3g Class Digest - Judicial Ethics

(1)

CLASS DIGESTS FOR JUDICIAL ETHICS

UNDUE DELAY IN RENDERING A DECISION OR ORDER UNDUE DELAY IN RENDERING A DECISION OR ORDER

Junio vs. Beltran

A.M. No. RTJ-14-2367

January 13, 2014

Facts :

Claire Ann Campos, a 17-year old student, filed anClaire Ann Campos, a 17-year old student, filed an affidavit-complai

affidavit-complai nt nt for violation for violation of Child of Child Abuse Abuse Law Law and and thethe Magna Carta for

Magna Carta for the Disabled the Disabled before the Tubefore the Tuguegarao Cityguegarao City Prosecution Office against Sr. Remy Angela Junio and Dr. Prosecution Office against Sr. Remy Angela Junio and Dr. Josephine D. Lorica, the President and the Dean of the School Josephine D. Lorica, the President and the Dean of the School of Health Services, respectively, of St. Paul University of the of Health Services, respectively, of St. Paul University of the Philippines (

Philippines (SPUP). The prosecutor’s office filed twoSPUP). The prosecutor’s office filed two

informations against Junio and Lorica for violations for the said informations against Junio and Lorica for violations for the said laws as per

laws as per DOJ’s February 24, 2011 resolution. The casesDOJ’s February 24, 2011 resolution. The cases were assigned to Judge Marivic A. Cacatian-Beltran of the were assigned to Judge Marivic A. Cacatian-Beltran of the RTC, Branch 3, Tuguegarao City, due to the inhibition of RTC, Branch 3, Tuguegarao City, due to the inhibition of Judge Aquino. Junio and Lorica sought a reconsideration of Judge Aquino. Junio and Lorica sought a reconsideration of the DOJ’s February 24, 2011 resolution. The RTC found the DOJ’s February 24, 2011 resolution. The RTC found probable cause to issue warrants of arrest against Junio and probable cause to issue warrants of arrest against Junio and Lorica. Accordingly, it issued the warrants of arrest against Lorica. Accordingly, it issued the warrants of arrest against them. Meanwhile, DOJ Secretary Leila de Lima granted Junio them. Meanwhile, DOJ Secretary Leila de Lima granted Junio and Lorica’s motion for reconsideration and set aside the and Lorica’s motion for reconsideration and set aside the February 24, 2011

February 24, 2011 resolution. resolution. The City Prosecutor, Junio The City Prosecutor, Junio andand Lorica filed a joint motion to withdraw informations in view of Lorica filed a joint motion to withdraw informations in view of Secretary

Secretary De Lima’s August 8, 2011 resolution.De Lima’s August 8, 2011 resolution. Judge Judge Cacatian-Beltran issued an order stating that "the motion Cacatian-Beltran issued an order stating that "the motion relative to the resolution of the Department of Justice is relative to the resolution of the Department of Justice is deemed submitted for resolution.

deemed submitted for resolution.

The Administrative Complaint The Administrative Complaint

Junio and Lorica filed an affidavit-complaint against Judge Junio and Lorica filed an affidavit-complaint against Judge Cacatian-Beltran for violation of Rules 1.02, 3.01, 3.02, and Cacatian-Beltran for violation of Rules 1.02, 3.01, 3.02, and 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. They alleged that Judge 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. They alleged that Judge Cacatian-Beltran only resolved the joint motion to withdraw Cacatian-Beltran only resolved the joint motion to withdraw informations

informations

after almost four months

from the time it was from the time it was submitted for resolution. They claimed that four months was submitted for resolution. They claimed that four months was beyond the period prescribed by existing rules for the beyond the period prescribed by existing rules for the resolution of simple motions.

resolution of simple motions.

In her comment, Judge Cacatian-Beltran explained that Junio In her comment, Judge Cacatian-Beltran explained that Junio and Lorica might have conducted a follow-up of the motions to and Lorica might have conducted a follow-up of the motions to dismiss at Branch 4 where the records of the criminal cases dismiss at Branch 4 where the records of the criminal cases had been retained, and that the staff of Branch 4 failed to had been retained, and that the staff of Branch 4 failed to inform her of any follow-up by Junio and Lorica and/or by their inform her of any follow-up by Junio and Lorica and/or by their counsel. She maintained that she "lost no time in finishing the counsel. She maintained that she "lost no time in finishing the draft

draft""44_{of her January 6, 2012 order when the joint motion for}_{of her January 6, 2012 order when the joint motion for} resolution was brought to her attention.

resolution was brought to her attention.

Judge Cacatian-Beltran maintained that the RTC was not Judge Cacatian-Beltran maintained that the RTC was not bound by the findings of the Secretary of Justice since her bound by the findings of the Secretary of Justice since her court had already acquired jurisdiction over the case. She court had already acquired jurisdiction over the case. She added that she made an independent assessment of the added that she made an independent assessment of the evidence before denying the motion. She further stated that evidence before denying the motion. She further stated that she acted promptly on all other incidents in the case. she acted promptly on all other incidents in the case.

In its Report and Recommendation dated August 13, 2013, the In its Report and Recommendation dated August 13, 2013, the OCA recommended that: (1) the administrative complaint OCA recommended that: (1) the administrative complaint against Judge Cacatian-Beltran be dismissed for being judicial against Judge Cacatian-Beltran be dismissed for being judicial in nature; and (2) Judge Cacatian-Beltran be admonished to in nature; and (2) Judge Cacatian-Beltran be admonished to strictly comply with the reglementary periods to act on pending strictly comply with the reglementary periods to act on pending motions and other incidents in her court.

motions and other incidents in her court.

The OCA held that errors committed by a judge in the exercise The OCA held that errors committed by a judge in the exercise of his adjudicative functions cannot be corrected through of his adjudicative functions cannot be corrected through

(2)

administrative proceedings. It explained that the aberrant acts administrative proceedings. It explained that the aberrant acts allegedly committed by Judge Cacatian-Beltran relate to the allegedly committed by Judge Cacatian-Beltran relate to the exercise of her judicial functions, and added that only judicial exercise of her judicial functions, and added that only judicial errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad faith or deliberate intent to do an injustice should be faith or deliberate intent to do an injustice should be administratively sanctioned.

administratively sanctioned.

The OCA, nonetheless, ruled that Judge Cacatian-Beltran The OCA, nonetheless, ruled that Judge Cacatian-Beltran should be admonished to be more mindful of the reglementary should be admonished to be more mindful of the reglementary periods to resolve pending motions.

periods to resolve pending motions.

Issue

: Whether Jude Beltran is administratively liable for the: Whether Jude Beltran is administratively liable for the delay?

delay?

Ruling

: NO. : NO.

Sections 9 and 11, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as Sections 9 and 11, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, classifies undue delay in amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, classifies undue delay in rendering a decision or order as a less serious charge, with rendering a decision or order as a less serious charge, with the following administrative sanctions: (a) suspension from the following administrative sanctions: (a) suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or (b) a fine of more (1) nor more than three (3) months; or (b) a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.

than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.

However, the records are bereft of any evidence showing that However, the records are bereft of any evidence showing that there had been undue delay (as shown by the records), any there had been undue delay (as shown by the records), any attendant bad faith, any intent to prejudice a party to the case, attendant bad faith, any intent to prejudice a party to the case, or some other ulterior ends. The OCA, in fact, pointedly ruled or some other ulterior ends. The OCA, in fact, pointedly ruled that the inaction was not attended with malice: Judge

that the inaction was not attended with malice: Judge Cacatian-Beltran resolved the joint motion to withdraw Cacatian-Beltran resolved the joint motion to withdraw

informations two (2) days after she learned of its existence on informations two (2) days after she learned of its existence on January 4, 2012.

January 4, 2012.

To our mind, these circumstances are sufficient to mitigate the To our mind, these circumstances are sufficient to mitigate the liability of Judge Cacatian-Beltran and keep us from imposing liability of Judge Cacatian-Beltran and keep us from imposing a fine or suspension from office. Accordingly, we find sufficient a fine or suspension from office. Accordingly, we find sufficient

and warranted the OCA’s recommended penalty of and warranted the OCA’s recommended penalty of admonition.

admonition.

MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT JUDGES CANNOT NOTARIZE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT JUDGES CANNOT NOTARIZE AFFIDA

AFFIDAVITS OF VITS OF COHABICOHABITATION TATION OF PAROF PARTIES WHTIES WHOSEOSE MARRIAGE THEY WILL SOLEMNIZE.

MARRIAGE THEY WILL SOLEMNIZE.

A.M.

A.M. No.

No. MTJ-14

MTJ-14-1842

-1842

February

February 24,

24, 2014

2014

[Formerl

[Formerly OCA IPI

y OCA IPI No. 12-2491-MTJ]

No. 12-2491-MTJ]

REX M. TUPAL,

Complainant, vs. Complainant, vs.

JUDGE REMEGIO V.

ROJO, Branch 5, Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC),

Bacolod City, Negros Occidental,

Respondent. Respondent.

FACTS:

Rex MRex M. Tupal . Tupal filed with the filed with the Office of Office of the Courtthe Court Administr

Administrator a ator a complaincomplaint against Judge Remegio V. Rojo fort against Judge Remegio V. Rojo for violating the Code of Judicial Conduct and for gross ignorance violating the Code of Judicial Conduct and for gross ignorance of the law. Judge Rojo allegedly solemnized marriages without of the law. Judge Rojo allegedly solemnized marriages without the required marriage license. He instead notarized affidavits of the required marriage license. He instead notarized affidavits of cohabitation

cohabitation and issued and issued them to them to the contractithe contracting parties. ng parties. HeHe notarized these affidavits on the day of the parties’ notarized these affidavits on the day of the parties’ marriage. These "package marriages" are allegedly common in marriage. These "package marriages" are allegedly common in Bacolod City.

Bacolod City.

Circular No. 1-90 allows municipal trial court judges to act as Circular No. 1-90 allows municipal trial court judges to act as notaries public ex officio and notarize documents only if notaries public ex officio and notarize documents only if connected with their official functions and duties. Rex argues connected with their official functions and duties. Rex argues that affidavits of cohabitation are not connected with a judge’s that affidavits of cohabitation are not connected with a judge’s official functions and duties as solemnizing officer. Thus, Judge official functions and duties as solemnizing officer. Thus, Judge Rojo cannot notarize ex officio affidavits of cohabitation of Rojo cannot notarize ex officio affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose marriage he solemnized. Also, Judge Rojo parties whose marriage he solemnized. Also, Judge Rojo allegedly violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice since he allegedly violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice since he notarized affidavits of cohabitation without affixing his judicial notarized affidavits of cohabitation without affixing his judicial seal on the affidavits. He also did not require the parties to seal on the affidavits. He also did not require the parties to

(3)

present their competent pieces of evidence of identity as present their competent pieces of evidence of identity as required by law.

required by law.

Judge Rojo argued that Rex was only harassing him. He di Judge Rojo argued that Rex was only harassing him. He di d notd not deny notarizing the affidavits of cohabitation and argued that deny notarizing the affidavits of cohabitation and argued that such was connected with his official functions and duties as a such was connected with his official functions and duties as a judge.T

judge.The Guidelinehe Guidelines on the Solemnizs on the Solemnization of Marriagation of Marriage by thee by the Members of

Members of the Judiciary the Judiciary does not does not prohibit prohibit judges fromjudges from notarizing affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose marriage notarizing affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose marriage they will solemnize.Thus, Judge Rojo did not violate Circular they will solemnize.Thus, Judge Rojo did not violate Circular No. 1-90. Also, he argued that he

No. 1-90. Also, he argued that he did not violate the 2004 Rulesdid not violate the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. He is

on Notarial Practice. He is a judge, not a notary public. Thus, hea judge, not a notary public. Thus, he was not required to affix a notarial seal on the affidavits he was not required to affix a notarial seal on the affidavits he notarized. And that he need not notarize the affidavits with the notarized. And that he need not notarize the affidavits with the parties presenting their competent pieces of evidence of parties presenting their competent pieces of evidence of identity. Since he interviewed the parties as to the contents of identity. Since he interviewed the parties as to the contents of their affidavits, he personally knew them to be the same their affidavits, he personally knew them to be the same persons who executed the affidavit.The parties’ identities are persons who executed the affidavit.The parties’ identities are "unquestionable." Moreover, he alleged that other judges in "unquestionable." Moreover, he alleged that other judges in Bacolod City and Talisay City also notarized affidavits of Bacolod City and Talisay City also notarized affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose marriage they solemnized.He cohabitation of parties whose marriage they solemnized.He pleaded "not

pleaded "not to make him [complainant Tupal’s] doormat,to make him [complainant Tupal’s] doormat, punching bag and chopping block"

punching bag and chopping block" since other judges alsosince other judges also notarized affidavits of cohabitation

notarized affidavits of cohabitation

ISSUE:

Whether Judge Rojo is guilty of violating the New CodeWhether Judge Rojo is guilty of violating the New Code of Judicial Conduct and of gross ignorance of the law?

of Judicial Conduct and of gross ignorance of the law?

HELD:

YES. This court finds Judge Rojo guilty of violating theYES. This court finds Judge Rojo guilty of violating the New Code of Judicial Conduct and of gross ignorance of the New Code of Judicial Conduct and of gross ignorance of the law. Judge Rojo violated Circular No. 1-90 and the 2004 Rules law. Judge Rojo violated Circular No. 1-90 and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

on Notarial Practice.

MTC and MCTC judges may act as notaries public ex officio in MTC and MCTC judges may act as notaries public ex officio in the notarization of documents connected only with the exercise the notarization of documents connected only with the exercise of their official functions and duties x x x. They may not, as of their official functions and duties x x x. They may not, as

notaries public ex officio, undertake the preparation and notaries public ex officio, undertake the preparation and acknowledgment of private documents, contract

acknowledgment of private documents, contract s and other actss and other acts of conveyances which bear no direct relation to the performance of conveyances which bear no direct relation to the performance of their functions as judges. The 1989 Code of Judicial Conduct of their functions as judges. The 1989 Code of Judicial Conduct not only enjoins judges to regulate their extra-judicial activities not only enjoins judges to regulate their extra-judicial activities in order to minimize the risk of conflict with their judicial duties, in order to minimize the risk of conflict with their judicial duties, but also prohibits them from engaging in the private practice of but also prohibits them from engaging in the private practice of law (Canon 5 and Rule 5.07).They may also act as notaries law (Canon 5 and Rule 5.07).They may also act as notaries public ex officio only if lawyers or notaries public are lacking in public ex officio only if lawyers or notaries public are lacking in their courts’ territorial jurisdiction

their courts’ territorial jurisdiction

Judge Rojo notarized affidavits of cohabitation, which were Judge Rojo notarized affidavits of cohabitation, which were documents not connected with the exercise of his official documents not connected with the exercise of his official functions and duties as solemnizing officer. He also notarized functions and duties as solemnizing officer. He also notarized affidavits of cohabitation without certifying that lawyers or affidavits of cohabitation without certifying that lawyers or notaries public were lacking i

notaries public were lacking i n his court’s territorial jurisdiction.n his court’s territorial jurisdiction. Thus, Judge Rojo violated Circular No. 1-90.

Thus, Judge Rojo violated Circular No. 1-90.

Based on law and the Guidelines on the Solemnization of Based on law and the Guidelines on the Solemnization of Marriage by the Members of the Judiciary, the person who Marriage by the Members of the Judiciary, the person who notarizes the contracting parties’ affidavit of cohabitati

notarizes the contracting parties’ affidavit of cohabitati on cannoton cannot be the judge who will solemnize the parties’ marriage.

be the judge who will solemnize the parties’ marriage. That otherThat other judges

judges have have notarizenotarized d affidavits affidavits of of cohabcohabitation itation of of parties parties whosewhose marriages they solemnized does not make the practice legal. marriages they solemnized does not make the practice legal. Violations of laws are not excused by practice to the contrary. Violations of laws are not excused by practice to the contrary. This court does not condone violations of law. Judges have This court does not condone violations of law. Judges have been dismissed from the service for gross ignorance of the law. been dismissed from the service for gross ignorance of the law. However, Judge Rojo may have been misled by other judges’ However, Judge Rojo may have been misled by other judges’ practice of notarizing affidavits of cohabitation in Bacolod City practice of notarizing affidavits of cohabitation in Bacolod City and Talisay City. Thus, this court finds suspension from office and Talisay City. Thus, this court finds suspension from office without salary and other benefits for six (6) months sufficient without salary and other benefits for six (6) months sufficient sanction.

(4)

ERRORS IN JUDGEMENT;

ERRORS IN JUDGEMENT; JUDGES SHALL JUDGES SHALL AVOIDAVOID

IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL THE

ALL THE ACTIVIACTIVITIES OF TIES OF A JUDGE.A JUDGE.””

A.M. No. RTJ-14-2376 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 11-3625-RTJ],

March 05, 2014

MA. LIZA M. JORDA, CITY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE,

TACLOBAN CITY

,, Complainant Complainant ,, v.v.

JUDGE CRISOLOGO S.

BITAS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 7, TACLOBAN

CITY, RESPONDENT.

[A.M. NO. RTJ-14-2377 [FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 11

[A.M. NO. RTJ-14-2377 [FORMERLY OCA I.P.I. NO. 11 -3645-

-3645-RTJ]]

RTJ]]

PROSECUTOR LEO C. TABAO

,, Complainant Complainant ,, v.v.

JUDGE

CRISOLOGO S. BITAS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH

7, TACLOBAN CITY,

Respondent.Respondent.

City Prosecuto

City Prosecuto r Leo C. Tr Leo C. Tabao, Tacloban City v. Judgeabao, Tacloban City v. Judge Crisolog

Crisolog o S. Bitas, RTC, o S. Bitas, RTC, BrancBranc h 7, Tah 7, Taclobclob an City an City

The complaint stemmed from Criminal Case Nos. 2009-11-537; The complaint stemmed from Criminal Case Nos. 2009-11-537; 2009-11-538 and 2009-11-539

2009-11-538 and 2009-11-53944_{for Qualified Trafficking and}_{for Qualified Trafficking and}

Violation of Article VI, Section 10 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610, Violation of Article VI, Section 10 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610, which were filed against Danilo Miralles (

which were filed against Danilo Miralles ( MirallesMiralles),), et al et al . before the. before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Tacloban City where respondent Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Tacloban City where respondent Judge Bitas presides.

Judge Bitas presides.

Complainant lamented that respondent judge disregarded his Complainant lamented that respondent judge disregarded his duties and violated mandatory provisions of the Rules of Court duties and violated mandatory provisions of the Rules of Court when he did not issue a warrant of arrest against the accused when he did not issue a warrant of arrest against the accused Miralles, who was charged with two (2) non-bailable criminal Miralles, who was charged with two (2) non-bailable criminal offenses.

offenses. As early as As early as November 19, 2November 19, 2009, criminal complaints009, criminal complaints

against Miralles for Qualified Trafficking were already filed, yet against Miralles for Qualified Trafficking were already filed, yet respondent judge never issued a warrant of arrest for Miralles respondent judge never issued a warrant of arrest for Miralles despite accused’s presence during the court hearings.

despite accused’s presence during the court hearings.

Moreover, respondent judge granted a reduced bail of P40,000.00 Moreover, respondent judge granted a reduced bail of P40,000.00 for accused Miralles for each of the three (3) cases even without for accused Miralles for each of the three (3) cases even without any petition for the

any petition for the fixing of bail. fixing of bail. In fact, complainant reiteratedIn fact, complainant reiterated that even after respondent judge found probable cause to hold that even after respondent judge found probable cause to hold accused Miralles for trial, he did not order the arrest of the accused Miralles for trial, he did not order the arrest of the

accused. Instead, respondent judge summarily granted a reduced accused. Instead, respondent judge summarily granted a reduced bail in the absence of a motion to fix bail and the prosecution was bail in the absence of a motion to fix bail and the prosecution was not given

not given the opportunity to the opportunity to interpose its ointerpose its objections. bjections. ComplainantComplainant claimed that such acts of respondent judge were evident of his claimed that such acts of respondent judge were evident of his bias towards accused Miralles.

bias towards accused Miralles.

Subsequently, on February 4, 2011, Sheriff Jose Cabcabin of the Subsequently, on February 4, 2011, Sheriff Jose Cabcabin of the Office of the RTC Clerk of Court issued a certification that Miralles Office of the RTC Clerk of Court issued a certification that Miralles surrendered to him to avail of his right

surrendered to him to avail of his right to bail. to bail. The cash bail bondThe cash bail bond in the amount of P120,000.00 was approved by respondent judge in the amount of P120,000.00 was approved by respondent judge on the same day.

on the same day.

In his Answer, respondent judge reasoned that it was wrong to In his Answer, respondent judge reasoned that it was wrong to arrest Miralles, because the court was still in the process of arrest Miralles, because the court was still in the process of determining whether there is sufficient evidence to hold the determining whether there is sufficient evidence to hold the accused for trial.

accused for trial. He explained thaHe explained that Miralles had at Miralles had always madelways made himself available during the hearings for the determination of himself available during the hearings for the determination of probable cause; thus, the court already acquired jurisdiction over probable cause; thus, the court already acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused.

the person of the accused. After th

After the heare hearing for ing for the detthe determinatioermination of pron of probable bable cause, cause, thethe court ruled that there is no strong evidence presented by the court ruled that there is no strong evidence presented by the prosecution.

prosecution. On February 4, On February 4, 2011, accused D2011, accused Danilo Mirallesanilo Miralles surrendered to Sheriff Jose Cabcabin and posted P40,000.00 bail surrendered to Sheriff Jose Cabcabin and posted P40,000.00 bail for each of the three (3) cases, or a total of P120,000.00.

(5)

Respondent judge claimed that there was no more need for a Respondent judge claimed that there was no more need for a petition for bail, because in the judicial determination of probable petition for bail, because in the judicial determination of probable cause the court found that the evidence against accused was cause the court found that the evidence against accused was weak.

weak.55

Ma. Liza

Ma. Liza M. Jorda, AssoM. Jorda, Asso ciate City Prosecutociate City Prosecuto r, Tar, Taclobclob an Cityan City v. Judg

v. Judg e Crisologo e Crisologo S. S. Bitas, RTC, Bitas, RTC, BrancBranc h 7, Th 7, Tacloban City acloban City This complaint, borne from the same criminal cases, has

This complaint, borne from the same criminal cases, has substantially the same facts involving accused Danilo Miralles substantially the same facts involving accused Danilo Miralles referred to in A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 11-3645-RTJ.

referred to in A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 11-3645-RTJ. Complainant, Prosecutor Liza M. Jorda, Associate City Complainant, Prosecutor Liza M. Jorda, Associate City Prosecutor,

Prosecutor, alleged that during alleged that during the hearing on the hearing on the Petition forthe Petition for Involuntary Commitment of the minor victim Margie Baldoza, to Involuntary Commitment of the minor victim Margie Baldoza, to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (

the Department of Social Welfare and Development ( DSWDDSWD),), respondent judge propounded a series of questions which respondent judge propounded a series of questions which appeared

appeared to mitigate Miralles’ role in the crime charged.to mitigate Miralles’ role in the crime charged. Complainant poi

Complainant pointed out that respondent judge’s line of questionsnted out that respondent judge’s line of questions went beyond judicial authority and discretion. Upon investigation, went beyond judicial authority and discretion. Upon investigation, complainant claimed to have discovered that the family members complainant claimed to have discovered that the family members of respondent judge are close associates of Miralles.

of respondent judge are close associates of Miralles.

Prompted by said events, complainant filed a motion for inhibition Prompted by said events, complainant filed a motion for inhibition against respondent judge.

against respondent judge. Respondent judge Respondent judge denied thedenied the motion.

motion. During the During the hearing on December hearing on December 15, 2009, 15, 2009, complainantcomplainant alleged that respondent judge publicly humiliated her and alleged that respondent judge publicly humiliated her and

exhibited his anger and animosity towards her for filing the motion exhibited his anger and animosity towards her for filing the motion for inhibition.

for inhibition.77 _{Complainant added that w}_{Complainant added that when she was suppos}_{hen she was supposed}_ed

to conduct the cross-examination, respondent judge stated to conduct the cross-examination, respondent judge stated off-the-record:

record: “I don’t want you to participate anymore,” “I don’t want you to participate anymore,” and refused to and refused to allow her to do the cross-examination. Due to the continued allow her to do the cross-examination. Due to the continued hostility of respondent judge towards complainant during the hostility of respondent judge towards complainant during the

subsequent hearings of the case, complainant opted to transfer to subsequent hearings of the case, complainant opted to transfer to another court, pursuant to an office order issued by City

another court, pursuant to an office order issued by City Prosecutor Ruperto Golong.

Prosecutor Ruperto Golong.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) directed respondent The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) directed respondent judge t

judge to commeo comment on nt on the comthe complaint aplaint against gainst him.him.1111

In his Answer and Comment

In his Answer and Comment1212_{, respondent judge denied the}_{, respondent judge denied the}

allegations in the complaint and contended that complainant was allegations in the complaint and contended that complainant was piqued when he blamed her for making baseless

piqued when he blamed her for making baseless assumptions.

assumptions. He He claimed that claimed that complainant was complainant was incompetent asincompetent as showed by the lack of evidence against Miralles.

showed by the lack of evidence against Miralles.

Respondent judge further averred that, contrary to complainant’s Respondent judge further averred that, contrary to complainant’s allegation that it was her option to transfer to another court, it was allegation that it was her option to transfer to another court, it was he who

he who caused her transfer. caused her transfer. He accused He accused complainant of lackingcomplainant of lacking in knowledge of the law and that she appeared for politicians and in knowledge of the law and that she appeared for politicians and not for the Republic of the Philippines.

not for the Republic of the Philippines.

Regarding complainant’s accusation that he was close to the Regarding complainant’s accusation that he was close to the Miralleses, respondent judge explained that it was his sister who Miralleses, respondent judge explained that it was his sister who was a classmate

was a classmate of one Nof one Nora Miralles. ora Miralles. Respondent judge Respondent judge alsoalso admitted that he indeed stopped complainant from conducting a admitted that he indeed stopped complainant from conducting a cross-examination on the witness during the hearing for

cross-examination on the witness during the hearing for

involuntary commitment, because the lawyer for petitioner DSWD involuntary commitment, because the lawyer for petitioner DSWD should be the one actively participating in the case, and not the should be the one actively participating in the case, and not the prosecutors.

prosecutors. He, however, aHe, however, added that thdded that the court had e court had alreadyalready ordered that minor Margie Baldoza be committed to the DSWD ordered that minor Margie Baldoza be committed to the DSWD Home for Girls pending resolution of the criminal cases.

Home for Girls pending resolution of the criminal cases. As to t

As to the othehe other allegr allegations iations in the Cn the Complaintomplaint, respo, respondent ndent judgejudge commented that these were mere rehash of the complaint filed in commented that these were mere rehash of the complaint filed in A.M. OC

(6)

RULING RULING

We adopt the findings of the Investigating Justice, except as to the We adopt the findings of the Investigating Justice, except as to the recommended penalty.

recommended penalty. As a ma

As a matter of tter of public ppublic policy, not olicy, not every erevery error or misror or mistake otake of a judgf a judgee in the performance

in the performance of his official duties renders of his official duties renders him liable. him liable. In theIn the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his official capacity do not always constitute misconduct although his official capacity do not always constitute misconduct although the same acts may be erroneous. True, a judge may not be the same acts may be erroneous. True, a judge may not be disciplined for error of judgment, absent proof that such error was disciplined for error of judgment, absent proof that such error was made with a conscious and deliberate intent to cause an injustice. made with a conscious and deliberate intent to cause an injustice. This does not mean, however, that a judge need not observe This does not mean, however, that a judge need not observe propriety, discreetness and due care in the performance of his propriety, discreetness and due care in the performance of his official functions.

official functions.

Here, what is appalling is not only did respondent judge deviate Here, what is appalling is not only did respondent judge deviate from the requirement of a hearing where there is an application for from the requirement of a hearing where there is an application for bail, respondent judge granted bail to Miralles without neither bail, respondent judge granted bail to Miralles without neither conducting a hearing nor a motion for application for bail. conducting a hearing nor a motion for application for bail.

Respondent judge’s justification that he granted bail, because he Respondent judge’s justification that he granted bail, because he found the evidence of the prosecution weak, cannot be sustained found the evidence of the prosecution weak, cannot be sustained because the records show that no such hearing for that purpose because the records show that no such hearing for that purpose transpired. What the records show is a hearing to determine the transpired. What the records show is a hearing to determine the existence of probable cause, not a hearing for a petition for bail. existence of probable cause, not a hearing for a petition for bail. The hearing for bail is different from the determination of the The hearing for bail is different from the determination of the existence of probable ca

existence of probable cause. use. Clearly, in the instant Clearly, in the instant case,case, respondent judge’s act of fixing the accused’s bail and reducing respondent judge’s act of fixing the accused’s bail and reducing the same

the same motu propriomotu proprio is not mere deficiency in prudence, is not mere deficiency in prudence, discretion and judgment on the part of respondent judge, but a discretion and judgment on the part of respondent judge, but a patent disregard of well-known rules.

patent disregard of well-known rules. W h e n a n e r r o r is s o g r o s sW h e n a n e r r o r is s o g r o s s a n d p a t e n t , s u c h e r r o r p r o d

a n d p a t e n t , s u c h e r r o r p r o d u c e s a n in f e r e n c e o f b a d f a i t h ,u c e s a n in f e r e n c e o f b a d f a i t h , m a k i n g t h e ju d g

m a k i n g t h e ju d g e li ae li ab l e f o r g r o s s ig n ob l e f o r g r o s s ig n o r a n c e o f t h e la w r a n c e o f t h e la w ..2222

Likewise, we are convinced that respondent judge’s actuations in Likewise, we are convinced that respondent judge’s actuations in the court premises during the hearing of the petition for

the court premises during the hearing of the petition for commitment to the DSWD constitute abuse of authority and commitment to the DSWD constitute abuse of authority and manifest partiality to the accused. Respondent Bitas’ use of manifest partiality to the accused. Respondent Bitas’ use of abusive and insulting words, tending to project complainant’s abusive and insulting words, tending to project complainant’s ignorance of the laws and procedure, prompted by his belief that ignorance of the laws and procedure, prompted by his belief that the latter mishandled the cause of his client is obviously and the latter mishandled the cause of his client is obviously and clearly insensitive,

clearly insensitive, distasteful, and distasteful, and inexcusable. inexcusable. Complainants,Complainants, likewise, cannot be blamed for being suspicious of respondent’s likewise, cannot be blamed for being suspicious of respondent’s bias to the accused considering that the former can be associated bias to the accused considering that the former can be associated with the accused following his admission that his sister was a with the accused following his admission that his sister was a classmate of one Nora Miralles.

classmate of one Nora Miralles.

In pending or prospective litigations before them, judges should be In pending or prospective litigations before them, judges should be scrupulously careful to avoid anything that may tend to awaken scrupulously careful to avoid anything that may tend to awaken the suspicion that their personal, social or sundry relations could the suspicion that their personal, social or sundry relations could influence their objectivity.

influence their objectivity. The use The use of intemperate language of intemperate language isis included in the proscription provided by

included in the proscription provided by

Section 1, Canon 4 of

the New Code of Judicial Conduct, thus: “Judges shall avo the New Code of Judicial Conduct, thus: “Judges shall avo

id

impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all the

activities of a judge

.”.” It bears stressing that It bears stressing that as a as a dispenser ofdispenser of justice, r

justice, respondespondent shent should exould exercise judercise judicial temicial temperament perament at allat all times, avoiding vulgar and

times, avoiding vulgar and insulting language. insulting language. He must mHe must maintainaintain composure and equanimity.

composure and equanimity.

This is not the first time that respondent judge was found guilty of This is not the first time that respondent judge was found guilty of the offense charged.

the offense charged. In the cIn the case ofase of Valmores-Salinas v. JudgeValmores-Salinas v. Judge Crisologo Bitas

Crisologo Bitas,,2626_{the Court had previously imposed a fine of}_{the Court had previously imposed a fine of}

P10,000.00 on respondent judge for disregarding the basic P10,000.00 on respondent judge for disregarding the basic

procedural requirements in instituting an indirect contempt charge, procedural requirements in instituting an indirect contempt charge, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

(7)

The provisions of the Revised Penal Code in bail are so clear and The provisions of the Revised Penal Code in bail are so clear and unmistakable that there can be no room for doubt or even

unmistakable that there can be no room for doubt or even interpretation.

interpretation. There can, thThere can, therefore, be no erefore, be no excuse for respondentexcuse for respondent judge’s

judge’s error of laerror of law.w. It hardly speaks well It hardly speaks well of the legal of the legal backgroundbackground of respondent judge, considering his length of service when he of respondent judge, considering his length of service when he failed to o

failed to observe procedural requirements bserve procedural requirements before granting before granting bail. bail. ToTo top it all, the actuations of respondent judge towards the

top it all, the actuations of respondent judge towards the

complainants, as shown by his use of abusive and insulting words complainants, as shown by his use of abusive and insulting words against complainants in open court, and his correspondence with against complainants in open court, and his correspondence with the Court, are

the Court, are evident of his partiality to evident of his partiality to the accused. the accused. All theseAll these taken into consideration, respondent judge deserves a penalty of taken into consideration, respondent judge deserves a penalty of suspension of three (3) months and one (1) day for the two (2) suspension of three (3) months and one (1) day for the two (2) cases, instead of P20,000.00 fine for each of the cases, as cases, instead of P20,000.00 fine for each of the cases, as recommended by the Investigating Justice.

recommended by the Investigating Justice.

WHEREFORE

, respondent, respondent

JUDGE CRISOLOGO BITAS

,, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Tacloban Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Tacloban City, is hereby

City, is hereby

SUSPENDED

from service for a period from service for a period of

of

THREE

(3) (3)

MONTHS

andand

ONE

(1) (1)

DAY

without pay, without pay, and

and

WARNED

that a repetition of the same or similar offense will that a repetition of the same or similar offense will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.

warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.

INORDINATE DELAY IN THE DISPOSITION OF THE PENDING INORDINATE DELAY IN THE DISPOSITION OF THE PENDING INCIDENTS RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INCIDENTS RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WRIT OF EXECUTION OF THE SUBJECT DECISION

WRIT OF EXECUTION OF THE SUBJECT DECISION

Marcelo vs Pichay

| March 12, 2004| March 12, 2004 AM No. M

AM No. MTJ-13-183TJ-13-1838 | 8 | Perlas-BPerlas-Bernabeernabe, J.:, J.:

Facts

: Complainants Sps Marcelo were plaintiffs in an unlawful: Complainants Sps Marcelo were plaintiffs in an unlawful detainer case against Sps Magopoy. By virtue of a decision by the detainer case against Sps Magopoy. By virtue of a decision by the MeTC. Sps Magopoy were ordered to vacate and surrender the MeTC. Sps Magopoy were ordered to vacate and surrender the property to the complainants. Sps Marcelo were able to gain property to the complainants. Sps Marcelo were able to gain possession of the subject land but the Sps Magopoy were able to possession of the subject land but the Sps Magopoy were able to successfully re-enter the property and regained its possession. successfully re-enter the property and regained its possession. Complainant Marcelo moved to cite Magopoy in contempt for Complainant Marcelo moved to cite Magopoy in contempt for disobedience to lawful processes. However, the RTC did not cite disobedience to lawful processes. However, the RTC did not cite them in contempt but rather ordered them to surrender the them in contempt but rather ordered them to surrender the property to the Marcelos within 10 days from the receipt of the property to the Marcelos within 10 days from the receipt of the order.

order.

Sps. Marcelo filed an Ex-Parte Constancia in view of the Sps. Marcelo filed an Ex-Parte Constancia in view of the continued refusal of Sps. Magopoy to surrender the subject continued refusal of Sps. Magopoy to surrender the subject property. This prompted Judge Pichay to issue an Order giving property. This prompted Judge Pichay to issue an Order giving Sheriff Epres

Sheriff Epres 3 days within which to effect Sps. Magopoy3 days within which to effect Sps. Magopoy ’’ss eviction from the subject property. Consequently, Sps. Magopoy eviction from the subject property. Consequently, Sps. Magopoy filed a motion for reconsideration which was opposed

filed a motion for reconsideration which was opposed by Sps.by Sps. Marcelo.

Marcelo.

With respect to the Supplemental Motion and Reply, and in the With respect to the Supplemental Motion and Reply, and in the interest of justice, the Court directs Sps. Marcelo to file their interest of justice, the Court directs Sps. Marcelo to file their Comment and/or Opposition to said Supplemental Motion and Comment and/or Opposition to said Supplemental Motion and Reply within five (5) days from receipt of this Order with copy Reply within five (5) days from receipt of this Order with copy furnished the Sps. Magopoy. The latter is given three (3) days furnished the Sps. Magopoy. The latter is given three (3) days from the Comment and/or Opposition within which to file their from the Comment and/or Opposition within which to file their Reply if necessary.

Reply if necessary.

Despite the directive of the court a quo, Sps. Marcelo failed to file Despite the directive of the court a quo, Sps. Marcelo failed to file their comment and/or opposition. Nonetheless, Judge Pichay, set their comment and/or opposition. Nonetheless, Judge Pichay, set Sps. Magopoy

Sps. Magopoy’’s previous motion for reconsideration as well ass previous motion for reconsideration as well as their supplemental motion for hearing.

(8)

Disconcerted with Judge Pichay

Disconcerted with Judge Pichay ’’s continuous inaction, Sps.s continuous inaction, Sps. Marcelo filed an administrative complaint

Marcelo filed an administrative complaint before the Office of thebefore the Office of the Court Administrator, charging him and Sheriff Epres with

Court Administrator, charging him and Sheriff Epres with

inordinate delay in the disposition of the pending incidents relating inordinate delay in the disposition of the pending incidents relating to the implementation of the writ of execution of the subject to the implementation of the writ of execution of the subject decision.

decision.

In his Comment Judge Pichay attributed the delay to the new In his Comment Judge Pichay attributed the delay to the new arguments raised in Sps. Magopoy

arguments raised in Sps. Magopoy ’’s supplemental motion. Ins supplemental motion. In particular, he considered the denial of the sales application of Sps. particular, he considered the denial of the sales application of Sps. Marcelo over the subject property, as brought to his attention by Marcelo over the subject property, as brought to his attention by Sps. Magopoy, as a supervening event that may materially Sps. Magopoy, as a supervening event that may materially change the situation of the parties

change the situation of the parties and, thus, render the executionand, thus, render the execution of the subject decision inequitable.

of the subject decision inequitable. Therefore, in the interest ofTherefore, in the interest of justice a

justice and eqnd equity, he uity, he schedscheduled thuled the supple supplemental emental motion motion forfor hearing in order to be better apprised of the situation of the hearing in order to be better apprised of the situation of the parties. Unfortunately, the hearing dates therefor were further parties. Unfortunately, the hearing dates therefor were further reset due to the requests of Sps. Marcelo,

reset due to the requests of Sps. Marcelo, and because he wentand because he went on sick leave from June 8 to 29, 2010.

on sick leave from June 8 to 29, 2010.

OCA - r

ecommendedecommended that Judge Pichay be held administrativelythat Judge Pichay be held administratively liable for undue delay in the resolution of the pending incidents liable for undue delay in the resolution of the pending incidents relative to the execution of the subject decision, and that a fine in relative to the execution of the subject decision, and that a fine in the amount of ₱10,000.00 be imposed for the infraction.

the amount of ₱10,000.00 be imposed for the infraction.

--

found that Judge Pichay entertained dilatory machinations thatfound that Judge Pichay entertained dilatory machinations that resulted in the delay in the implementation of the writ of resulted in the delay in the implementation of the writ of execution issued as early as in 2006 for the eviction of Sps. execution issued as early as in 2006 for the eviction of Sps. Magopoy from the subject property.

Magopoy from the subject property.

Separately, however, the OCA did not recommend that Sheriff Separately, however, the OCA did not recommend that Sheriff Epres be held administratively liable, considering the dearth of Epres be held administratively liable, considering the dearth of evidence showing that the delay in the implementation of the evidence showing that the delay in the implementation of the subject writ of execution was attributable to him or that he acted subject writ of execution was attributable to him or that he acted with bad faith or any corrupt motive.

with bad faith or any corrupt motive.

Issue

::

Whether or not Judge Pichay should be held administratively Whether or not Judge Pichay should be held administratively liable for undue delay in the resolution of the pending incidents. liable for undue delay in the resolution of the pending incidents.

Held

::

YES

. The Constitution requires our courts to conscientiously. The Constitution requires our courts to conscientiously observe the time periods in deciding cases and resolving matters observe the time periods in deciding cases and resolving matters brought to their adjudication, which, for lower courts, is three (3) brought to their adjudication, which, for lower courts, is three (3) months from the date they are deemed submitted for decision or months from the date they are deemed submitted for decision or resolution. Section 15, Article VIII of the 1987 Philippine

resolution. Section 15, Article VIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution (1987 Constitution) states this rule, viz.: Constitution (1987 Constitution) states this rule, viz.:

Section 15. (1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Section 15. (1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts. collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts. In consonance with the foregoing, Section 5, Canon 6 of the New In consonance with the foregoing, Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct For the Philippine Judiciary states that: Code of Judicial Conduct For the Philippine Judiciary states that: Sec. 5. Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the Sec. 5. Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently fairly and with delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently fairly and with reasonable promptness.

(9)

In furtherance of the foregoing mandate, the Court issued In furtherance of the foregoing mandate, the Court issued Administr

Administrative Circative Circular No. 1ular No. 13-87, wh3-87, which statich states:es:

The reorganized judiciary is tasked with the tremendous The reorganized judiciary is tasked with the tremendous

responsibility of assisting parties litigants in obtaining just, speedy responsibility of assisting parties litigants in obtaining just, speedy and inexpensive determination of their cases and proceedings as and inexpensive determination of their cases and proceedings as directed in Rule 1, Section 2 of the Rules of Court.

directed in Rule 1, Section 2 of the Rules of Court.3838_{Delay is a}_{Delay is a}

recurring complaint of every litigant. The main objective of every recurring complaint of every litigant. The main objective of every judge,

judge, particulaparticularly trial jurly trial judges, sdges, should hould be to avbe to avoid delayoid delays, or is, or if itf it cannot be totally avoided, to hold them to the minimum and to cannot be totally avoided, to hold them to the minimum and to repudiate manifestly dilatory tactics.

repudiate manifestly dilatory tactics.

An inexc

An inexcusable usable failure tfailure to decido decide a case a case within e within the prthe prescribed escribed 90- 90-day period constitutes gross inefficiency, warranting the imposition day period constitutes gross inefficiency, warranting the imposition of administrative sanctions such as suspension from office without of administrative sanctions such as suspension from office without pay or fine on the defaulting judge. The fines imposed vary in pay or fine on the defaulting judge. The fines imposed vary in each case, depending chiefly on the number of cases not decided each case, depending chiefly on the number of cases not decided within the reglementary period and other factors, such as the within the reglementary period and other factors, such as the presence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the damage presence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the damage suffered by the parties as a result of the delay, the health and age suffered by the parties as a result of the delay, the health and age of the judge, and other analogous circumstances.

of the judge, and other analogous circumstances. As correc

As correctly obsetly observed by rved by the OCthe OCA in this A in this case, Jcase, Judge Pudge Pichayichay failed to resolve the subject motions, within the 3 month-period failed to resolve the subject motions, within the 3 month-period prescribed therefor. Records show that Sps. Marcelo

prescribed therefor. Records show that Sps. Marcelo ’’s period tos period to file their comment/opposition to the supplemental motion and/ or file their comment/opposition to the supplemental motion and/ or rejoinder to the reply lapsed on October 18, 2009,

rejoinder to the reply lapsed on October 18, 2009, 4444_{at which time,}_{at which time,}

the pending incidents were already deemed submitted for the pending incidents were already deemed submitted for resolution.”

resolution.”

Notwithstanding that the matter had already been submitted for Notwithstanding that the matter had already been submitted for resolution, Judge Pichay continued with the proceedings by resolution, Judge Pichay continued with the proceedings by

setting the motions for hearing to the effect of unreasonably setting the motions for hearing to the effect of unreasonably delaying the execution of the subject decision. Indeed, while it has delaying the execution of the subject decision. Indeed, while it has been held that a presiding judge shall at all times remain in firm been held that a presiding judge shall at all times remain in firm control of the proceedings, he is nevertheless mandated to adopt control of the proceedings, he is nevertheless mandated to adopt a policy against unwarranted delays.

a policy against unwarranted delays. In this case, Judge PichayIn this case, Judge Pichay did not sufficiently explain the reasons as to why he failed to did not sufficiently explain the reasons as to why he failed to resolve the pending incidents on time, as well as to why he still resolve the pending incidents on time, as well as to why he still had to set the same for hearing and repeatedly grant

had to set the same for hearing and repeatedly grant

postponements therefor, either motu proprio or by motion, despite postponements therefor, either motu proprio or by motion, despite the summary nature of ejectment proceedings and the ministerial the summary nature of ejectment proceedings and the ministerial nature of the subsequent issuance of a writ of execution. These nature of the subsequent issuance of a writ of execution. These considerations he should have been fully aware of. As case law considerations he should have been fully aware of. As case law instructs, "

instructs, "

ejectment cases are

ejectment cases are summary proceeding

summary proceedingss

intended to provide an expeditious means of protecting

actual possession or right of possession of property

,”,” and thatand that "it becomes mandatory or ministerial duty of the court to issue a "it becomes mandatory or ministerial duty of the court to issue a writ of execution to enforce the judgment which has become writ of execution to enforce the judgment which has become executory,". To add, the fact that Judge Pichay required medical executory,". To add, the fact that Judge Pichay required medical attention is no excuse for his default, considering that on such attention is no excuse for his default, considering that on such date, the subject motions were already due for resolution.Thus, date, the subject motions were already due for resolution.Thus, without having duly applied for any extension before the Court, without having duly applied for any extension before the Court, Judge Pichay was bound to resolve the pending incidents in the Judge Pichay was bound to resolve the pending incidents in the said case within the three (3) month-period prescribed by the said case within the three (3) month-period prescribed by the Constitution. This, he, however, failed to do, and, as such, the Constitution. This, he, however, failed to do, and, as such, the imposition of administrative sanctions against him remains in imposition of administrative sanctions against him remains in order.

order.

Pursuant to Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, undue Pursuant to Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering a decision or order is considered as a less delay in rendering a decision or order is considered as a less serious offense which is punishable

serious offense which is punishable by either: (a)by either: (a) suspensionsuspension from from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or (b) a

nor more than three (3) months; or (b) a finefine of more than of more than

P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00. Considering, however, P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00. Considering, however,

(10)

that Judge Pichay was held administratively liable for the same that Judge Pichay was held administratively liable for the same offense, and hitherto warned that a repetition of a similar infraction offense, and hitherto warned that a repetition of a similar infraction would warrant a more severe penalty, the Court deems it apt to would warrant a more severe penalty, the Court deems it apt to increase the fine recommended by the OCA from P10,000.00 to increase the fine recommended by the OCA from P10,000.00 to P12,000.00.

P12,000.00.

WHEREFORE, respondent J

udge Ramsey Domingo G. Pichay

is found

GUILTY

of violating Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of of violating Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court for undue delay in resolving the pending incidents relative to Court for undue delay in resolving the pending incidents relative to Civil Case No. 2004-286 and is thus

Civil Case No. 2004-286 and is thus

FINED in the amount of

P12,000.00

. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely. same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.

ERRORS COMMITTED BY A JUDGE IN THE EXERCISE OF ERRORS COMMITTED BY A JUDGE IN THE EXERCISE OF ADJUDI

ADJUDICATIVE CATIVE FUNCTIOFUNCTIONS CANNNS CANNOT BE COOT BE CORRECTERRECTEDD THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS BUT SHOULD THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS BUT SHOULD BE ASSAILED INSTEAD THROUGH JUDICIAL REMEDIES BE ASSAILED INSTEAD THROUGH JUDICIAL REMEDIES

A.M.

A.M. No.

No. RTJ-09

RTJ-09-2200

-2200

April

April 2,

2, 2014

2014

(formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2834-RTJ)

ANTONIO M. LORENZANA, Complainant,

vs.

JUDGE MA. CECILIA I. AUSTRIA, Regional Trial Court,

Branch 2,

Branch 2, Batangas City, Respondent.

Batangas City, Respondent.

FACTS: The complainant alleged that in the course of SP. Proc. FACTS: The complainant alleged that in the course of SP. Proc. No. 06-7993, the respondent committed Gross Ignorance of the No. 06-7993, the respondent committed Gross Ignorance of the Law, Grave Abuse of Authority, Gross Misconduct, Grave Law, Grave Abuse of Authority, Gross Misconduct, Grave

Incompetence, Irregularity in the Performance of Duty, Grave Bias Incompetence, Irregularity in the Performance of Duty, Grave Bias

and Partiality, Lack of Circumspection, Conduct Unbecoming of a and Partiality, Lack of Circumspection, Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge, Failure to Observe the Reglementary Period and Violation Judge, Failure to Observe the Reglementary Period and Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 1. The respondent of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 1. The respondent appointed Atty. Santiago T. Gabionza, Jr. as rehabilitation receiver appointed Atty. Santiago T. Gabionza, Jr. as rehabilitation receiver over SCP’s objections and despite serious conflict of interest in over SCP’s objections and despite serious conflict of interest in being the duly appointed rehabilitation receiver for SCP and, at being the duly appointed rehabilitation receiver for SCP and, at the same time, the external legal counsel of most of SCP’s the same time, the external legal counsel of most of SCP’s creditors; he is also a partner of the law firm that he engaged as creditors; he is also a partner of the law firm that he engaged as legal adviser.

legal adviser.

2. The respondent conducted informal meetings (which she 2. The respondent conducted informal meetings (which she termed as "consultative meetings" in her Order2 dated May 11, termed as "consultative meetings" in her Order2 dated May 11, 2007) in places outside her official jurisdiction (i.e., a first class 2007) in places outside her official jurisdiction (i.e., a first class golf club, a hotel and sports club facilities in Metro Manila) and golf club, a hotel and sports club facilities in Metro Manila) and where she arbitrarily dictated the terms, parameters and features where she arbitrarily dictated the terms, parameters and features of the rehabilitation plan she wanted to approve for SCP. She also of the rehabilitation plan she wanted to approve for SCP. She also announced in the meetings that she would prepare the

announced in the meetings that she would prepare the rehabilitation plan for SCP.

rehabilitation plan for SCP.

3. The modified rehabilitation plan submitted by Atty. Gabionza is 3. The modified rehabilitation plan submitted by Atty. Gabionza is a replica of what the respondent dictated to him. Thus, the a replica of what the respondent dictated to him. Thus, the respondent exceeded the limits of her authority and effectively respondent exceeded the limits of her authority and effectively usurped and

pre-usurped and pre- empted the rehabilitation receiver’s exercise ofempted the rehabilitation receiver’s exercise of functions.

functions.

4. The respondent ordered that the proceedings of the informal 4. The respondent ordered that the proceedings of the informal meetings be off-record so that there would be no record that she meetings be off-record so that there would be no record that she had favored Equitable-PCI Bank (EPCIB).

had favored Equitable-PCI Bank (EPCIB).

5. The respondent had secret meetings and communications with 5. The respondent had secret meetings and communications with EPCIB to discuss the case without the knowledge and presence of EPCIB to discuss the case without the knowledge and presence of SCP and its creditors.

SCP and its creditors.

6. The respondent appointed Gerardo Anonas (Anonas) as Atty. 6. The respondent appointed Gerardo Anonas (Anonas) as Atty. Gabionza’s financial adviser and, at the same time, as her Gabionza’s financial adviser and, at the same time, as her financial adviser to guide her in the formulation and development financial adviser to guide her in the formulation and development

(11)

of the rehabilitation plan, for a fee of P3.5M at SCP’s expense. of the rehabilitation plan, for a fee of P3.5M at SCP’s expense. Anona

Anonas is also s is also the cothe cousin-in-law usin-in-law of the of the managmanaging paring partner otner of Atty.f Atty. Gabionza’s law firm.

Gabionza’s law firm.

7. The respondent encouraged EPCIB to raise complaints or 7. The respondent encouraged EPCIB to raise complaints or accusations against SCP, leading to EPCIB’s

accusations against SCP, leading to EPCIB’s filing of a motion tofiling of a motion to create a management committee.

create a management committee.

8. When requested to conduct an evidentiary meeting and to issue 8. When requested to conduct an evidentiary meeting and to issue a subpoena (so that SCP could confront EPCIB’s witnesses to a subpoena (so that SCP could confront EPCIB’s witnesses to prove the allegation that there was a need for the creation of a prove the allegation that there was a need for the creation of a management c

management committee), the respondent denied SCP’s requestsommittee), the respondent denied SCP’s requests and delayed the issuance of the order until the last minute. and delayed the issuance of the order until the last minute. 9. At the hearing of September 14, 2007, the respondent 9. At the hearing of September 14, 2007, the respondent

intimidated SCP’s counsel, Atty. Ferdinand Topacio; blocked his intimidated SCP’s counsel, Atty. Ferdinand Topacio; blocked his every attempt to speak; refused to recognize his appearances in every attempt to speak; refused to recognize his appearances in court; and made condescending and snide remarks.

court; and made condescending and snide remarks.

10. The respondent failed to observe the reglementary period 10. The respondent failed to observe the reglementary period prescribed by the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate prescribed by the Interim Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation (Rules). She approved the rehabilitation plan Rehabilitation (Rules). She approved the rehabilitation plan beyond the 180 days given to her in the Rules, without asking for beyond the 180 days given to her in the Rules, without asking for permission to extend the period from the Supreme Court (SC). permission to extend the period from the Supreme Court (SC). 11. The respondent erroneously interpreted and applied Section 11. The respondent erroneously interpreted and applied Section 23, Rule 4 of the Rules (the court’s power to approve

23, Rule 4 of the Rules (the court’s power to approve the the rehabilitation plan) to include the power to amend, modify and rehabilitation plan) to include the power to amend, modify and alter it.

alter it.

12. The respondent took a personal interest and commitment to 12. The respondent took a personal interest and commitment to decide the matter in EPCIB’s favor and made comments and decide the matter in EPCIB’s favor and made comments and rulings in the proceedings that raised concerns regarding her rulings in the proceedings that raised concerns regarding her impartiality.

impartiality.

13. The respondent adamantly refused to inhibit herself and 13. The respondent adamantly refused to inhibit herself and showed special interest and personal involvement in the case. showed special interest and personal involvement in the case. The complainant likewise filed a supplemental complaint3 dated The complainant likewise filed a supplemental complaint3 dated April 14,

April 14, 2008 w2008 where hhere he allege alleged that ed that the resthe respondepondent committed nt committed anan act of impropriety when she displayed her photographs in a social act of impropriety when she displayed her photographs in a social networking website called "Friendster" and posted her personal networking website called "Friendster" and posted her personal details as an RTC Judge, allegedly for the purpose of finding a details as an RTC Judge, allegedly for the purpose of finding a compatible partner. She also posed with her upper body barely compatible partner. She also posed with her upper body barely covered by a shawl, allegedly suggesting that nothing was worn covered by a shawl, allegedly suggesting that nothing was worn underneath except probably a brassiere.

underneath except probably a brassiere.

In arriving at its recommendation the OCA found that the In arriving at its recommendation the OCA found that the respondent was not guilty of gross ignorance of the law as the respondent was not guilty of gross ignorance of the law as the complainant failed to prove that her orders were motivated by bad complainant failed to prove that her orders were motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption.

faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption.

The OCA also found that the charges of bias and partiality in The OCA also found that the charges of bias and partiality in handling the rehabilitation proceedings were not supported by handling the rehabilitation proceedings were not supported by evidence. It accepted the respondent’s expla

evidence. It accepted the respondent’s expla nation in the chargenation in the charge of failure to observe the reglementary period.

of failure to observe the reglementary period.

Lastly, the OCA maintained that the allegations of grave abuse of Lastly, the OCA maintained that the allegations of grave abuse of authority and gross incompetence are judicial in nature, hence, authority and gross incompetence are judicial in nature, hence, they should not be the subject of disciplinary action. On the other they should not be the subject of disciplinary action. On the other hand, on allegations of conduct unbecoming of a judge, violation hand, on allegations of conduct unbecoming of a judge, violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (Code), lack of of the Code of Professional Responsibility (Code), lack of circumspection and impropriety, the OCA shared Justice circumspection and impropriety, the OCA shared Justice

Gonzales-Gonzales-Sison’s observations that the respondent’s act ofSison’s observations that the respondent’s act of posting seductive photos in her Friendster account contravened posting seductive photos in her Friendster account contravened the standard of propriety set forth by the Code.

the standard of propriety set forth by the Code. ISSUE:

ISSUE:

WON respondent violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. WON respondent violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.