(o#d * w$ic$ resulted in t$e delay o' its transmission to t$e .TC!
CANONS 5-6 JUDGE AQUINO BARTOLOME
SIMBULAN
v.
FACTS: A letter complaint was fled by complainan complainantt Judge Divina Luz ! A"uino# A"uino# Simb Simbul ulan an wit$ it$ t$e t$e %&ce %&ce o' t$e t$e Co Cour urtt Admin dminis isttrat rator (%CA %CA)* all allegin eging g t$at $at responde respondents nts Judge Judge +icasio +icasio ,! -artolome* -artolome* toget$er toget$er wit$ .om .omana ana ascual ascual** /ilagros /ilagros Lerey* and Amor dela Cruz* Acting Cler0 o' Court* retired Cler0 o' Court and Doc0et Cler0 Cler0** respe respecti ctivel vely* y* all o' t$e /unici /unicipal pal Trial Trial Court (/TC) (/TC) o' Sta! /aria* -ulacan* committed g!ve eo" !#d di"c di"ce e$! $!# #cie" cie" i# $o $oce"" ce""i# i#g g t%e t%e "&et' (o#d )o t%e !cc&"ed Ro"!*i#! Crimina nall Ca Case se o' People of Mec!do in Crimi the Philippines Philippines v. Ro Rosalina salina Mercado, et al . Above Above case case was original originally ly ra1ed ra1ed to t$e .egional Trial Court (.TC)* -ranc$ 23* San Fernando* Fernando* ampanga* w$ere complainant Judge presides! %n September 34* 5667* "!id "!id (!#c% (!#c% o) t%e RTC eceived eceived !# I#do"eme#t )om +!!#t,S&($oe#! Oce O/ Ed0i# 1i**!ce#ti#o 1i**!ce#ti#o stating t$at t$at t$e t$e accu accuse sed d /er /ercado cado vo*&#t!i*' "&e#deed be'o be'orre t$e /TC /TC o' Sta! Sta! $o"ted ed %e %e (!i* (!i* /aria* -ulacan and $o"t (o#d (o#d t%o t%o&g &g% % S&mm S&mmit it G&! G&!!# !#t' t' 2 I#"&! I#"&!#ce #ce Co.* 8nc 8nc!* w$ic$ $ic$ was duly uly approved by respondent Judge -artolome on Augu ugust 53* 53* 566 5667! T$is T$is prom ompt pted ed complainant to issue an 95 %rder dated %ctober %ctober 5;* 5667* directin directing g respondent Lerey* t$en Cler0 o' Court o' t$e /TC* /TC* to transmi transmitt to t$e .TC .TC wit$i wit$in n twenty#'our (52) $ours 'rom receipt o' said %rder* %rder* t$e bond w$ic$ w$ic$ t$e 'ormer 'ormer court court approved! +%e# +%e# t%e t%e C*e C*e3 3 o) Co& Co&tt )!i* )!i*ed ed to com$*'4 comp compla lain inan antt Judg Judge e issu issued ed an %rder %rder direct directing ing t$e 'ormer 'ormer to e
T$en* on February February 35* 5662* t%e t%e RTC eceived ! 0itte# e$*!#!tio# 57 )om Lee' stat statin ing g t$at t$at s$e s$e $ad $ad mi"$*!ced !#d !#d ove ove*o *oo3 o3ed ed t%e t%e "&(8 "&(8ec ectt "&e "&et' t'
>pon perusal o' t$e documents* com$*! com$*!i#! i#!#t #t J&dge J&dge di"cov di"covee eed d t%!t t%!t t%e "&(8e "&(8ect ct "&et' "&et' (o#d (o#d (oe (oe "ome "ome e!"&e"4 !#d it" !tt!c !tt!c%me %me#t" #t" 0ee 0ee ! 8 n v i e w o ' t $ese %ig%*' %ig%*' !#om!*o&" !#om!*o&" sub poena na to fndi fnding ngs* s* t$e t$e .TC issu issued ed a subpoe responde respondents nts ascual ascual and Lerey Lerey directin directing g t$em to appear be'ore it to e
9. %rder o' .elease was dated August 53* 5667* 5667* t$e >ndert >nderta0i a0ing ng and Certif Certifcat cation ion 'rom t$e bonding company were dated dated +ovemb +ovember er 55* 5667 5667 and %ctobe %ctoberr 5;* 5667* respectively? respectively? (malicious)
7! T$at T$at it was Lere Lerey y w$o review reviewed ed t$e docume documents nts be'ore be'ore t$e surety surety bond bond was re'er e'errred to respo espond nden entt Judg Judge e 'or 'or t$e t$e latter@s approval? and &(*ic ic o" o"ec ec&t &to o A'ter 'ter t$e t$e $eari $earing ng4 &(* Otto M!c!(&*o" "t!ted t%!t %e )o&#d t%e e$*!#!tio# too "%!**o0 !#d "e*)"evi#g4 and t$at $e would fle an indirect contempt case under .ule 3* Section 7 (d) o' t$e 3;; .ules ules o' Civil Civil roce rocedur dure e against Lerey and Dela Cruz!
8n $er mani'estationBCompliance mani'estationBCompli ance dated %ctober !dmitted d *!$"e" *!$"e" !#d 5* 5* 5662 5662** Lerey erey !dmitte #eg*ige#ce i# $oce""i#g t%e "&(8ect (!i* (!i* (o# (o#d !#d !#d 0!" 0!" emo emo" "e) e)&* &* )o )o 0%!t 0%!t %!$$e %!$$e#ed #ed.. O# t%e ot%e ot%e %!#d4 %!#d4 De*! De*! C&? C&? "t!ted "t!ted t%!t t%ee 0!" #o 0o#gdoi#g o# %e $!t i# t%e $oce" $oce""i# "i#g g o) t%e "&(8ec "&(8ectt (!i* (!i* (o#d (o#d and t$at s$e merely 'ollowed instructions in mailing t$e said bail bond to t$e .TC! T$e .TC 'ound Lerey guilty o' indirect contempt and sentenced $er to pay a fne o' 36*666!66* w$ic$ s$e duly paid paid!! owe oweve ver* r* it abso absolv lved ed De Dela la Cruz Cruz 'rom any liability as it 'ound $er e
8n t$e meantime* in $is 935 3 8ndorsement dated February 5E* 5662* Deputy Court Administrator (DCA) Jose ! erez re'erred to t$e Cler0 o' Court o' t$e /TC o' Sta! /aria* -ulacan t$e %rders issued by complainant Judge relative to t$e surety bond 'or comment! owever* t$ere was not$ing on record to s$ow t$at said Cler0 o' Court complied wit$ t$e directive! st
A'terw$ic$* DCA ee? !*"o i""&ed ! :"t I#do"eme#t:/7 to e"$o#de#t J&dge e)ei#g to t%e *ette d!ted A$i* 9@4 9;; o) com$*!i#!#t J&dge4 0%ic% di"c&""ed t%e eo" !#d di"ce$!#cie" eg!di#g t%e !$$ov!* o) t%e (!i* (o#d o) t%e !cc&"ed i# Cimi#!* C!"e No. ://6;4 0it% t%e i#"t&ctio# to t%e )ome to "&(mit %i" comme#t t%eeto. 8n compliance* respondent =udge denied liability concerning $is approval o' t$e bond! 8t was Lerey w$o caused delay in transmitting t$e bond to .TC w$ic$ t$e latter admitted! %CA: 8n approving t$e surety bond o' t$e accused* respondent Judge violated Section 3* .ule 332 o' t$e .ules o' Court! 95 8n t$e instant case* t$e accused .osalina /ercado was not arrested! 8+ T CAS AT -A.* t$e accused must $ave fled t$e bond wBin t$e province o' ampanga or City o' San Fernando . I#"te!d4 !cc&"ed Mec!do =*ed %e (o#d i# t%e M&#ici$!* Ti!* Co&t o) St!. M!i!4 B&*!c!#4 0%ee e"$o#de#t J&dge $e"ide"4 0%o !$$oved t%e "!me !#d odeed %e e*e!"e )om c&"tod'. Re"$o#de#t 8&dge did #ot e&ie !cc&"ed to "&(mit t%e "&$$oti#g doc&me#t" pertinent to t$e application 'or a bond ! 8t appears t$at t$ere was no Certifcate o' Detention presented to $im? %e#ce4 t%ee 0!" #o *eg!* 8&"ti=c!tio# )o %im to i""&e t%e Ode o) Re*e!"e !#d $oce"" t%e (o#d "i#ce t%e !cc&"ed 0!" #ot det!i#ed 0it%i# %i" 8&i"dictio#.
LD: T$e Court $olds t$at t$ere were indeed grave errors and discrepancies committed by respondents Judge -artolome and
Lerey in processing t$e surety bond 'or t$e accused in Criminal Case +o! 377E6! Sec! 32: GHbail may be fled also wit$ any regional trial court o' said place* or* i' no =udge t$ereo' is available* wit$ any metropolitan trial =udge* municipal trial =udge or municipal circuit trial =udge t$erein!I Note Sec. :6 $enever bail is fled wit$ a court ot$er t$an w$ere t$e case is pending* t$e =udge accepting t$e bail s$all 'orward t$e bail* t$e order o' release and ot$er supporting papers to t$e court w$ere t$e case is pending* w$ic$ may* 'or good reason* re"uire a diKerent one to be fled!I
T$e %CA@s .eport revealed t$at t$e accused .osalina /ercado was not arrested! T$e %CA@s .eport revealed t$at t$e accused .osalina /ercado was not arrested! AILURE TO REQUIRE SUBMISSION O SUORTING DOC. ! T$ere was no Certifcate o' Detention or arrant o' Arrest attac$ed to t$e bond transmitted by t$e /TC to t$e complainant Judge! /oreover* t$e ot$er supporting documents were belatedly fled!
For Lerey* s$e admitted $er negligence 0%e# "%e mi"$*!ced !#d ove*oo3ed t%e "&et' (o#d $o*ic'4 e"&*ti#g i# t%e de*!' i# t%e t!#"mi""io# o) "!id doc&me#t" to t%e RTC. +otably* s$e also 'ailed to give an e
-ut* because o' t$e negligence o' t$e Lerey* respondent =udge CANNOT BE ECUSED ROM LIABILTH.
>nder t$e >ni'orm .ules on Administrative Cases in t$e Civil Service* 977 t$e acts o' respondent Judge and Lerey may be classifed as gross neglect o' duty* w$ic$ is punis$able by dismissal under .ule 8,* Section 5 A(5) t$ereo'! +eglect o' duty denotes t$e 'ailure o' an employee to give one@s attention to a tas0 e
.>L8+: J>D +8CAS8% -A.T%L%/ (.T8.D) GUILTH %F GROSS NEGLECT O DUTH F%. A+D T% AM 26*666!66)T% - DD>CTD F.%/ 8S .T8./+T -+F8TS? A+D Cler0 o' Court /ilagros Lerey (retired) GUILTH o' GROSS NEGLECT O DUTH 26*666!66 to be deducted 'rom $er retirement benefts!
RE ORDER BH JUDGE BONIACIO v. GENABE
FACTS: T$is administrative matter against Loida /! enabe (enabe)* Legal .esearc$er 88 o' t$e .TC o' Las iNas City* "temmed )om ! Lette d!ted 99 Decem(e 9;;6 !dde""ed to t%e OCA =*ed (' J&dge Bo#i)!cio S!#? M!ced! J&dge M!ced! o' t$e same trial court! Judge /aceda attac$ed $is %rder dated 53 December 9;;6 "&"$e#di#g Ge#!(e
)o /; d!'" (' e!"o# o) #eg*ect o) d&t' )o !tte#di#g ! t0o-d!' "emi#! de"$ite ! $e#di#g !""ig#me#t! 8n t$e letter* Judge /aceda re"uested t$at t$e salary o' enabe be wit$$eld 'or t$e period 53 December 566E to 56 January 566 since t$e suspension was immediately e
scabarte (Atty! scabarte)* -ranc$ Cler0 o' Court o' t$e same trial court* issued an 8nter#%&ce /emorandum to enabe re'erring to $er neglect* in *e!vi#g )o B!g&io Cit' o# :6 to:@ Novem(e 9;;6 to !tte#d ! "emi#! )o *eg!* e"e!c%e"4 0it%o&t =#i"%i#g %e !""ig#ed t!"3 ! T$e assigned tas0 re"uired enabe to summarize t$e statement o' 'acts in Criminal Case +os! 67#66; to 67#66E7 entitled Geople o' t$e $ilippines v! /arvilla* et al!*IAtty! scabarte (Cler0 o' court) reminded enabe t$at suc$ act could not be tolerated and t$at similar acts in t$e 'uture would be meted an appropriate sanction! A+S.: enabe submitted $er e
meeting! As a counter#c$arge* enabe claimed t$at Judge /aceda disciplines $is staK on a selective basis!
a penalty* even 'or lig$t oKenses* rests wit$ t$e Supreme Court! LD:
$en a 'act#fnding investigation w$ose agenda is 'ocused on t$e c$arges o' contempt* conduct unbecoming* among ot$ers was conducted by Judge /aceda to all staK members* enabe did #ot !$$e! de"$ite #otice. Later* s$e appeared to say t$at s$e was waiving $er rig$t to be present in t$e investigation! T+ A S>S+S8%+ %.D. AA8+ST . AS 8SS>D! S>S+DD! 8n a Letter dated 55 December 566E* Judge /aceda suspended enabe 'or a period o' 76 days* using as aut$ority t$e power given to appropriate supervisory o&cials in disciplining personnel o' t$eir respective courts as provided in Atic*e II4 Sectio# A9! o) Cic&*! No. /;-:. Ge#!(e" "!*!' (e 0it%%e*d )o t%e $eiod 9: Decem(e 9;;6 to 9; J!#&!' 9;;@. A'ter 76 days* enabe reported bac0 to wor0 wB return o' salary! %,.* Judge /aceda e#do"ed %i" I#ve"tig!tio# Re$ot !#d Recomme#d!tio# to t%e OCA4 E1EN +IT+SAT8SFACT%.M!
T$e %CA added t$at it was clear 'rom t$e uidelines t$at Judge /aceda $ad no aut$ority to directly penalize a court employee! As an
A'ter a care'ul review o' t$e records o' t$e case* 0e =#d e!"o#!(*e go&#d" to %o*d (ot% Ge#!(e !#d J&dge M!ced! !dmi#i"t!tive*' *i!(*e. S8/L +LCT %F D>TM! T$e Court 'ound Ge#!(e g&i*t' o) "im$*e #eg*ect o) d&t'. Simple neglect o' duty $as been defned as t$e )!i*&e o) !# em$*o'ee to give !tte#tio# to ! t!"3 e$ected o) %im !#d "ig#i=e" ! di"eg!d o) ! d&t' e"&*ti#g )om c!e*e""#e"" o i#diKee#ce. S$e was assigned to summarize t$e testimonies o' t$ree de'ense witnesses 'or a criminal case set 'or promulgation. T%e ecod" eve!* t%!t Ge#!(e 0!" o#*' !(*e to S>//A.8O T TS+ %F %+ 8T+SS C%+S8ST8+ %F 2E AS A+D FA8LD T% F8+8S T TS+ %F T %T. T% 8T+SSS C%+S8ST8+ %F E AS! -e'ore leaving 'or -aguio* enabe $ad t$ree wor0ing days to complete t$e tas0! D! T$e reliance o' Judge /aceda on t$e provisions o' t$is circular is misplaced! T$e decision by Judge /aceda was issued +ov! 566E* w$ile a set o' new guidelines was already in eKect inso'ar as Disciplinary actions involving lig$t oKenses are concerned! T$at is* Sectio# :4 C%!$te 1III o) A.M. No. ;/--;9-SC4 w$ic$ states among ot$ers: I# t%e $ecedi#g i#"t!#ce"4 t%e Eec&tive J&dge "%!** co#d&ct t%e #ece""!' i#&i' !#d "&(mit to t%e OCA t%e e"&*t" t%eeo) 0it% ! ecomme#d!tio# !" to t%e !ctio# to (e t!3e# t%eeo#4 i#c*&di#g t%e $e#!*t' to (e im$o"ed4 i) !#'4 0it%i#
t%it' /; d!'" )om temi#!tio# o) "!id i#&i'. NOTE T$e guidelines clearly provide t$at t$e aut$ority o' =udges to discipline erring court personnel* wit$ lig$t oKenses* is *imited to co#d&cti#g !# i#&i' o#*'. OCA 0i** (e t%e o#e to ecomme#d o# 0%!t !ctio# "%o&*d (e t!3e#.
e $old t$at t$e penalty o' fne in t$e amount o' 35*666 is commensurate to Judge /aceda@s violation o' A!/! +o! 67#4# 65#SC! .>L8+: >8LTM %F S8/L +L8+C! T ./A8+8+ 3 DAM SALL - 8/%SD >%+ F8+AL8TM %F DC8S8%+ A+D ST.+LM A.+D? J>D AS F8+D 35P!
Dissenting %pinion!935 Justice -ersamin eC SC8AL D8,8S8%+! )o Complainant t$en fled a Motio# Di"&!*i=c!tio# on t$e ground t$at $e fled t$is admin complaint against CA DENIED MOTION. respondent! RESENT COMLAINT respondent allegedly deliberately twisted t$e law and e
LD: SANTIAGO III v. J. ENRIQUEP
T$e complaint is bere't o' merit! FACTS: enaro Santiago 888 (complainant) fled against CA Justice Juan Q! nri"uez* Jr! (respondent)* 'or gross ignorance o' t$e law and =urisprudence and gross incompetence in connection wit$ $is rendering o' alleged un=ust =udgment in “Genaro C. Santiago III versus Republic of the Philippines. etitio# )o Complainant fled a Reco#"tit&tio# o) Lo"t,De"to'ed Oigi#!* Ceti=c!te o) Tit*e No. 564 egi"teed i# t%e #!me o) !#t!*eo#! S!#ti!go !#d B*!" !8!do. Quezon City .TC granted t$e petition but eople appealed to CA!
D8SS+T! J! onzales Sison submitted $er report w$ic$ was used as basis 'or t$e Division@s consultation and deliberation . Re"$o#de#t di""e#t )om t%e e$ot NOTE Re"$o#de#t 8&"tice 0!" t%e C%!i$e"o# i# t%i" div. Justice ,eloso* w$o originally concurred in t$e .eport* re"uested Justice onzales#Sison* by letter to TAP A SC%+D L%%P AT .S%+D+T@S D8SS+T8+ %8+8%+* as t%e e!"o#" J&"tice E#i&e?7 g!ve !e "to#g e#o&g% to (e ig#oed (' $*!i# tec%#ic!*it'. owever* Justice ,eloso soon e
.%. ./DM: T$e remedy o' t$e aggrieved party is not to fle an administrative complaint against t$e =udge* but to e*ev!te t%e !""!i*ed deci"io# o ode to t%e %ig%e co&t )o evie0 !#d coectio#. A+ AD/8+8ST.AT8, C%/LA8+T 8S +%T A+ A.%.8AT ./DM . J>D8C8AL .C%>.S 8S ST8LL A,A8LA-L* "&c% !" ! motio# )o eco#"ide!tio#4 an !$$e!** or ! $etitio# )o certiorari 4 unless t$e assailed order or decision is tainted wit$ 'raud* malice* or dis$onestyH T$e Court $as to be s$own acts or co#d&ct o) t%e 8&dge c*e!*' i#dic!tive o) t%e !(it!i#e"" o $e8&dice (e)oe t%e *!tte c!# (e (!#ded t%e "tigm! o) (ei#g (i!"ed !#d $!ti!* ! T$us* &#*e"" %e i" "%o0# to %!ve !cted i# (!d )!it% o 0it% de*i(e!te i#te#t to do !# i#8&"tice * H T$e 'ailure to interpret t$e law or to properly appreciate t$e evidence presented does not necessarily render a =udge administratively liable! NOTE Assuming arguendo t$at respondent@s citation o' cases in support o' t$e Decision and $is appreciation o' t$e 'acts and evidence were erroneous* "i#ce t%ee i" #o "%o0i#g t%!t t%e Deci"io#4 eco#"ide!tio# o) 0%ic% 0!" "ti** $e#di#g !t t%e time t%e $e"e#t com$*!i#t 0!" =*ed4 i" t!i#ted 0it%
)!&d4 m!*ice o di"%o#e"t' o 0!" e#deed 0it% de*i(e!te i#te#t to c!&"e i#8&"tice4 t%e com$*!i#t m&"t (e di"mi""ed. JUDICIAL IMMUNITH. 8nsulates =udges* and even Justices o' superior courts* )om (ei#g %e*d to !cco&#t cimi#!**'4 civi**' o !dmi#i"t!tive*' )o !# eo#eo&" deci"io# e#deed i# good )!it%!95 To $old ot$erwise would render =udicial o&ce untenable! +o one called upon to try t$e 'acts or interpret t$e law in t$e process o' administering =ustice could be in'allible in $is =udgment! 95E Alzua and Arnalot v. Johnson- T$is concept imm&#it' rests o' 8&dici!* upon consideration o' public policy* its purpose being to $e"eve t%e i#tegit' !#d i#de$e#de#ce o) t%e 8&dici!' ! T$is principle is o' universal application and applies to all grades o' =udicial o&cers 'rom t$e $ig$est =udge o' t$e nation and to t$e lowest o&cer w$o sits as a court! NOTE t$e fling o' c$arges against a single member o' a division o' t$e appellate court is i#!$$o$i!te. T$e Decision was not rendered by respondent in $is individual capacity! 8t was a product o' t$e consultations and deliberations by t$e Special Division o' fve!
CA is a collegiate court w$ose members reac$ t$eir conclusions in consultation and accordingly render t$eir collective =udgment a'ter due deliberation .>L8+: D8S/8SSD!
/D INDUSTRIES v. J. ROAS
Antecedents 'rom Gu v. Court of Appeal! erein complainant Smartnet@s representative ilbert is t$e son o' t$e spouses Francisco and Simny uy! T$e spouses organized Not%e# I"*!#d" Co.4 I#c. NICI 0%ic% i" e#g!ged i# t%e m!#&)!ct&e4 di"ti(&tio#4 !#d "!*e o) v!io&" %ome !$$*i!#ce" (e!i#g t%e /-D t!dem!3 ! T$e spouses also organized Lincoln Continental Development Corporation* 8nc! (Lincoln Continental) as a $olding company o' 6 o' t$e 56*3E6 s$ares o' stoc0 o' +8C8 in trust 'or t$eir t$ree daug$ters eraldine* ladys and race# sisters o' ilbert! Finding t$at t$eir son ilbert $ad been dissipating t$e assets o' Lincoln Continental* t$e Sps! uy caused t$e registration o' 6 o' t$e 56*3E6 s$ares o' stoc0 o' +8C8 in t$e #!me" o) t%ei t%ee d!&g%te"* t$us enabling t$e latter to assume an active role in t$e management o' +8C8! Li#co*# Co#ti#e#t!* =*ed ! com$*!i#t !t t%e Regio#!* Ti!* Co&t RTC o) M!#i*! !g!i#"t NICI !#d Gi*(et" $!e#t"-t%e "$o&"e" G&' !#d t%ee "i"te" %ee!)te t%e G&' )!mi*'4 'or annulment o' t$e trans'er o' t$e 6 +8C8 s$ares o' stoc0 to ilbert@s sisters! T$e complaint* prayed 'or* among ot$er t$ings* t%e e"to!tio# o) t%e m!#!geme#t o) NICI to Gi*(et4 and t%e i""&!#ce o) ! Tem$o!' Re"t!i#i#g Ode TRO !#d ! 0it o) $e*imi#!' m!#d!to' i#8&#ctio# to $o%i(it Gi*(et" "i"te" )om eeci"i#g !#' ig%t o) o0#e"%i$ ove t%e &e"tio#ed "%!e".
FACTS: T$e verifed /ay 37* 566 93 Complaint wit$ enclosures o' 7#D 8ndustries* 8nc! (7#D)* and Smartnet $ilippines* 8nc! (Smartnet) represented by ilbert uy (ilbert)* against CA Associate Justices Juan Q! nri"uez* Jr! and ,icente Q! .o
Lincoln Continental *!te =*ed ! Motio# to I#%i(it t$e residing Judge o' .TC /anila to w$ic$ its complaint was !ed o# t%e go&#d o) $!ti!*it'. T$e /otion was granted and t$e case was re#ra1ed to -ranc$ 2E o' t$e same court! +8C8 and uy 'amily c$allenged t$e in$ibition o' t$e residing Judge o' -ranc$ 52 via Certiorari and "anda#us be'ore t$e CA in w$ic$ t$ey prayed 'or* among ot$er t$ings* t$e issuance o' an order
restraining t$e residing Judge o' -ranc$ 2E 'rom 'urt$er $earing! .TC: 8n 'avor o' Lincoln (ilbert will be return to t$e mgt) +8C8 fled a petition 'or certiorari praying 'or t$e nullifcation o' said decision! %n t$e ot$er $and* $erein Smartnet* one o' t$e occupants o' t$e +8C8 premises* fled on December 3E* 5662 wit$ t$e /etropolitan Trial Court (/eTC) o' Quezon )o )oci(*e City a com$*!i#t e#t' against +8C8 and t$e uy 'amily* ilbert later fled a com$*!i#t )o e$*evi# on behalf of $-% * be'ore t$e .TC o' asig City! T$e complaint was given due course .TC asig w$ic$ issued on January 34* 566 a 0it o) e$*evi# i# )!vo o) /-D * $om$ti#g t%e NICI !#d t%e G&' )!mi*' to =*e o# J!#&!' 9;4 9;;5 (e)oe t%e CA-Eig%t% Divi"io# ! Supplemental Petition )o Cetio!i 0it% Uge#t Motio# )o ! +it o) e*imi#!' I#8&#ctio# to I#c*&de S&$eve#i#g Eve#t". T$e Supplemental etition 9 impleaded as additional respondents $erein complainant 7#D* Judges Celso D! LaviNa* residing Judge* .TC* -ranc$ 3* asig City and S$eriK Cresencio .abello* Jr!* alleging t$at ilbert* in an attempt to circumvent t$e T.%s and in=unctive writ issued by t$e CA#ig$t$ Division* allowed $imsel' to be used by 7# D by fling* on its be$al'* a complaint 'or replevin! T$e appellate court@s ig$t$ Division issued t$e "uestioned .esolution admitting t$e Supple#ental Petition for Certiorari ! 8n t$e present administrative complaint* complainants allege t$at in issuing t$e assailed Re"o*&tio#" d!ted J!#&!' 94 9;;5 and A$i* 964 9;;5 restrained t$e additionally impleaded respondents including Smartnet 'rom disturbing t$e December 55* 5662 writ o' preliminary in=unction* e"$o#de#t" c!&"ed &#d&e i#8&' to t%em ('4 !mo#g ot%e t%i#g"4 givi#g t%e $etitio#e" NICI !#d t%e G&' !mi*' i# t%e #e0 $etitio# )o Certiorari �!!#ted (e#e=t"4 !dv!#t!ge o $e)ee#ce t%o&g% m!#i)e"t $!ti!*it'4 evide#t
(!d )!it%4 o go"" i#ec&"!(*e #eg*ige#ce i# t%e di"c%!ge o) t%ei 8&dici!* )&#ctio#" i# vio*!tio# o) Sectio# /e o) t%e A#ti-G!)t !#d Co&$t !ctice" Act. 7
Finally* complainants allege t$at t$e Divisions in w$ic$ respondents were sitting $ad mutated into a G=udicial vending mac$ine*I regularly dispensing T.%s and in=unctions at an Gimpressive ma
a clear* MANIEST ARTIALITHnotorious or plain inclination or predilection to 'avor one side rat$er t$an t$e ot$er! BAD AIT< connotes not only bad =udgment or negligence* but also a dis$onest purpose* a conscious wrongdoing* or a breac$ o' duty GROSS amounting to 'raud. NEGLIGENCE is t$e want o' even slig$t care* acting or omitting to act in a situation w$ere t$ere is a duty to act* not inadvertently but will'ully and intentionally* wit$ a conscious indiKerence
to conse"uences as 'ar as ot$er persons are concerned!
go"" #eg*ige#ce4 !#d vio*!tio# o) t%e Code o) J&dici!* Co#d&ct.
NOTE T$at t$e assailed .esolutions issued by respondents 'avored +8C8 and t$e uy 'amily does not necessarily render respondents guilty o' violation o' Section 7(e) o' .!A! +o! 763;* absent proven particular acts o' mani'est* evident bad 'ait$ or gross ineST +%T %+LM - C%+T.A.M T% 8ST8+ LA A+D J>.8S.>D+C ->T* /%. 8/%.TA+TLM* />ST - ATT+DD -M -AD FA8T* F.A>D* D8S%+STM %. 957 C%..>T8%+!
8n "isc. )o. *+*, * s$e claimed t$at in t$e %rder dated August 34* 566E* respondent granted t$e motion 'or e t$at =urisprudence is replete wit$ rulings t$at a fnal =udgment ceases to be en'orceable a'ter t$at period* but merely gives t$e prevailing party a rig$t o' action to $ave t$e same revived! ence* respondent s$ould be disciplined 'or gross ignorance o' t$e law and violation o' .ule 7!6593 Canon 7 o' t$e Code o' Judicial Conduct!
NOTE Since t$e impleading o' additional parties* on motion o' any party or motu proprio at any stage o' t$e action andBor suc$ times as are =ust is allowed* 952 t$e Court fnds t$at respondents@ participation in t$e admission o' t$e supplemental petitions impleading complainants D%S +%T .+D. T/ L8A-L! R (mere allegation t$at a corporation is t$e alter ego o' t$e individual stoc0$olders is insu&cient*I +%T ,.M /8STAP 8LL .+D. J>D L8A-L!)
.>L8+: D8S/8SSD!
OCAMO v. JUDGE C
ATTH. DESCALLAR v. JUDGE RAMAS
FACTS: Atty! +orlinda .! Amante#Descallar* Cler0 o' Court* .egional Trial Court o' agadian City* -ranc$ 34* fled seven administrative complaints against respondent Judge .einerio Abra$am -! .amas* o' t$e same court* )o go"" ig#o!#ce o) t%e *!04
95
Complainant averred t$at respondent@s conduct was contrary to t$e provisions on plea bargaining in Section 5 o' .ule 33E* .ules on Criminal rocedure 9 and Sections 5 and 7 o' .!A! +o! 42;7* 9E and Supreme Court Circular +o! 74#;4! 9 S$e argued t$at it was unclear w$et$er t$e oKended party consented and w$et$er t$e prosecutor $as proper aut$ority to enter into suc$ agreement? and t$at plea bargaining is limited to a plea to a lesser oKense w$ic$ is necessarily included in t$e oKense c$arged! 94 8n "isc. )o. *+** complainant alleged t$at t$e validity and propriety o' t$e plea entitled People v. Dumpit and t$e dismissal o' one case as a conse"uence t$ereo' are "uestionable! .espondent approved t$e plea bargaining agreement entered into by t$e prosecution and t$e accused9; and dismissed Crim! Case +o! E6#5P and Crim! Case +o! E5#5P as a conse"uence o' plea bargaining! >pon arraignment*936 accused pleaded guilty to t$e sale o' s$abu! T$erea'ter* respondent issued a Decision933 fnding t$e accused guilty o' selling s$abu in Crim! Case +o! E3#5P! T$e ne
Criminal Case +o! 57#5P2 was arrested a'ter a searc$ conducted in $is residence! A'ter arraignment* accused fled a /otion to Quas$ t$e Searc$ arrant and Suppress 93; vidence! owever* t$e prayer in said motion inadvertently as0ed 'or t$e "uas$al o' anot$er searc$ warrant issued in anot$er case! respondent e<$ibited gross ignorance in issuing Searc$ arrant 4#62 and t$erea'ter invalidating t$e same 'or 'ailing to comply wit$ t$e re"uisites o' a Searc$ arrant? and t$at respondent issued several searc$ warrants beyond t$e territorial =urisdiction o' $is court w$ic$ were eventually invalidated t$ereby putting t$e eKorts o' t$e arresting o&cers to naug$t!
8SS>: $et$er respondent =udge is administratively liable 'or t$e alleged erroneous rulings and issuances made by $im in t$e eL: not every error or mista0e t$at a =udge commits in t$e per'ormance o' $is duties renders $im liable* unless $e is s$own to $ave acted in bad 'ait$ or wit$ deliberate intent to do an in=ustice! ood 'ait$ and absence o' malice* corrupt motives or improper considerations are su&cient de'enses in w$ic$ a =udge c$arged wit$ ignorance o' t$e law can fnd re'uge! 8n Mauiran v. !rageda*95E t$e Court $eld t$at alleged error committed by =udges in t$e eST8%+ %F J>D8C8AL ./D8S 8S A .#.Q!F%. T TAP8+ %F %T. /AS>.S AA8+ST J>DS!
NOTE 8t is only a'ter t$e available =udicial remedies $ave been e<$austed and t$e appellate tribunals $ave spo0en wit$ fnality* t%!t t%e doo to !# i#&i' i#to %i" cimi#!*4 civi*4 o
!dmi#i"t!tive *i!(i*it' m!' (e "!id to %!ve o$e#ed4 o c*o"ed.
Law and logic decree t$at GadministrativeI or criminal remedies are neit$er alternative nor cumulative to =udicial review w$ere suc$ review is available* and must wait on t$e result t$ereo'! MU Si#ce 8&dge" m&"t (e )ee to 8&dge * wit$out pressure or inVuence 'rom e
T%o&g% #ot eve' 8&dici!* eo (e"$e!3" ig#o!#ce o) t%e *!0 !#d
t%!t4 i) committed i# good )!it%4 doe" #ot 0!!#t !dmi#i"t!tive "!#ctio#. SCOE t%e "!me !$$*ie" o#*' i# c!"e" 0it%i# t%e $!!mete" o) to*e!(*e mi"8&dgme#t.
+ 8S .%SS 8+%.A+CU $ere t$e law is straig$t'orward and t$e 'acts so evident* not to 0now it or to act as i' one does not 0now it constitutes gross ignorance o' t$e law
it$ respect to "isc. )o. *+*0 and "isc. )o. *+*! At t$e time t$e assailed rulings were issued* t%e $o%i(itio# o# $*e!(!g!i#i#g $ovided i# Sectio# 9;-A o) R.A. No. 6954 !" !me#ded4 i" #ot !("o*&te. 8t applies only w$en t$e person is c$arged under .!A! +o! E25 w$ere t$e imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua to deat$! T$oug$ Sections 3 and 3E o' t$e said law* under w$ic$ t$e accused was c$arged* provide t$at t$e sale and possession o' t$ese drugs is punis$able by reclusion perpetua to deat$* t$ese penalties may only be imposed i' t$e same were o' t$e "uantities enumerated in Section 56!975 8' t$e "uantity involved is less t$an t$at stated* t$e penalty s$all range correccional to reclusion 'rom prision perpetua depending on t$e "uantity!977
8t is to be noted t$at t$e decision to accept or re=ect a plea bargaining agreement is wit$in t$e sound discretion o' t$e court sub=ect to certain re"uirements o' statutes or rules! Re"$o#de#t 0!" !*"o c%!ged 0, go""
#eg*ige#ce in "isc. )o. *+* and "isc. )o. *+,! "isc. )o. *+* relates to t$e issuance o' Searc$ arrant +o! 26#67 w$ere t$e name o' t$e accused in t$e caption diKers 'rom t$at mentioned in t$e body! %n t$e ot$er $and* "isc. )o. *+, relates to t$e %rder "uas$ing a Searc$ arrant in anot$er criminal case and reproducing t$e rayer in t$e /otion to Quas$ fled as its dispositive portion! T$e errors committed by respondent =udge in t$e mentioned cases could $ave been avoided $ad $e e
indeed is laden wit$ a $eavy burden o' responsibility! .>L8+: 3) o' gross ignorance o' t$e law in /isc! +o! 545 and /isc! +o! 544* 'or w$ic$ $e is suspended 'rom o&ce 'or si< (E) mont$s wit$out salary and ot$er benefts? 5) o' negligence in /isc! +o! 54E6 and /isc! +o! 5452* 'or w$ic$ $e is meted a F8+ o' *666!66! .espondent is STERNLH +ARNED t$at a repetition o' t$e same or similar acts s$all be dealt wit$ more severely!
TIERRA IRMA ESTATE v J. QUINTIN
FACTS: T$is is a complaint fled against Judge dison F! Quintin* residing Judge o' t$e /TC -ranc$ E* /alabon* /etro /anila4 )o )!i*&e to decide Civi* C!"e No. JL;;-;964 e#tit*ed Tie! im! E"t!te 2 Deve*o$me#t Co$o!tio# v. Co#"&me Commoditie" I#te#!tio#!*4 I#c.4 0it%i# /; d!'" !)te it 0!" "&(mitted )o deci"io# * as re"uired under .ule 6* W; o' t$e .evised .ules o' Civil rocedure and t$e .ule on Summary rocedure! 8t appears t$at on September 32* 5666 4 ! com$*!i#t )o &#*!0)&* det!i#e 0!" =*ed (' com$*!i#!#t !g!i#"t Co#"&me Commoditie" I#te#!tio#!*4 I#c! in t$e /TC o' /alabon* /etro /anila! A'ter t$e de'endant $ad fled its answer 4 t%e c!"e 0!" "et )o $e*imi#!' co#)ee#ce o# Decem(e @4 9;;;. Despite due notice* T DF+DA+T D8D +%T AA.! Conse"uently* respondent =udge considered t$e case submitted 'or decision! owever* notwit$standing t$e motions 'or t$e early resolution o' t$e case fled by complainant on /arc$ 5* 5663 and /arc$ 55* 5663* 8&dgme#t 0!" #ot e#deed i# t%e c!"e &#ti* J&*' :;4 9;;:. C%+T+T8%+? .AS%+ F%. DLAM %e %!" ! %e!v' c!"e*o!d e"&*ti#g )om t%e e$!#ded 8&i"dictio# o) t%e MTC> t$at $e also $ad to preside over t$e /etropolitan Trial Court o' +avotas* -ranc$
2* as acting =udge t$ereo' since /arc$ 3* 3;;;? !#d t%!t4 !" ! e"&*t o) ! =e 0%ic% de"to'ed t%e co&t%o&"e i# J&*' 9;;;4 %e %!d to %o*d $oceedi#g" i# %i" oigi#!* "t!tio# i# ! "i#g*e c!m$ed oom 0it% #o $!titio#" !#d 0it% t%e (!e"t o) )!ci*itie" C%/LA8+A+T: no intricate "uestions o' 'act
and o' law t$at would =usti'y t$e de*!' o) 9:; d!'" and t$at respondent =udge tolerated dilatory tactics by t$e de'endant by entertaining motions w$ic$ are pro$ibited under .ule 6* W37 o' t$e .evised .ules o' Civil rocedure! LD:
Actions 'or )oci(*e e#t' !#d &#*!0)&* det!i#e are governed by t$e .ule on Summary rocedure* w$ic$ was de"ig#ed to e#"&e t%e "$eed' di"$o"itio# o) t%e"e c!"e". 8ndeed* t$ese cases involve perturbation o' t$e social order w$ic$ must be restored as promptly as possible! 95 For t$is reason* t$e speedy resolution o' suc$ cases is t$us deemed a matter o' public policy!
AS T% T C%/LA8+A+T: t$e continuing
delay in t$e resolution o' t$e case $as already caused g!ve d!m!ge to it co#"idei#g t%!t t%e de)e#d!#t co#ti#&ed to occ&$' t%e *e!"ed $o$et' 0it%o&t $!'i#g e#t !#d t%e !cc&m&*!ted &#$!id e#t $as already reac$ed more t$an /5;4;;;.;;4 to t%e detime#t o) com$*!i#!#t. J>ST8C DLAMD 8S +%T J>ST8C D+8D!
De*!' i# t%e di"$o"itio# o) c!"e" &#demi#e" t%e $eo$*e" )!it% !#d co#=de#ce i# t%e 8&dici!'. ence* =udges are en=oined to decide cases wit$ dispatc$! T$eir 'ailure to do so constitutes gross ine&ciency and warrants t$e imposition o' administrative sanctions on t$em
.>L8+: >8LTM %F 8+FF8C8+CM 8+ D8S%S8T8%+ %F CASS?..8/A+DD A+D A.+D!
RICON v MARQUEP
FACTS:
8n t$is case* was submitted 'or decision on
C%+S%L8DATD CASS: e resolve t$e present consolidated administrative complaints R (3) A!/! +o! .TJ#36#557* =*ed4 o# A&g&"t 994 9;;94 (' Att'. e"eve!#d! L. Rico#4 C*e3 o) Co&t * c$arged Judge lacido C! /ar"uez* .TC* -ranc$ 26* /anila* wit$ Grave Abuse of %iscretion4Authorit5 Grave "isconduct and Conduct 6nbeco#ing a Judge?93 and (5) A!/! +o! #6E#5374* dated /ay 37* 56695 fled by Judge /ar"uez against Atty! .icon* for Gross "is#anage#ent and )eglect5 and &alsi7cation
NOTE Contention as to $eavy case load* t$e Court said: t%e de"ig#!tio# o) ! 8&dge to $e"ide ove !#ot%e "!*! i" !# i#"&cie#t e!"o# to 8&"ti)' de*!' i# decidi#g ! c!"e.
A.M. No. Marue$
$at respondent =udge appears to overloo0 is t$at t$e de*!' i# t%e di"$o"itio# o) t%e c!"e i" d&e i# $!t to t%e )!ct t%!t %e e#tet!i#ed motio#"*9 "ome o) 0%ic% !e $o%i(ited (' t%e R&*e o# S&mm!' oced&e4 =*ed (' t%e de)e#d!#t 0%ic% )&t%e $ot!cted t%e e"o*&tio# o) t%e c!"e
RTJ-:;-995/ ,
Ricon
v.
Atty! .icon (Cler0 o' court) alleged t$at be'ore Judge Sablan retired* t$e two o' t$em paid a courtesy call on Judge /ar"uez* t$en t$e pairing =udge o' -ranc$ 7;!
T$erea'ter* or in t$e frst wee0 o' /arc$ 5665* Judge /ar"uez set a meeting wit$ t$e staK o' -ranc$ 7; and Judge Sablan! T%e ="t t%i#g J&dge M!&e? !"3ed !t t%e meeti#g 0!" 0%o !mo#g t%e "t!K %!d !*e!d' e#deed =ve 5 'e!" o) "evice i# t%e gove#me#t! /ost o' t$e staK proudly raised t$eir $ands* but t$ey )e*t i#"&*ted 0%e# J&dge M!&e? "!id t%!t em$*o'ee" 0%o %!ve (ee# i# t%e $&(*ic "evice )o =ve 'e!" !e corrupt, gago, tamad at ma%a%apal ang mga mu%ha
T%e "t!K 0ee "%oc3ed4 (&t did #ot e!ct to J&dge M!&e?" ti!de o&t o) e"$ect )o %im! Judge /ar"uez t$en instructed Atty! .icon to sc$edule t$e court@s cases 'or $earing on T$ursdays and Fridays* w$ic$ s$e did* but Judge /ar"uez commenced $earing t$e cases only in June 5665!
Atty! .icon 'urt$er alleged t$at Judge /ar"uez laid down "o m!#' &*e" !#d eg&*!tio#" i# t%e co&t4 and one suc$ rule re"uired t$e c%!#gi#g o) t%e cove" o) c!"e ecod"4 0%ic% "%e )o&#d &#e!"o#!(*e. . Eve' time J&dge M!&e? di"coveed c!"e ecod" #ot $e$!ed !ccodi#g to %i" "$eci=c!tio#"4 %e 0o&*d get m!d !#d voice o&t oKe#"ive em!3" *i3e tamad, hindi ginagawa ang mga trabaho &even in the presence of other people and even during hearings'.
Gnilalahat 8o na ang #ga UTTERED hu9es na naupo dito5 9alang naga9ang ta#aX "ali silang lahat5 #ga 9alang ala#:;
Atty! .icon disagreed as t$e respondent =udge@s predecessors were all $onest* e&cient* and considerate!
Atty! .icon also claimed t$at Judge /ar"uez would o'ten tell people t$at $e is a G basurero; 9 in t$e o&ce* pic0ing all t$e mess le't by $is predecessors and t$e staK!
>+SAT8SFACT%.M .AT8+! Furt$er* Atty! .icon claimed t$at s$e received t$e biggest blow in $er li'e w$en Judge /ar"uez gave $er an Gunsatis'actoryI rating* toget$er wit$ ot$er members o' t$e staK! Furt$er: t$e lowest rating t$at s$e got 'rom t$e previous =udges was Gvery satis'actoryI and* be'ore s$e retired* Judge Sablan gave $er a rating o' Goutstanding!I
>+.AS%+A-L .AT8+! Atty! .icon wondered $ow Judge /ar"uez could correctly rate t$e staK* as $e did* w$en $e conducted $earings only two days a wee0 and t$e longest time t$at $e stayed wit$ t$em was fve $ours* inclusive o' t$e $earing o' cases? in s$ort* w$en Judge /ar"uez made t$e ratings* $e $ad stayed wit$ t$e staK 'or only 26 $ours!
Finally* Atty! .icon alleged t$at t$ere were reports t$at Judge /ar"uez was using $is c$ambers as living "uarters* sleeping and eating wit$in t$e court@s premises and was* in 'act* accosted by a roving policeman at t$e /anila City all at about two o@cloc0 in t$e morning!
J>D: Denied allegations o' uttering words li0e GbasureroI alleging t$at Atty! .icon@s allegations concerning $is ot$er unsavory remar0s were a twisted and perverted version o' t$e trut$ and were pure concoctions* malicious and devilis$!
Also* denied using $is c$ambers as living "uarters! e e
.AT8+ # 8n regard to t$e staK@s per'ormance ratings* Judge /ar"uez e
LD:
e approve and adopt Justice Carandang@s recommendations! T$e fndings and conclusions on w$ic$ t$ey were based were t$e result o' a t$oroug$ and painsta0ing investigation!
decorum o' a magistrate! unpro'essional and unet$ical!
%t$er c$arges against respondent =udge s$ould be dismissed! T$e =udge cannot be made
liable 'or grave abuse o' discretionBaut$ority or 'or grave misconduct 'or t$e unsatis'actory ratings $e gave to Atty! .icon and t$e ot$er members o' t$e staK* and 'or laying down Gmany rules and regulationsI in -ranc$ 7; to improve record 0eeping and case management!
J>D@S ..% . ASSSS/+T? F8L8+! t$at it was Judge /ar"uez@s prerogative* given a pre#determined set o' standards* to give $is staK ratings w$ic$* in $is $onest assessment* are commensurate to t$eir per'ormance in t$e o&ce* ratings w$ic$ were subse"uently up$eld by t$e %CA .C! Also* we cannot 'ault Judge /ar"uez in devising ways to straig$ten out t$e fle o' case records in t$e court* even t$roug$ t$e mundane tas0 o' c$anging t$e colors o' case 'olders! o %i" e"o*ve to $&t i# ode t%e co&t" ecod 3ee$i#g !#d c!"e m!#!geme#t4 %e "%o&*d (e comme#ded4 #ot citici?ed.
C%+,.TD T% L8,8+ ADQ.T.S! J! /ar"uez remained in t$e court a'ter o&ce $ours to do $is wor0 as a =udge especially at t$e time w$en $e was directed by t$e Court to act on cases le't by Judge Sablan! Certainly* $e cannot be made liable 'or t$e eKort!
+% ,8D F%. .%SS /8S/T! %F .C%.DS! ven i' records are not properly arranged attributed t$is to t$e limited space and 'acilities as t$e ones principally responsible 'or t$e situation!
>se o' insulting* unsavoury and intemperate language to Atty! .icon and ot$er litigants
deviated 'rom t$e proper and accepted
Suc$ was
.>L8+: F8+D %F 3P! CA.S A. D8S/8SSD!
ALL
%T.
