AM No. RTJ-08-2140 OCA found the respondent administratively liable and FACTS: recommended his disqualification from reinstatement or The acts of respondent are as follows: appointment and forfeiture of retirement benefits. Respondent impounded the tricycle of a certain Gervin Further, the OCA considered respondent’s filing of a COC Ojeda at the Hall of Justice of Daet, Camarines Norte, for the 2002 Barangay Elections that resulted in his when the latter bumped the former’s vehicle and was automatic resignation "as a mere convenient ploy for a unable to pay the amount demanded for the incurred ‘graceful exit’ from the judiciary and to evade liability on damages. As such impounding was entered in the Guard’s his part." Logbook, Judge Contreras was able to secure a certification regarding the same from Security Guard ISSUE: Virginia Morico (SG Morico). However, SG Morico WON respondent committed Grave Abuse of Authority, inadvertently dated the certification October 11, 1999, Grave Misconduct, Gross Insubordination, and Acts instead of November 11, 1999. When Judge Contreras Inimical to Judicial Service (YES) called the attention of SG Morico of the wrong date, the WON court has jurisdiction over the respondent (YES) latter took the certification and went straight to respondent’s chambers. After leaving the chambers, SG Held: Morico became "belligerent and discourteous" and Grave abuse of authority is defined as a misdemeanor refused to return the certification to Judge Contreras. committed by a public officer, who, under color of his Thus, Judge Contreras sought the assistance of Judge office, wrongfully inflicts upon a person any bodily harm, Sancho Dames and 2nd Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Leo imprisonment, or other injury; it is an act characterized Intia in order to retrieve the aforesaid certification from with cruelty, severity, or excessive use of authority SG Morico, but to no avail. Thereafter, Judge Contreras learned that respondent had berated the guards of the Misconduct, on the other hand, is a transgression of some Hall of Justice, including SG Morico, for issuing the established and definite rule of action, more particularly, certification, and that SG Morico and Head Guard Quintin unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer. Fernandez tried to conceal the alleged acts of grave abuse To warrant dismissal from service, the misconduct must be of authority by respondent. grave, serious, important, weighty, momentous, and not trifling. In order to differentiate grave misconduct from Respondent berated Judge Lalwani, who sought simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear reconsideration for her detail to another station, and intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of accused her of being lazy and abusive like other judges of established rule, must be manifest in the former. CamSur. Respondent also instructed Lawlani to go slow with the trial of a BP 22 case as the accused therein was Further, the OCA properly found respondent guilty of his friend. Gross Misconduct and Insubordination for refusing to comply with the numerous directives of the Court to file a Respondent then told Judge Contreras that he does not comment on the administrative complaint against him. mind Atty. Verida’s abusive practice as he gives him gold Verily, a judge who deliberately and continuously fails and which was abundant in Paracale, Camarines Norte. refuses to comply with the resolution of the Court is guilty Respondent further sneered at Judge Contreras for "not of the same. exploiting the situation" and intimated to the latter that Atty. Venida would give him gold. Jurisdiction Finally, the OCA correctly noted that respondent’s Lawyers, prosecutors, and litigants complained about the automatic resignation due to his filing of a COC for the habitual absenteeism of respondent, especially during 2002 Barangay Elections did not divest the Court of its Mondays and Fridays, resulting in delays in the disposition jurisdiction in determining his administrative liability. It is of cases in violation of existing laws and circulars on well-settled that resignation should not be used either as speedy trial. an escape or an easy way out to evade an administrative liability or administrative sanction. In this light, Upon assumption as Executive Judge, respondent ordered respondent’s administrative liability for his acts stands. Clerk of Court Atty. Perfecto Loria (Atty. Loria) to submit all petitions for extra-judicial foreclosures to him for scrutiny, especially those requiring publication upon filing, resulting in the delay in the proceedings. Respondent also ordered Atty. Loria to ask for "grease money" from the newspaper publishers under the pain of being blacklisted. Atty. Loria, however, never obeyed respondent regarding this matter. evidence, and must necessarily be manifest in a charge of ANONYMOUS LETTER-COMPLAINT AGAINST REYNALDO grave misconduct." C. ALCANTARA, UTILITY WORKER I, BR. 70, AND JOSEPH C. JACINTO, ELECTRICIAN, HALL OF JUSTICE, BOTH OF THE In this case, Alcantara and Jacinto admitted to taking and REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BURGOS, PANGASINAN encashing checks of their co-workers without A.M. No. P-15-3296 permission.1âwphi1There is no doubt that their acts of FACTS: repeatedly stealing the checks and forging the signatures This case stemmed from an undated Letter-Complaint, of their coworkers constitute grave misconduct and addressed to Executive Judge Elpidio N. Abella (Executive dishonesty. Their alleged remorse for what they have done Judge Abella), Regional Trial Court, Alaminos City, does not erase the transgression they committed. "This Pangasinan,charging respondents Reynaldo C. Alcantara Court will not hesitate to rid its ranks of undesirables who (Alcantara) and Joseph C. Jacinto (Jacinto) with the undermine its efforts toward an effective and efficient commission of several illegal activities in violation of Civil administration of justice, thus tainting its image in the Service Rules.1 Alcantara worked as Utility Worker I, eyes of the public." Branch70, Regional Trial Court, Burgos, Pangasinan, whereas Jacinto was an electrician at the Hall of Justice in Efren Uy v. Judge Flore the same city. AM No. RTJ-12-2332 Facts: In the Report dated July 17, 2013, Executive Judge Abella In a Revenue Travel Assignment Order,2 Commissioner of recommended that Alcantara and Jacinto be immediately Internal Revenue Lilian B. Hefti relieved Mustapha M. dismissed from service.5 He found that as early as 2009, Gandarosa as Regional Director of Revenue Region No. 16, Alcantara and Jacinto received and encashed checks of Bureau of Internal Revenue, Cagayan de Oro City. Hefti their co-workers without consent. reassigned Gandarosa as Chief of Staff of the Special Concerns Group at the Bureau's Head Office in Quezon In his Comment dated September 3,2013, Alcantara City. Secretary of Finance Margarito B. Teves approved admitted to the taking and encashing of Tugade’sand Hefti's order. Gandarosa filed a Rule 65 petition3 for Español’s checks without permission.21 He claimed, certiorari and/or prohibition with prayer for a temporary however, that he was not a thief.22 He was only tempted restraining order before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, to take and encash the checks because of his financial Tubod, Lanao del Norte, presided by Judge Flores. circumstances then to support his family.23 He already Gandarosa prayed that Hefti’s order be declared void and asked for Tugade’s and Español’s forgiveness.24 He denied that a writ of injunction be issued prohibiting the Secretary all the other allegations, including Ginez’s claims. Jacinto, of Finance and the new Commissioner of Internal Revenue in his Comment dated September 23, 2013, denied taking from enforcing Hefti’s order and from replacing or the checks.26 He admitted that he accompanied Alcantara reassigning him. Judge Flores granted a temporary in encashing a check. However, he did not know that the restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction in check did not belong to Alcantara.27 He received a portion favor of Gandarosa. of the proceeds from the check but when he found out Meanwhile, the new Commissioner of Internal Revenue, that the check belonged to Tugade, he returned the Sixto S. Esquivias IV, issued a new Revenue Travel amount and asked for her forgiveness.28 He denied Assignment Order4 reiterating Hefti’s order. Secretary Español’s claims. Teves also approved Esquivias’s order. Gandarosa thus filed a petition5 for indirect contempt against Secretary ISSUE: WON Alcantara and Jacinto should be dismissed Teves and Commissioner Esquivias. (YES) Judge Flores issued the following orders: 1. 72-hour TRO HELD: 2. Granting the writ of preliminary injunction Dishonesty is defined as the "[d]isposition to lie, cheat, 3. Treating the comment to R65 petition filed thru deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; LBC as a mere scrap of paper lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of 4. Requiring Sec. Teves and Comm. Esquivias to the fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, contempt petition deceive or betray." Reccomendation of the OCA Upon evaluation of the present complaint and Judge Grave misconduct is committed when there has been "‘a Flores’s comment, the Office of the Court Administrator transgression of some established and definite rule of issued a Report16 dated January 19, 2012 finding Judge action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross Flores guilty of gross ignorance of the law. The Office of negligence by a public officer.’ The misconduct is grave if it the Court Administrator adopted the ruling of the CA in involves any of the additional elements of corruption, CAG.R. SP No. 02753-MIN that Judge Flores’s seven orders willful intent to violate the law, or to disregard established were void since the trial court lacked jurisdiction over rules, all of which must be established by substantial Gandarosa’s case which was a personnel action within the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission; that Judge Marilou Rivera v. Judge Blancaflor Flores’s orders could only be enforced within the 12th AM No. RTJ J—11-2290 Judicial Region; that Judge Flores gravely erred in Facts: restraining the implementation of Hefti’s order; and that Rivera alleged that she had been engaged in assisting Judge Flores failed to show cold neutrality in granting the litigants to obtain judicial bonds since year 2000. writ of preliminary injunction based on documents Sometime in February 2008, she asked her daughter Shiela identified by Gandarosa’s counsel. T. De Mata (De Mata), who was also a bondsman, to help her secure a bail bond for accused Ricardo Catuday Issue: WON Judge Flores exhibited gross ignorance of the (Catuday). Catuday was charged of violating Section 11 of law when he assumed jurisdiction over the R65 petition as R. A. No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act it is the CSC which has jurisdiction (YES) of 2002) by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor (OPP) of Laguna. Held: On February 27, 2008, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Dan When a law or a rule is basic, judges owe it to their office B. Rodrigo (Prosecutor Rodrigo) recommended a bail of to simply apply the law.1âwphi1 Anything less is gross 200,000.00 for Catuday who moved to reduce his bail ignorance of the law. There is gross ignorance of the law to120,000.00 before the Office of the Executive Judge, when an error committed by the judge was gross or RTC, Sta. Cruz, Laguna. De Mata brought a copy of the patent, deliberate or malicious. It may also be committed motion to Prosecutor Rodrigo who did not object to the when a judge ignores, contradicts or fails to apply settled motion and who signified his conformity by writing "no law and jurisprudence because of bad faith, fraud, objection" and affixing his signature and the date dishonesty or corruption. Gross ignorance of the law or "4/14/08" on the face of the motion. Nonetheless, De incompetence cannot be excused by a claim of good Mata faced difficulties and indordinate delays in securing faith.17 When an error is so gross and patent, such error Judge Blancaflor’s approval. produces an inference of bad faith, making the judge liable Explaining her difficulties with Judge Blancaflor in relation for gross ignorance of the law. Here, Judge Flores assumed with her work as a bondsman, Rivera claimed that the jurisdiction over the Rule 65 petition assailing Hefti’s order judge harbored ill will against her because of her when he should have dismissed the petition for involvement in Special Proceeding No. 4605 entitled Gandarosa’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Arsenio S. Leron, et al. v. Benjamin S. Leron, et al.,then Moreover, under the law, any employee who questions pending before Judge Blancaflor’s sala. Rivera alleged that the validity of his transfer should appeal to the Civil she was the attorney-in-fact of one of the defendants in Service Commission. Respondent judge should have the case, Dr. Emelita R. Leron (Dr. Leron) who filed on dismissed the action below for failure of private March 2, 2007 a motion for inhibition against Judge respondent to exhaust administrative remedies. Blancaflor.7 The motion allegedly recited in detail Judge And even if we assume that the trial court has jurisdiction Blancaflor’s misdeeds and gross misconduct, manifest over Gandarosa’s Rule 65 petition, Section 4, Rule 65 of partiality and indiscretion in fraternizing with clients and the Rules of Court requires that the petition must be filed litigants in connection with the case. Lastly, Rivera in the Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the maintained that Judge Blancaflor should be charged with territorial area asdefined by the Supreme Court. But the immorality for maintaining an illicit relationship with trial court presided by Judge Flores is within the 12th Villamar, who is not his wife. Judicial Region while the Head Office and Regional Office, Judge Blancaflor’s Comments: Revenue Region No. 16, of the Bureau of Internal Revenue Judge Blancaflor claimed that neither Rivera nor her are respectively located in Metro Manila, National Capital daughter approached him regarding Catuday’s and Judicial Region,and Cagayan de Oro City, 10th Judicial Namplata’s bail bonds. Even assuming that they did, he Region. refused their requests because they were not authorized bondsmen or agents of any duly accredited surety We note, however, that the Office of the Court company. They were acting as fixers, he explained; thus, Administrator did not discuss the charges of manifest he was justified in denying their requests. Further, Judge partiality, denial of due process and conduct prejudicial to Blancaflor claimed that he strictly observes a policy of the interest of the service. We also dismiss the charge of refusing to reduce the required bail in drug-related cases denial of due process. In the application of the principle of even if approval is recommended by the investigating due process, what is sought to be safeguarded is not the prosecutor. He could not also order Catuday’s release lack of previous notice but the denial of the opportunity to because it was Judge Ongkeko who granted his motion to be heard.25 We note that the Secretary of Finance and the reduce bail; in his view, Judge Ongkeko should also order Commissioner of Internal Revenue, even if their comment Catuday’s release. was erroneously treated as a mere scrap of paper, were duly represented by the Office of the Solicitor General. Judge Blancaflor brushed off the immorality charge against him. He branded it as malicious and a mere fabrication of Rivera. He alleged that Rivera even hired a Solomon Ondevilla (Ondevilla) to execute an affidavit against This is serious misconduct and a violation of the New Code him,[11]] but Ondevilla subsequently denied that he of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary23 which executed and signed the affidavit. Judge Blancaflor mandates that "judges shall perform their judicial duties questioned Rivera’s credibility, claiming that she is known without favor, bias or prejudice,"24 and that they "shall for filing fabricated charges and malicious complaints ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court, against lawyers, judges and other public officials, among maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the them, an Atty. Cayetano Santos.13Further, she has also legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the been charged with numerous criminal offenses, mostly judge and of the judiciary." swindling or estafa cases and violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, and is known to have an illicit relationship with It appears from the records that Judge Blancaflor’s different men. antipathy towards Rivera arose from her involvement in Justice Fernando’s the Leron case when she testified against the judge in a Investigation/Findings/Recommendation motion for his inhibition from the case. The motion must In compliance with the Court’s resolution of August 17, have caused considerable anxiety and concern for the 2011,18 Justice Fernando conducted a thorough judge so that he even exerted efforts to neutralize Rivera, investigation of the complaint, in the course of which, she to the extent of offering cash to Byron (Rivera’s son) and conducted several hearings, received affidavits and Ricel (Rivera’s son-in-law) who executed a joint documentary evidence, heard testimonies of witnesses, Affidavit32 that Judge Blancaflor and Villamar offered them and even conducted an ocular inspection.19 ₱10,000.00 each and even warned them not to testify Justice Fernando found Judge Blancaflor guilty of (1) atthe hearing on the motion. The two showed the cash to bribery, gross misconduct and violation of R.A. 3019; and Rivera and they had the incident entered in the police (2) immorality. She recommended that the judge be blotter. dismissed from the service, with prejudice to his reinstatement or appointment to any public office, and Re: charge of immorality likewise recommended the forfeiture of the judge’s On the charge of immorality – for allegedly maintaining an retirement benefits, if any. illicit relationship with Villamar who is nothis wife – Justice The OCA Report and Recommendation Fernando aptly observed that Judge Blancaflor offered no On July 24, 2013, the Court referred Justice Fernando’s evidence, except general denials to disprove his moral final report to the OCA for evaluation, report and indiscretion, which appeared to be widely known in the recommendation.20 In its memorandum21 of February 25, community at the time material to the case. As the records 2014, the OCA submitted its report to the Court, adopting show, statements made here and there by witnesses and the findings and recommendations of Justice Fernando. personalities drawn into the case confirm the special Issue: WON Judge Blancaflor should be dismissed relationship between Judge Blancaflor and Villamar such that Villamar had no hesitation in speaking for the judge Held: on matters concerning him and his work. Yes, The first count against Judge Blancaflor regarding this For maintaining a relationship with Villamar, Judge charge involved his alleged: (1) refusal to approve Blancaflor crossed the line of a proper and acceptable Catuday’s motion to reduce bail bond, despite a "no conduct as a magistrate and a private person. objection" from the prosecutor; (2) refusal to order Catuday’s release, despite Judge Ongkeko’s grant of the motion; (3) refusal to order Namplata’s release, despitehis own approval of the motion to reduce bail bond; and (4) offer of money to Byron and Ricel to prevent them from testifying in the motion for his inhibition in the Leron case. While Judge Blancaflor has the discretion to approve or disapprove a motion to reduce bail, it appears from the records that he abused this prerogative in the cases of Catuday and Namplata. Through Judge Blancaflor’s inaccessibility (he was usually not in the court in the afternoon)22 and refusal to take action on their pleas for provisional liberty, Catuday and Namplata and the people working for the approval of their motions (Rivera and De Mata) suffered inordinate delay and frustrations in securing the motions’ approval. In more ways than one, Judge Blancaflor gave De Mata and Riveraa run-around in Catuday’s and Namplata’s cases for no plausible reason other than the judge’s strong antipathy towards Rivera.