered complainant Cruz to pay Ocampo the of a petition for certiorari.9 As to the administrative aspect,
sum of P150,000.00 for moral damages, P30,000.00 for the CA reversed and set aside the decision and joint order of
examplary damages and P5,000.00 for attorney's fees. the Ombudsman dismissing the charges against respondent.
The CA then directed Ombudsman to file and prosecute the
administrative charges against respondent.
The administrative complaint filed by Cruz alleged that the
respondent judge disregarded the defendant's
incontrovertible evidence and knowingly rendered a wrong While the complainant’s petition was pending in the CA,
judgment against him. respondent was interviewed several times in the JBC from
February 2005 to August 2005 for the position of RTC judge.
On August 25, 2005, he was appointed to the RTC, Branch
In his comment, the respondent judge alleged that the 30, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija. The complainant charged
decision, subject matter of this case, is pending appeal
that respondent never informed the JBC of his pending
before the Intermediate Appellate Court. This allegation was cases. This, she said, made it possible for him to be
not refuted by the complainant. Thus, any action we can take nominated and, subsequently, appointed.
in this case would be premature. For only after the appellate
court holds in a final judgment that a trial judge's alleged
errors were committed deliberately and in bad faith may a In his comment,10 respondent admitted that complainant had
charge of knowingly rendering an unjust decision be levelled lodged criminal and administrative cases against him in the
against him. This is the pronouncement of this Court in Ombudsman. He, however, insisted that these were already
several cases (See Garcia v. Alconcel, 111 SCRA 178; Sta. dismissed by virtue of the immediately effective and
Maria v. Ubay, 87 SCRA 179; and Gahol v. Riodique, 64 executory March 24, 2004 decision of the Ombudsman.
SCRA 494). In the meantime, the presumption is that official Thus, there were actually no more pending cases against him
duty was regularly performed. during his interviews in the JBC from February to August
2005. Accordingly, there was no impediment to his
nomination to and assumption of the position of judge.
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the
However, he insisted that he informed the JBC of the said
administrative cases are hereby, DISMISSED. The cases.
recommendation dated June 6, 1984 submitted by the Court
Administrator that the respondent judge be retired from office
due to hypertensive heart disease and congestive heart The complainant filed a reply,11 stating that the March 24,
failure with cardiomegally (enlarged left ventricle) under 2004 decision of the Ombudsman was not yet final and
Permanent Total Disability, as endorsed by Dr. Antonio executory as it was timely appealed by way of a petition for
Valero of this Court, is hereby APPROVED. review filed on October 28, 2004 in the CA. In fact, the
petition was even granted.
SO ORDERED.
To further support her charge of dishonesty against
respondent, complainant pointed to the Personal Data Sheet
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2138 August 5, 2009 (PDS) filed by respondent on March 21, 2006 in the Office of
Administrative Services-Office of the Court Administrator
OLGA M. SAMSON, Complainant, (OAS-OCA) RTC Personnel Division.12 According to her,
vs. respondent categorically denied ever having been
JUDGE VIRGILIO G. CABALLERO, Respondent. charged formally with any infraction.
A parting word.