5/22/2016 A.M.No.

RTJ082149

RepublicofthePhilippines
SupremeCourt
Manila

FIRSTDIVISION

LYDIAA.BENANCILLO, A.M.No.RTJ082149
Complainant, (FormerlyOCAIPINo.082787RTJ)


Present:
versus
CORONA,C.J.,Chairperson,
LEONARDODECASTRO,
PERALTA,
JUDGE VENANCIO J. AMILA, DELCASTILLO,and
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, SERENO,

JJ.
BRANCH3,TAGBILARANCITY,
Promulgated:
Respondent. March9,2011
xx

RESOLUTION

DELCASTILLO,J.:

[1]
BeforeusisaVerifiedComplaint datedNovember29,2007filedbycomplainantLydiaA.
Benancillo(Lydia)chargingrespondentJudgeVenancioJ.Amila(JudgeAmila)oftheRegional
TrialCourt(RTC),Branch3,TagbilaranCitywithGraveAbuseofDiscretion,GrossIgnorance
oftheLawandProcedure,KnowinglyRenderinganUnjustJudgmentorOrder,Partialityand
ImproprietyrelativetoCivilCaseNo.7268entitledLydiaA.Benancillov.PaulJohnBelot,a
Petition forTemporary Protection Order and Permanent Protection Order under RepublicAct
No.9262.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/RTJ082149.htm 1/8
5/22/2016 A.M.No.RTJ082149

[2]
ThefactsasculledfromtheReport oftheOfficeoftheCourtAdministrator(OCA)are
asfollow:
1.VERIFIEDCOMPLAINT

xxxx

Thecomplainant,thepetitionerinSp.CivilCaseNo.7268,aversthatBranch1ofRTC
TagbilaranCity,actingasthenFamilyCourtinTagbilaranCity,issuedaTemporaryProtection
Order(TPO)againstherliveinpartner,PaulJohnBelot(Belot).TheTPOincludedadirectiveto
Belottoturnovertoherpersonaleffects,includingpropertiesintheirdivingbusinesscalledthe
UnderworldDiversPanglao,Inc.(Underworld).Belotsoughtthereconsiderationoftheissuance
oftheTPO.Meanwhile,theirbusinesspartners,PazMandinTrotinandChristopherMandin,filed
amotionforinterventionwithrespecttothepropertiesofUnderworld.Thecomplainantfiledan
oppositiontothemotionforinterventionwithprayerforpreliminaryinjunction.

The complainant alleges that when Branch 2 of RTCTagbilaran City, presided by the
respondentjudge,wasdesignatedasthenewFamilyCourtinTagbilaranCity,Sp.CivilCaseNo.
7268 was transferred to the said court.Acting on the pending incidents, the respondent judge
deniedbothBelotsmotionforreconsiderationandtheintervenorsmotionforinterventioninan
OrderdatedJuly16,2007.Therespondentjudgeincorporatedintheresolutionaceaseanddesist
orderprohibitingtheintervenorsfromtakingpossessionofthepropertiesofUnderworld.

ThecomplainantfurtherallegesthattherespondentjudgereiteratedhisOrderofJuly16,
2007 in an Order dated August 14, 2007. Subsequently, the respondent judge denied the
intervenorsmotionforreconsiderationinanOrderdatedOctober2,2007.

The complainant states that the respondent judge constantly ruled in her favor as he
consistentlyheldthattheintervenorshadnolegalpersonalityinthecase.However,therespondent
judgerefusedtoenforcetheTPO.

ThecomplainantclaimsthatonOctober8,2007,therespondentjudgecalledherandher
counseltoameetinginhischambersonOctober9,2007.Theyagreedtothemeetingbuttheydid
not proceed when they learned that the intervenors were joining them. Subsequent to the
respondentjudgesmeetingwiththeintervenors,heissuedanOrderdatedOctober18,2007which
rescindedhisOrderofOctober2,2007.Then,inanOrderdatedOctober25,2007,hedeniedthe
complainantsmotionforreconsideration.

Accordingtothecomplainant,therespondentjudgesconductsmacksofimproprietyand
partiality.Shefurtherchargestherespondentjudgewithgraveabuseofdiscretion,grossignorance
of the law and procedure and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment/order for issuing the
questionedOrdersofOctober18,2007andOctober25,2007.

ThecomplainantfurtherobservedthattherespondentjudgerevokedhisOrderofOctober
2,2007,withoutanymotionbeingfiledbyanyoftheparties.Moreover,theOrderofOctober18,
2007wasbasedonaninexistentgroundastherespondentjudgementionedinthisOrderapetition
for certiorari supposedly filed by Belot which had not yet been x x x filed with the Court of
Appeals.

ThecomplainantallegedthattherespondentjudgesOrderofOctober25,2007rulingon
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/RTJ082149.htm 2/8
5/22/2016 A.M.No.RTJ082149

thecomplainantsmotionforreconsiderationoftheOrderofOctober18,2007introducedanew
issueonthejurisdictionofthecourtoverthepersonofBelot.Therespondentjudgealsoruledon
maintaining the status quo, a position inconsistent with the preliminary injunction he had
previouslyissued.

2.COMMENTofJudgeVenancioJ.AmiladatedFebruary8,2008whereinhedenies
thechargesagainsthim.

Therespondentjudgeclaimedthatthecomplainantwasmotivatedbyherinsatiablegreed
tohaveexclusivecontrolandpossessionpendingtrialofthecase[of]allthepropertiesofthe
Underworld Divers Panglao, Inc. of respondent Paul John Belot. x x x [H]e added that the
complainant...isonlyaliveinpartnerofrespondentwithnospecificaddresswhowasbranded
repeatedlybyBelotasaprostituteandoneonlyafterhismoney.

Accordingtotherespondentjudge,herescindedhisOrderofOctober2,2007becausethe
complainanthadnorighttoherallegedsharesinthecorporationbeingmerelyadummyownerof
Belotsshares.Hewasfearfuloftheconsequenceintheeventthatcomplainantwouldstealthily
dispose of or abscond [with] the properties. . . because of the illegitimate status of their
relationship,moreso,withtheirpresentfeudcausedbythearrivalofBelotssonandthealleged
comingofthelegitimatewife.

The respondent judge averred that the complainant masterminded all [the] legal
manipulations[and]movedheavenandearthxxxtogetpossessionofallthepropertiesofBelot
totheextentoffilingtheinstantadministrativechargeandapetitionforcertiorarilatelywiththe
CourtofAppeals,datedDecember21,2007usingthesameoffensiveanddisrespectfullanguage
inherarguments.

Therespondentassertedhehadtheauthoritytomotupropriorectifyanerrortorestore
thingstotheirstatusquoduringthependencyofthecaseinordertoavoiddamageorloss.xxx
[T]he complainant refused to attend the meeting he called with the intervenor in chambers to
explaintheOrder.

Respondent Judge Amila incorporated in his submission his comment to a similar
administrativecomplaintfiledearlierbythecomplainant.xxx[H]eallegedthathesetasidehis
OrderofOctober2,2007becausethePetitionforCertiorarifiledbyBelotbeforetheCourtof
Appealshadplacedthejurisdictionofthecourtunderquestion.

3.REPLYAFFIDAVITdatedFebruary29,2008ofthecomplainant.

Thecomplainantclaimedthatshesufferedpsychologicalandemotionalviolenceasthe
respondentjudgeechoedBelotsverbalandpsychologicalabuseagainstherthatshewasonlya
liveinpartnerinanillegitimaterelationandaprostitute.Therespondentjudgesremarksrevealed
hisprejudiceandlackofgendersensitivityandthiswasunbecomingofafamilycourtjudge.His
remarks also manifested his lack of knowledge and/or utter disregard of the law on the equal
protectiontowomenvictimsinintimaterelationshipsundertheantiVAWClawwhichhewas
mandatedtoupholdasafamilycourtjudge.

ThecomplainantaverredthattherespondentjudgerefusedtoenforcetheTPOunderthe
AntiVAWC law because of his prejudiced view that she would abscond with the contested
properties due to the illegitimate status of their relationship. His personal bias against the

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/RTJ082149.htm 3/8
5/22/2016 A.M.No.RTJ082149

complainantreflectshisutterlackofthecoldneutralityofanimpartialjudge.

The complainant denied the respondent judges accusation that she and her counsel
masterminded all these legal manipulations. She added that the accusation implies that the
respondentjudgewasnotincontroloftheproceedingsandthathecouldbemanipulatedbythe
parties.

ThecomplainantallegedthatastherespondentjudgestillrefusedtoimplementtheTPO
despitethedismissalofBelotspetitionforcertiorariwiththeCourtofAppeals,shefiledaPetition
forCertioraribeforetheSupremeCourtfortheannulmentoftheOrdersdatedOctober18,2007
andOctober25,2007.

Thecomplainantassertedthatwhiletherespondentjudgecanchangehismind,hecould
no longer do so when the Order already became final and executory and was not questioned
anymore by the parties.Moreover, there was no reason for the respondent judge to call for a
meetingwiththeintervenorsbecausehealreadyruledthatinterventionwasnotallowedinthe
case.

4.AFFIDAVITMANIFESTATIONdatedMay27,2008ofthecomplainant.

ThecomplainantmanifestedthattheCourtofAppealsofCebuCityalreadydismissedthe
Petition for Certiorari filed by Belot which petition the respondent Judge cited as reason for
rescinding his Order dated [October] 2, 2007, the petition being a prohibited pleading under
[3]
Section22ofRA9262(AntiVAWC).


[4]
In its Report dated September 11, 2008, the OCA found that Judge Amila acted
inappropriatelyincallingtheintervenorstoameetinginhischambers.Itwasalsonotedthathe
used derogatory and irreverent language in presenting complainant in his Comment as an
opportunist,amistressinanillegitimaterelationshipandthatshewasmotivatedbyinsatiable
greed.As regards the charge for gross ignorance of the law, the OCA noted that the same is
prematureconsideringthatcomplainantfiledbeforethisCourtapetitionassailingtheOctober18
[5]
and25,2007OrdersofrespondentJudge.

TheOCAthusrecommended:

xxxx

1.ThatthecasebeREDOCKETEDasaregularadministrativematter

2.ThatthechargesofGraveAbuseofDiscretion,GrossIgnoranceoftheLawand
Procedure and Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Judgment or Order relative to the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/RTJ082149.htm 4/8
5/22/2016 A.M.No.RTJ082149

issuance of the Order[s] dated October 18, 2007 and October 25, 2007 be
DISMISSEDforbeingpremature

3. [Thatr]espondentJudgeVenancioJ.Amila,RegionalTrialCourt(Branch3),
TagbilaranCity,befoundguiltyofimproprietyfortheuseofintemperatelanguage
and unbecoming conduct and be FINEDin the amount of P10,000.00 with the
warningthatarepetitionofthesameorsimilaroffensexxxshallbedealtwithmore
[6]
severely.


WeadoptthefindingsandtherecommendationsoftheOCA.

Indeed,theNewCodeofJudicialConductforthePhilippineJudiciaryexhortsmembers
ofthejudiciary,inthedischargeoftheirduties,tobemodelsofproprietyatalltimes.

JudgeAmila should be reminded of Sections 1 and 6, Canon 4 of the New Code of
[7]
JudicialConductforthePhilippineJudiciary.

CANON4
PROPRIETY

Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all the
activitiesofajudge.

SECTION1.Judgesshallavoidimproprietyandtheappearanceofimproprietyinallof
theiractivities.

xxxx

SECTION6.Judges,likeanyothercitizen,areentitledtofreedomofexpression,belief,
associationandassembly,butinexercisingsuchrights,theyshallalwaysconductthemselvesin
such a manner as to preserve the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and
independenceoftheJudiciary.


Theaboveprovisionsclearlyenjoinjudgesnotonlyfromcommittingactsofimproprietybut
evenactswhichhavetheappearanceofimpropriety.TheCoderecognizesthatevenactsthatare
notperseimpropercanneverthelessbeperceivedbythelargercommunityassuch.Beitstressed
thatjudgesareheldtohigherstandardsofintegrityandethicalconductthanattorneysandother
[8]
personsnot[vested]withpublictrust.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/RTJ082149.htm 5/8
5/22/2016 A.M.No.RTJ082149

In this case, the respondent judge acted inappropriately in calling the complainant and the
intervenorstoameetinginsidehischambers.Hisexplanationthathecalledthesaidmeetingto
advicethepartiesthathewillrescindhisOctober2,2007Orderisnotacceptable.Whywoulda
judge give the parties advance notice that he is going to issue an Order, more so rescind his
previousOrder?Worse,whywouldhecallontheintervenorswhomhehadearlierruledasnot
havinganylegalpersonalityinthiscase?Thisactofrespondentjudgewouldlogicallycreatean
impression to complainant that the meeting of the judge with the intervenors had turned his
viewsaroundtowardsissuingarevocationoftheOctober2,2007Order.

In his Comment, respondent judge used degoratory and irreverent language in relation to
complainant. The former in effect maliciously besmirched the character of complainant by
callingherasonlyaliveinpartnerofBelotandpresentingherasanopportunistandamistress
inanillegitimaterelationship.Thejudgealsocalledheraprostitute.Thejudgesaccusationsthat
complainantwasmotivatedbyinsatiablegreedandwouldabscondwiththecontestedproperty
areunfairandunwarranted.HisdepictionofcomplainantisalsoinconsistentwiththeTemporary
ProtectionOrder(TPO)heissuedinherfavorasavictimofdomesticviolence.Verily,wehold
thatJudgeAmilashouldbemorecircumspectinhislanguage.

Itisreprehensibleforajudgetohumiliatealawyer,litigantorwitness.Theactbetrayslackof
patience,prudenceandrestraint.Thus,ajudgemustatalltimesbetemperateinhislanguage.He
mustchoosehiswords,writtenorspoken,withutmostcareandsufficientcontrol.Thewiseand
[9]
justmanisesteemedforhisdiscernment.Pleasingspeechincreaseshispersuasiveness.


Accordingly,respondentJudgeVenancioJ.Amilaisherebyfoundguiltyofconductunbecoming
of a judge. In particular, he violated Sections 1 and 6, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial
ConductforthePhilippineJudiciary.

[10]
ConductunbecomingofajudgeisclassifiedasalightoffenseunderSection10, Rule140of
[11]
theRulesofCourt.ItispenalizedunderSection11C thereofbyanyofthefollowing:(1)A
fineofnotlessthanP1,000.00butnotexceedingP10,000.00(2)Censure(3)Reprimandand
(4)Admonitionwithwarning.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/RTJ082149.htm 6/8
5/22/2016 A.M.No.RTJ082149

InasmuchasJudgeAmilawaspreviouslyfoundguiltyofgrossignoranceofthelawin
connectionwithhisDecisioninCriminalCaseNos.14988and14989whichwasdocketedas
A.M.No.RTJ072071wherehewasorderedtopayafineofP20,000.00andwarnedthata
repetitionofthesameorsimilaractwouldbedealtwithmoreseverely,thepenaltyoffineof
P21,000.00isdeemedappropriateintheinstantcase.
WHEREFORE,wefindJudgeVenancioJ.AmilaGUILTYofConductUnbecomingof
aJudge,andFINEhimP21,000.00.

SOORDERED.



MARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJustice


WECONCUR:

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice
Chairperson

TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTRO DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
AssociateJustice

InlieuofAssociateJusticeJosePortugalPerezperraffleofSeptember20,2010.

InlieuofAssociateJusticePresbiteroJ.Velasco,Jr.perraffledatedMarch2,2011.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/RTJ082149.htm 7/8
5/22/2016 A.M.No.RTJ082149

[1]
Rollo,pp.116.
[2]
Id.at436442.
[3]
Id.at436439.
[4]
Id.at436442.
[5]
InaResolutiondatedJanuary13,2010,theCourtinA.M.OCAIPINo.093233RTJdismissedthecomplaintagainst
respondentjudgeforrefusingtoenforcetheWritofInjunctionforbeingpremature.Id.at490.
[6]
Id.at441442.
[7]
TheNewCodeofJudicialConductforthePhilippineJudiciarytookeffectonJune1,2004.ItsupersededtheCanonsof
JudicialEthicsandtheCodeofJudicialConduct.
[8]
OfficeoftheCourtAdministratorv.EstacionJr.,317Phil600,603(1995).
[9]
DelaCruzv.Carretas,A.M.No.RTJ072043,September5,2007,532SCRA218,229.
[10]
Rule140,Section10.LightCharges.Lightchargesinclude:
1.Vulgarandunbecomingconduct
2.Gamblinginpublic
3.Fraternizingwithlawyersandlitigantswithpendingcase/casesinhiscourtand
4.Unduedelayinthesubmissionofmonthlyreports.
[11]
Rule140,Section11.Sanctions.
xxxx
C.Iftherespondentisguiltyofalightcharge,anyofthefollowingsanctionsshallbeimposed:
1.AfineofnotlessthanP1,000.00butnotexceedingP10,000.00andor
2.Censure
3.Reprimand
4.Admonitionwithwarning.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/march2011/RTJ082149.htm 8/8