FALSE ACCUSATION OF DIS-REPUTATION OF A JUDGE

Four Judges and seventy court employees accused Judge A of dis-reputation of a

fellow judge in a courts resolution by writing Moreover, the predecessor judge,
Honorable X is a Municipal Trial Court of Cardona, Rizal while the undersigned judge
is a Metropolitan Trial Court Judge of Pasay city, their salary grades are not at par with
each other.

Did Judge A cause dis-reputation of Judge X in a resolution? The answer is in the

negative.

The questioned sentence in the resolution is not defamatory upon a cursory reading of
it. It was the answer of Judge A to the false and malicious allegation of one litigant that
she committed Gross Ignorance of the Law, that she must follow the previous orders of
Judge X because they are of the same level.

None of the civil cases litigants accused Judge A of defamation of Judge X. None of
them moved to expunge the sentence from the resolution so Judge A can rule upon
their motion.

Seventy -four complainants have no right to interfere with the judicial prerogative of
Judge A because they are not parties in the subject civil case. In a defamation suit,
only the offended party can bring a complaint, they are not the offended parties. If they
are offended with one sentence in a resolution, they should have availed a judicial relief
rather than filing an administrative complaint so Judge A can act upon it. Also, the
Office of the Executive Judge did not issue a Memorandum to Judge A to correct the
alleged defamatory resolution against a fellow Judge just to suit their fancies, whims
and caprices.

Moreover, Higher court Judge Y sustained Judge A in her order during the appeal
of the losing parties . None in her order mentioned that alleged dis-reputation of Judge
X as an obiter dictum. Neither did Judge Y file a complaint against Judge A using
the subject resolution that there was an alleged dis-reputation of another judge. Judge
1
Y did not call Judge As attention about the supposed one liner for it to correct the
same.

Seventy -four complainants have nothing good to do other than review the resolution of
co-equal court proscribed by jurisprudences because it will undermine judicial stability.

The subject resolution was dated July 1, 2010 while the complaint of seventy four court
employees was dated May 12, 2011, the very delayed filing showed bad faith and
motive on their parte especially, the civil case with the questioned resolution was stored
in an area far away from the courts premises.

The actual case is OCA IPI No. 11-2378-MTJ Judge Bibiano Colasito, Vice Executive
Judge Bonifacio Pascua, Judge Restituto Mangalindan Jr. , Judge Catherine Manodon,
Miguel Infante, Emma Annie Arafiles, Racquel Diano, Pedro Doctolero Jr., Lydia Casas,
Auxencio Clemente, Ma. Cecilia Gertrudes R. Salvador, Zenaida N. Geronimo, Virginia
D. Galang, Elsa Garnet, Amor Abad, Emelina J. San Miguel, Maxima C. Sayo, Romer
H. Aviles, Froilan Robert L. Tomas, Dennis M. Echegoyen, Norman Garcia, Noel Labid,
Eleanor N. Bayog, Leilani A. Tejero Lopez, Ana Maria V. Francisco, Soledad J.
Bassig, Marissa Mashhoor Rastgooy, Marie Luz M. Obida, Evelyn P. Depalobos,
Joseph B. Pamatmat, Zenaida N. Geronimo, Benjie V. Ore, Fortunato E. Diezmo,
Nomer B. Villanueva, Edwina A. Jurok, Fatima V. Rojas, Eduardo E. Ebreo, Ronalyn T.
Almarvez, Ma. Victoria C. Ocampo, Elizabeth Lipura, Mary Ann J. Cayanan, Manolo
Manuel E. Garcia, Petronilo C. Primacio Jr., Edward Eric Santos, Armina B. Almonte,
Elizabeth G. Villanueva, Erwin Russ B. Ragasa, Bien T. Camba, Marlon M. Suligan,
Chanda B. Tolentino, Ferdinand R. Molina, Lanie F. Aguinaldo, Jasmine L. Lindain,
Emilio P. Domine, Arnold P. Obial, Ricardo E. Lampitoc, Jerome H. Aviles, Ana Lea M.
Estacio, Cristina E. Lampitoc, Melanie DC Begasa, Evangeline M. Ching, Karla Mae
Pacunayen, Ronaldo S. Quijano, Domingo H. Hocosol, Edwin P. Ubana, Marvin O.
Balicuatro, Ma. Luz D. Dionisio, Maribel A. Molina, Sevilla B. Del Castillo, Aida Josefina
Ignacio, Benigno A. Marzan, Ignacio Gonzales, Lawrence D. Perez, and Edmundo
Vergara vs. Judge Eliza B. Yu
The Philippine Supreme Court sustained the legal arguments of Judge Eliza B. Yu.