[A.M. No. RTJ-15-2440. September 4, 2018.] (Formerly A.M. No.

14-10-338-RTC)
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs.
JUDGE JULIANA ADALIM-WHITE, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 5, Oras, Eastern Samar, respondent.
Facts:
Mr. Robert T. Lim filed a complaint for misconduct before the office of the Ombudsman for
acting as counsel to her brother Mayor Adalim, prior to her appointment as judge when she
was still a PAO attorney, in connection with an administrative case where Mayor Adalim and his
business partner operated an unlicensed cable television network.

The complaint of Mr. Lim was grounded based on the prohibition of a PAO lawyer from
engaging in private practice or as counsel for immediate members of the family and relatives
within the 4th degree without the necessary approval from the regional director of PAO.

It was admitted by Judge Adalim-White that she represented her brother in front of the NTC,
though she claimed that she was merely expressing her opinion in front of the NTC. Judge
Adalim-White was sentenced to a penalty of one-month suspension.

Mr. Lim filed a Motion for Execution seeking the implementation of the Ombudsman Decision.
OCA recommended the enforcement of the penalty should be held in abeyance because the
OCA had uncovered another infraction committed by respondent in connection with her case
before the Office of the Ombudsman. OCA revealed that respondent failed to disclose that an
administrative case filed against her and that she had been penalized.

Respondent prayed that the order of suspension be considered as moot and academic in light
of the findings against her in another case Cebreros v. Judge Adalim-White. Cebreros stated
that Judge Adam-White is dishonest for her deliberate failure to divulge her suspension
imposed on her by the Ombudsman on her nomination for RTC Judge. The court dismissed the
complaint that respondent could not be faulted for her nondisclosure in her JBC Form No. 1,
because the form was filed two months (February 14, 2002) before the case was filed to the
Ombudsman (April 24, 2002). The Court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to prove that
respondent deliberately omitted to disclose her pending administrative case because
information on the pending administrative case against her was readily available to the JBC on
April 10, 2003.

It was argued by the respondent that she should be exonerated from the present charge
relative to her failure to disclose the same administrative case in her February 9, 2004 Personal
Data Sheet when she assumed office, since there was no intent on her part to deliberately hide
the administrative case against her. She further explained she did not disclose such because she
believed that “guilty” meant final and executory judgment and that she was not declared guilty
but merely penalized.