February 7, 2017

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno

Supreme Court

Deputy Court Administrator Jenny Lind Delorino

Office of the Court Administrator

RE: On Violation of Privacy Laws

The Courts Decision cited a Facebook name Eliza B. Yu that I dispute to

be tampered or hacked, among others, because my Facebook name is
Eliza Yu during the time we communicated. However, complaint of Judge
Emily L. San Gaspar Gito with attached typewritten alleged emails
coming from my Facebook bore the name Bambi Yu, this is another proof
of tampering or hacking (See Judge Emily L. San Gaspar Gito
Complaints Annex A to Annex C).

Under the Revised Rules of Court, the remedy to a misleading statement or

to a statement without basis or foundation like the Facebook name Eliza B.
Yu that appeared on the Decision when the Facebook name Bambi Yu is
what was introduced as evidence by complainant Judge Emily San Gaspar
Gito to me at the onset is to strike it off from the Courts Decision.

The Honorable Supreme Court is not a trier of facts thus in a trial

proper, Judge Emily L. San Gaspar Gito must show her Complaints
Annex A to Annex C, among others, the actual print-outs with name
Bambi Yu that I will identify and testify then enter my objection if any. I was
not shown the actual computer print-outs of all alleged emails from start of
the complaint until the promulgation of the Decision to prove Hearsay
Evidence by her against me. She attached typewritten emails I allegedly
sent to her complaint before the Honorable Office of the Court
Administrator so there is no reason why I should appear before the
investigating justice Hakim Abdulwahid, the fraternity brother of Senior
Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, the Society for Judicial Excellence
Chairman, who awarded the Outstanding Judge to her despite of my
protest. Her administrative complaint is into fishing expedition only.

During a trial proper, Judge Emily L. San Gaspar Gito will need my
consent every time she will access and present any email pursuant to
Republic Act No. 8792 (An Act Providing for the Recognition and Use of

1
Electronic Commercial and Non-Commercial Transactions and Documents,
Penalties for Unlawful Use Thereof and For Other Purposes) provides:

Section 32. Obligation of Confidentiality. - Except for the purposes

authorized under this Act, any person who obtained access to any
electronic key, electronic data message, or electronic document, book,
register, correspondence, information, or other material pursuant to any
powers conferred under this Act, shall not convey to or share the same with
any other person.

Section 33. Penalties. - The following Acts shall be penalized by fine and/or
imprisonment, as follows: (d) Other violations of the provisions of this Act,
shall be penalized with a maximum penalty of One Million Pesos
(P1,000,000.00) or six (6) years imprisonment.

The forgoing special penal law restricted the New Civil Code provision that
states:

Article 723. Letters and other private communications in writing are owned
by the person to whom they are addressed and delivered, but they cannot
be published or disseminated without the consent of the writer or his
heirs. However, the court may authorize their publication or dissemination if
the public good or the interest of justice so requires.

The trial court cannot determine if the publication or dissemination of the

letters is required for public good or interest of justice because of the
criminal law privacy that makes it criminal to publish or disseminate private
emails without the consent of the author or sender.

But the said special penal law is inapplicable for lack of authentication of
the subject emails that I denied sending because no actual computer
print-outs were shown to me from the start until the end of the probe
despite of several written requests. I commented hearsay complaint with
hearsay evidence, why would I be penalized for it is beyond human
comprehension contrary to the Rule of Law.

The Honorable Office of the Court Administrator omitted from its report and
recommendation that I failed to identify and authenticate the emails due to
lack of actual computer print outs with unresolved issues of tampering and
/or hacking.

The Honorable Office of the Court Administrator omitted from its report and
recommendation my cited jurisprudences PNOC Shipping and Transport
Corporation vs. CA et al. G.R. No. 107518, October 8, 1998: a letter may
2
be offered in evidence and admitted as such but its evidentiary weight
depends upon the observance of the rules on evidence. Accordingly, the
author of the letter should be presented as witness to provide the other
party to the litigation the opportunity to question him on the contents of the
letter. Being mere hearsay evidence, failure to present the author of the
letter renders its contents suspect.

What is her evidence against me? Its hearsay.

Mere uncorroborated hearsay or rumor does not constitute substantial

evidence (Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board,
59 S. Ct. 206, 83 Law. ed. No. 4, Adv. Op., p. 131). Charges based on
mere suspicion and speculation likewise cannot be given credence. Hence,
when the complainant relies on mere conjectures and suppositions, and
fails to substantiate his allegations, the administrative complaint must be
dismissed for lack of merit (Manalabe v. Cabie, A.M. No. P-05-1984, July
6, 2007, 526 SCRA 582, 589; See also Adajar v. Develos, A.M. No. P-05-
2056, November 18, 2005, 475 SCRA 361, 376-377; Ong v. Rosete, A.M.
No. MTJ-04-1538, October 22, 2004, 441 SCRA 150, 160; Datuin, Jr. v.
Soriano, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1640, October 15, 2002, 391 SCRA 1, 5).

In my emails to her friend, there were written email disclaimers which is the
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE:

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If
you have received this email in error please notify the system manager.
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender
immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and
delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you
are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in
reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

And the email disclaimers were not printed out on the Courts Decision.
Without those email disclaimers, it is fair to conclude, the emails were
tampered or hacked. Thus, they are inadmissible in evidence.

The violation of my right to privacy that I exhaustively discussed the rules

and principles refers to my Exhibit 1 only.

3
In privacy of communications and correspondences, both the sender and
sendee are protected by the Constitution, statutory laws and
jurisprudences.

Judge Emily San Gaspar Gitos generous actions and kind emails praying
for my judicial appointment prior to her complaint dated July 12, 2010 belied
the baseless and erroneous findings against me that I committed conduct
unbecoming of a judge, the typewritten emails as her proofs were
accepted illegally and unethically as evidence when it should not be for they
are hearsays.

I was not complained with sexual harassment by her as falsely and

maliciously reported by print media and social media, she falsely and
maliciously complained to the Honorable Office of the Court Administrator
that I sent her among others Felicien Rops 69 that happened long time ago,
it came from her not from me as proven by documentary proofs submitted
to the Honorable Supreme Court.

Judge Emily San Gaspar Gito did no sue me for sexual harassment when
I was a public prosecutor until now if I sexually harassed her as falsely
reported by newspapers and tabloids.

Judge Emily San Gaspar Gito will not treat me for free at a restaurant if I
sexually harassed her as falsely reported by newspapers and tabloids.

Judge Emily San Gaspar Gito will not pray for my judicial appointment if I
sexually harassed her as falsely reported by newspapers and tabloids.

Judge Emily San Gaspar Gito will not take pictures of me during judges
seminar if I sexually harassed her as falsely reported by newspapers and
tabloids.

Judge Emily San Gaspar Gito will not join in my table where I eat during
judges seminar if I sexually harassed her as falsely reported by
newspapers and tabloids.

Judge Emily San Gaspar Gito kept on requesting for me as her public
prosecutor to disprove the false reports by newspapers and tabloids that I
sexually harassed her.

Judge Emily San Gaspar Gito kept on replying my funny comments to her
pictures sent via Facebook gift section to disprove the false reports by
newspapers and tabloids that I sexually harassed her.

Judge Emily San Gaspar Gito sent several graphics coming from her
Facebook account, one of them was a volcano that I did not think she was
4
promoting tourism because the volcano was oozing with red hot lava to
disprove the false reports by newspapers and tabloids that I sexually
harassed her.

Judge Emily San Gaspar Gito considered me as her friend orally and in
writing prior to her fabricated complaint dated July 12, 2010 and her
husband Atty. Gener Gito was my graduate school classmate to disprove
the false reports by newspapers and tabloids that I sexually harassed her.

Judge Emily San Gaspar Gito accepted rosary and Mother of Perpetual
help framed photo as my gifts to disprove the false reports by newspapers
and tabloids that I sexually harassed her.

The prolonged paid massive smear campaign against me when it was

repeatedly published in newspapers and tabloids including social media
that I sexually harassed her absent of a proof meant her complaint against
me is dismissible, that I have to be tried by publicity proposedly made for a
hidden political agenda by those behind it because of the tremendous
amount of resources spent on it.

The burden of proof is upon her that she failed to discharge it as

provided by the Rules on Evidence.

Foregoing considered, it is a Falsification under Article 172 of the

Revised Penal Code in relation to Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code,
Perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code and Libel under
Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code to state in A.M. No. MTJ-13-1821, I
committed conduct unbecoming of a judicial officer for sending
inappropriate messages with sexual undertones to a fellow female Judge.

Thank you.

Judge Eliza B. Yu

5
March 23, 2015

Atty. Wilhelmina D. Geronga

Chief, Legal Office
Office of the Court Administrator

RE: SC En Banc Resolution dated February 10, 2015

I acknowledge receipt of the Honorable Supreme Court En Banc resolution dated

February 10, 2015.

In my legal blog at Google Plus, I posted the "Unlawful State's Honor Award" citing
Almario et al. v. The Executive Secretary et al., G. R. No. 189028, July 16, 2013.
Thus, I believe that the revocation of the illegal "Outstanding Judge" award that was
conferred upon Judge Emily San Gaspar - Gito by the Society for Judicial Excellence
(SJE) in 2012 is a preferred remedy in lieu of a criminal complaint against the SJE
members.

In one of my letters in 2013, I mentioned that the Chairman of SJE, Senior Associate
Justice Antonio Carpio took an initial action on my letter questioning the subject
awarding by the non - inclusion of Judge Emily San Gaspar - Gito as one of the
members of SJE in 2013, as published by a newspaper.

The revocation of the illegal "Outstanding Judge" Award in 2012 to Judge Emily San
Gaspar - Gito should result in the return all her winnings, that ideally, should be given to
the rightful "Outstanding Judge" winner in 2012 so as not to constitute a violation of RA
No. 3019. Judge Emily San Gaspar - Gito has a pending case at the time of the
nomination that she knew based on her Affidavit dated November 2, 2010. She also
knew that her being a member of SJE at the time of her nomination is a ground for her
disqualification. In fact, in a Pepsi crown promo, employees of Pepsi Co. are disqualified
to win, how much more in an "Outstanding Judge" award in a judiciary that values
integrity and propriety, it will disqualify a member of SJE, who has a pending
administrative case, to win its own award to the damage and prejudice of the qualified
nominees, the adverse party in the administrative case, as well as the State.

Also, there are documentary proofs submitted to the Office of the Court
Administrator that will prove that SJE appeared to try to influence the Supreme
Court as well as the witnesses mentioned in her Affidavit dated November 2, 2010
in the pending administrative case against Judge Emily San Gaspar Gito by
giving her an unlawful and undeserved award for which the jurisprudence of
dismissed Justice Gregory Ong can be utilized against the same investigating
Justice who is Justice Angelina Sandoval Gutierrez (Ret.), the former boss of the
illegal awardee Judge Emily San Gaspar Gito, who was a member of SJE at the time
of awarding and reported to belong to the friendly block of SJE Chairman Antonio
Carpio as published by Daily Tribune mentioned in one of my letters to OCA in 2013. To
reiterate, the Daily Tribune published the same block in the Supreme Court to be Chief
Justice Artemio Panganiban (Ret.), Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr.(Ret.), Justice
Angelina Sandoval Gutierrez(Ret.), Justice Antonio Carpio and Justice Conchita
Carpio Morales(Ret.).

It was rumored that Justice Angelina Sandoval Gutierrez (Ret.) was a former boss of
Judge Emily San Gaspar Gito, who was her legal researcher for 10 years before her
appointment as judge; Justice Angelina Sandoval Gutierrez (Ret.) was rumored to
have a hand for Judge Emily San Gaspar - Gito to win a model court employee in 2008
or earlier; Justice Angelina Sandoval - Gutierrez (Ret.) was rumored to have included
1
Judge Emily San Gaspar - Gito to sit as member of SJE from 2008 or earlier until her
illegal awarding as Outstanding Judge in 2012; Justice Angelina Sandoval Gutierrez
(Ret.) was rumored as a godmother of Judge Emily San Gaspar - Gito, they have legal
affinity.

If SJE will not revoke the award to Judge Emily San Gaspar Gito, her winnings will
prove the actual damage, an element of undue injury of RA No. 3019. Again, if a Pepsi
crown promo has strict rules on disqualification of a prospective winner, then, logically,
SJE must have stricter rules on disqualification of prospective nominees and awardees
to avoid the appearance of impropriety at all times, manifest bias and partiality. In A.M.
No. SB-14-21-J [Formerly A.M. No. 13-10-06-SB], September 23, 2014 on RE:
ALLEGATIONS MADE UNDER OATH AT THE SENATE BLUE RIBBON COMMITTEE
HEARING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 26, 2013 AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE
GREGORY S. ONG, SANDIGANBAYAN, our Supreme Court held:

On the photograph showing respondent with Senator Jinggoy Estrada and Napoles. x x
x x This incident manifests respondents disregard of the dictum that propriety and the
appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all the activities of a judge.
This exacting standard of decorum is demanded from judges to promote public
confidence in the integrity of the Judiciary. In joining Senator Estrada and Napoles in a
picture taking, respondent gave a ground for reproach by reason of impropriety. It bears
reiterating Canon 4 (1) on Propriety of the same Code which provides that judges shall
avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.

Judge Emily San Gaspar Gito was pictured to be beside with Chief Justice Maria
Lourdes Sereno and SJE Chairman Antonio Carpio during the SJE awarding in 2012 as
shown in SC website and other search engines in the internet.

With respect to the presence of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno in SJE awarding
2012, and her photo with Judge Emily San Gaspar - Gito, it cannot be taken against her
for the following reasons: 1. Newspapers online reported that she was displeased with
SAJ Antonio Carpio upon her arrival at the Manila Hotel for the SJE awards, she did not
shake her hand with him and I or indirectly snubbed him in 2012, I presume in good
faith, it has something to do with my protest letter for the SJE award to Judge Emily San
Gaspar - Gito few days before the illegal awarding; 2. It was her obligation as the Chief
Justice to be present in the SJE awarding for the lawful recipient of the judicial awards;
3. There is no proof that her presence beside Judge Emily San Gaspar Gito at SJE
influenced her voting in the pending case of Judge Emily San Gaspar - Gito in the same
manner that there is no proof her writing the Foreword of my criminal law book did not
influence her voting in all my pending administrative cases; and 4. She appeared to
have been set-up with the subject picture-taking, logically, for me to publicly accuse her,
if not scandalize her as a newly appointed Chief Justice for the illegal award by SJE,
and raise the issue of her infamous (highly subjective, if not rigged) psychiatric test
result before the release of her appointment, since I demanded the psychiatric test
result of judge Emily San Gaspar - Gito in 2010, to her detractors, they are parallel when
they were beside each other as shown in a public photo in the SJE awarding in 2012,
that I disagree as I previously wrote in one letters, our Chief Justice, took her JBC
psychiatric test honestly and she did not commit dishonest and libelous acts against her
co-nominees and all applicants for CJ vacancy at JBC.

2
Respondents (Justice Gregory Ong) act of voluntarily meeting with Napoles at her
office on two occasions was grossly improper and violated Section 1, Canon 4
(Propriety) of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, which took effect on June 1, 2004.

SECTION 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of
their activities.

A judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial and that
fraternizing with litigants tarnishes this appearance. Public confidence in the Judiciary is
eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct of judges. A judge must avoid all
impropriety and the appearance thereof. Being the subject of constant public scrutiny, a
judge should freely and willingly accept restrictions on conduct that might be viewed as
burdensome by the ordinary citizen.

In Caeda v. Alaan, we held that: Judges are required not only to be impartial but also
to appear to be so, for appearance is an essential manifestation of reality. Canon 2 of
the Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins judges to avoid not just impropriety in their conduct
but even the mere appearance of impropriety.

They must conduct themselves in such a manner that they give no ground for reproach.
[Respondents] acts have been less than circumspect. He should have kept himself free
from any appearance of impropriety and endeavored to distance himself from any act
liable to create an impression of indecorum. x x x x Indeed, respondent must always
bear in mind that:

A judicial office traces a line around his official as well as personal conduct, a price one
has to pay for occupying an exalted position in the judiciary, beyond which he may not
freely venture. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins a judge to avoid not just
impropriety in the performance of judicial duties but in all his activities whether in his
public or private life. He must conduct himself in a manner that gives no ground for
reproach.

On this score, our previous pronouncements have enjoined judges to avoid association
or socializing with persons who have pending cases before their court. Respondent cites
the case of Abundo v. Manio, Jr. where this Court did not find fault with a judge who
was charged with fraternizing with his lawyer-friend. In that case, we said:

Respondent admits that he and Atty. Pajarillo became close friends in 1989 when they
were both RTC judges stationed in Naga City. Since they both resided in Camarines
Norte, Atty. Pajarillo hitched rides with respondent to Daet, Camarines Norte in the
latters car.

In his Comment, respondent claims that he leaves the door to his chambers open to
lawyers or parties with official court business, whose requests and complaints regarding
their cases he listens to in full view of his staff, who are witnesses to his transparency
and honesty in conducting such dialogues. He also admits that Atty. Pajarillo has been
to his house on several occasions, but only to make emergency long-distance calls to
his children in Metro Manila. He, however, denies that he and Atty. Pajarillo were
frequently seen eating and drinking together in public places.

We agree with Justice Buzons finding that the evidence against respondent on this
point was insufficient, viz.:

3
On the other hand, the admission of respondent that he attended two public functions
where Atty. Pajarillo was also present; that Atty. Pajarillo had been in his house twice or
thrice and used his telephone; and that he receives lawyers, including Atty. Pajarillo, and
litigants inside his chambers, the door to which is always open so that [the] staff could
see that no under the table transactions are taking place, is not proof that he is
fraternizing with Atty. Pajarillo. A judge need not ignore a former colleague and friend
whenever they meet each other or when the latter makes requests which are not in any
manner connected with cases pending in his court. Thus, Canon 30 of the Canons of
Judicial Ethics provides:

30. Social relations

It is not necessary to the proper performance of judicial duty that judges should live in
retirement or seclusion; it is desirable that, so far as the reasonable attention to the
completion of their work will permit, they continue to mingle in social intercourse, and
that they should not discontinue their interests in or appearance at meetings of members
at the bar. A judge should, however, in pending or prospective litigation before him be
scrupulously careful to avoid such action as may reasonably tend to waken the
suspicion that his social or business relations or friendships constitute an element in
determining his judicial course.

The factual setting in Abundo v. Manio, Jr. is not similar to the present case because
Napoles was not a colleague or lawyer-friend but an accused in a former case before
the Sandiganbayans Fourth Division chaired by respondent and which acquitted her
from malversation charge. What respondent perhaps want to underscore is the caveat
for judges, in pending or prospective litigation before them, to avoid such action as
may raise suspicion on their partiality in resolving or deciding the case. Thus, he
emphasized in his Memorandum that he never knew Napoles on a personal level
while she was still on trial as an accused in Kevlar helmet case. Respondent even
quoted Sulas testimony expressing her opinion that she finds nothing wrong with
respondent going to Napoles office because at that time, the Kevlar case had already
been terminated.

We do not share the view that the rule on propriety was intended to cover only pending
and prospective litigations.

Judges must, at all times, be beyond reproach and should avoid even the mere
suggestion of partiality and impropriety. Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct states that [p]ropriety and the appearance of propriety are essential
to the performance of all the activities of a judge. Section 2 further provides:

SEC. 2. As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must accept personal

restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do
so freely and willingly. In particular, judges shall conduct themselves in a way that is
consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.

As we held in Sibayan-Joaquin v. Javellana: ...Judges, indeed, should be extra prudent

in associating with litigants and counsel appearing before them so as to avoid even a
mere perception of possible bias or partiality. It is not expected, of course, that judges
should live in retirement or seclusion from any social intercourse. Indeed, it may be
desirable, for instance, that they continue, time and work commitments permitting, to
relate to members of the bar in worthwhile endeavors and in such fields of interest, in
general, as are in keeping with the noble aims and objectives of the legal profession. In
pending or prospective litigations before them, however, judges should be scrupulously

4
careful to avoid anything that may tend to awaken the suspicion that their personal,
social or sundry relations could influence their objectivity, for not only must judges
possess proficiency in law but that also they must act and behave in such manner that
would assure, with great comfort, litigants and their counsel of the judges competence,
integrity and independence.

In this light, it does not matter that the case is no longer pending when improper acts
were committed by the judge. Because magistrates are under constant public scrutiny,
the termination of a case will not deter public criticisms for acts which may cast
suspicion on its disposition or resolution. As what transpired in this case, respondents
association with Napoles has unfortunately dragged the Judiciary into the Pork Barrel
controversy which initially involved only legislative and executive officials. Worse,
Napoles much-flaunted contact in the judiciary is no less than a Justice of the
Sandiganbayan, our special court tasked with hearing graft cases. We cannot, by any
stretch of indulgence and compassion, consider respondents transgression as a simple
misconduct.

The above-quoted pronouncements are applicable to the illegal award of Outstanding

Judge to Judge Emily San Gaspar Gito by SJE in 2012.

Attached are the photos of SJE Chairman Antonio Carpio, Justice Angelina Sandoval-
Gutierrez and Justice Conchita Carpio Morales to corroborate the report of Daily
Tribune of their close affinity in the judiciary. The same is true with Justice Angelina
Sandoval Gutierrez, that I do not want her to be administratively and criminally liable,
provided she will take an action to revoke the illegal award to her rumored ward.
I reiterate that I do not want to disqualify SAJ Antonio Carpio in all my pending
administrative cases in the Supreme Court nor want to make him administratively and
criminally liable simply because of my honest belief that he took an initial action of my
letter on the illegal awarding to Judge Emily San Gaspar Gito by excluding her as a
member of SJE in 2013.

I hope for an ethical action on this matter.

Thank you.

Judge Eliza B. Yu

5
January 5, 2017

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno

Supreme Court

Deputy Court Administrator Jenny Lind

Delorino Office of the Court Administrator

RE: Use of Courts Letterhead

I did not abuse power and violated Section 8, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct, my letter was typed by court staff that I may not have noticed it due to many
works and many administrative problems. Please I did not give any importance to the
courts letter heading. Her brother knew I was appointed there, he and his wife dined
with us in a restaurant, there is no factual basis to abuse power and commit impropriety
about the courts letterhead. It did not cause prejudice to the State and taxpayers for me
to be held administratively liable.

It is a wrong finding the I abused my power and I committed impropriety. There is

nothing abusive and improper about the courts letterhead, it must not be given
attention by anyone. I am certain, it was not intentional on my part to use a courts
letterhead. It was by mere inadvertence. By not attending the conference, I did not say
he disrespected the court precisely because the courts letterhead has no bearing to
him, to me or to anyone. Your Honors, trivial accusation like this when I have no
intention to commit a wrong must be dismissed. Only errors that are tainted with fraud,
corruption, or malice are subject of disciplinary action. This is not the case here. Justice
Del Castillos acts or omissions were not shown to have been impelled by any of such
disreputable motives. If the rule were otherwise, no judge or justice, however
competent, honest, or dedicated he may be, can ever hope to retire from the judiciary
with an unblemished record (Atty. Alberto P. Quinto v. Judge Gregorio S. Vios,
Municipal Trial Court, Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1551, May 21,
2004, 429 SCRA 1; Tolentino v. Camano, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ 10-1522, January 20,
2000, 322 SCRA 559; Daracan v. Natividad, A.M. No. RTC-99-1447, September 27,
2000, 341 SCRA 161; Guerrero v. Villamor, A.M. No. RTJ-90-483, September 25,
1998, 296 SCRA 88; Tan v. Adre, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1898, January 31, 2005, 450 SCRA
145 cited in In Re Plagiarism case of Justice Mariano Del Castillo, A.M. No. 10-7-17-
SC, October 12, 2010). The court staff was not impelled by any of such disreputable
motives to write the courts letterhead. I may have been negligent in failing to see the
consequence of signing the prepared courts letterhead. Nonetheless, Only errors that
are tainted with fraud, corruption, or malice are subject of disciplinary action. Thus, I
must be penalized for it.

Also, I noticed there were trial courts that use the courts letterhead, they were not
complained. The court staff may have copied that style of writing courts letterhead to all
formal communications of Judges. There is no proof that I ordered court staff to type the
courts letterhead.

As to my non-attendance to then retiring investigating Justice Hakim Abdulwahid, a

fraternity brother of Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, the chairman of the

1
Society for Judicial Excellence, who gave the Outstanding Judge Award to her despite
of my protest, there are valid reasons. For one, what I have in my possession were all
typewritten emails I allegedly sent that lacked identification and authentication because
no actual computer print-outs were shown to me from the start of the complaint until the
promulgation of Decision despite of my several oral and written demand to secure them
from the Honorable Office of the Court Administrator. My absence before him is gravely
prejudicial to her hearsay evidence. She is into fishing expedition disallowed by the
Constitution, statutory laws, Rules of Court and jurisprudences. It is contrary to the Rule
of Law.

My absence before then investigating Justice Hakim Abdulwahid cannot be taken

against me. It cannot be construed that my absence may mean admission of a
wrongdoing or an evasion of truth.

I have the willingness to testify in a trial court on her violation of privacy laws that I have
a proof marked as Exhibit 1.

There is no proof that I used the phrase our court in the letter to advance my personal
interest. I cannot think of any personal interest that I will gain on it to be administratively
liable. There was no proof to it. The tenor of the letter did not show it. I was motivated by
my good desire to give that letter that was not replied and not heeded by him. I do not
use my trial court for improper purposes. There is no proof that I used the court for
personal interests and improper purposes. Why should I use my court for personal
interests and improper purposes? I cannot think of any advantage or benefit that I get
from using a trial court as a letterhead or using our court in a letter to anyone. For me,
there is no sanction that should be imposed upon me because I did not advance
personal interest. Its not true that I abuse courts power to give in to my wishes. What
are my wishes in the first place? I wish to be a Court of Appeals Justice, there is nothing
to gain for the use of our courts letterhead and our court to reach my dream. There is
no proof about it.

Thank you.

Judge Eliza B. Yu

2
October 11, 2017

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno

Supreme Court

Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez

Office of the Court Administrator

RE: Prohibition to Maintain Two Profiles by a Facebook User and Other Related Matters on
A.M. NO. MTJ-13-1821

Your Honors:

I found out that Facebook is a community where people use their authentic identities. It's
against the Facebook Community Standards to maintain more than one personal account. My
references are:

1. http://www.prettysimple.co.uk/blog/index.php/2012/07/a-facebook-dilemma-one-
account-or-two/
2. https://www.facebook.com/help/203498356357867?helpref=faq_content
3. https://blog.hubspot.com/blog/tabid/6307/bid/9134/top-5-things-not-to-do-on-
facebook.aspx

I noticed that there are several names Eliza Yu and Bambi Yu that appeared at the search engine
of Facebook, some of them are deactivated as of today. Please see attached copies marked as
Annex 1 and Annex 2 respectively.

If a Facebook users account has been deactivated, suspended, or deleted, the user's name
registered is replaced by "Facebook User", this is what appears in the inbox messages of the
recipient.

My cousins found out that there are two Facebook Accounts named Eliza B. Yu - one is
active and the other is inactive. Please see attached copy marked as Annex 3 as proof.

If none of these two Facebook Accounts named Eliza B. Yu appeared in the Facebook of Judge
Emily San Gaspar - Gitos friends, with more reason that she must produce and give to me the
actual computer-print-outs with the name Bambi Yu so I can identify and testify each email, then
enter my objection if any.

1
Also, they found out that my Facebook named Eliza B. Yu which is active was hacked and/ or
tampered because it was stated that I was in two different cities Manila and Pasay at the same
time on December 31, 2010 at 12:00 p.m. Please see attached copy marked as Annex 4 as
proof.

I am submitting two proofs marked as Annex 5 and Annex 6, among several others, to
prove my email account luvs2smile2@msn.com was hacked and/or tampered, it sent emails to
others without my consent or prior knowledge as I claimed several times in my letters and
pleadings to the Office of the Court Administrator. The dates of hacking and/ or tampering as
proven by emails on deleted and sent sections are immaterial because once an email account was
hacked, it will be hacked repeatedly, that is, with or without my knowledge later on.

Because of the foregoing, it must be an absolute necessity that I testify and identify then enter
my objection if any to the actual computer print-outs of Facebook messages with the Facebook
user name Bambi Yu that I allegedly sent to complainant Judge Emily San Gaspar Gito
because what were attached to the complaint against me were all typewritten emails with
Facebook name Bambi Yu otherwise the falsified, perjurious and libelous charge against me
must be dismissed for being a pure hearsay.

I requested several times, orally and in writing, from the Supreme Court and the Office of the
Court Administrator prior to the promulgation of the questioned Decision of all the subject
emails but I was not given any, and I was wrongfully and unjustly penalized with an offense of
Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge that was unproven by her, then her remaining administrative
charge must be dismissed for failure to provide actual computer-print outs of the subject emails,
she committed multiple counts of perjury, Falsification and Libel, I can prove these criminal
charges and I can pass her cross-examination before a trial court.

Thank you.

Judge Eliza B. Yu