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