EN BANC
|
OFFICE OF THE
COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Petitioner, -versus- JUDGE FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., Respondent. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- x Re: RESOLUTION DATED x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- x LUZ ARRIEGO, Petitioner, - versus - JUDGE FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., Respondent. |
|
A.M. No. RTJ-99-1460 A.M. No. 99-7-273-RTC A.M. No.
RTJ-06-1988 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 99-512-RTJ) Present: PANGANIBAN, C.J., PUNO, QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CARPIO
MORALES, CALLEJO, SR.,
AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO,
and GARCIA, VELASCO, JR.,
JJ. Promulgated: _____________________ |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
RESOLUTION
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
On
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Court resolves to:
1) FINE
Judge Florentino V. Floro,
Jr. in the total amount of FORTY THOUSAND (P40,000.000) PESOS for seven
of the 13 charges against him in A.M. No. RTJ-99-1460;
2) RELIEVE
Judge Florentino V. Floro,
Jr. of his functions as Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 73, Malabon City and consider him SEPARATED from the service
due to a medically disabling condition of the mind that renders him unfit to
discharge the functions of his office, effective immediately;
3) As a matter of equity, AWARD Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. back
salaries, allowances and other economic benefits corresponding to three (3) years;
4) DISMISS the charge in A.M. No. RTJ-06-1988 (Luz
Arriego v. Judge Florentino
V. Floro, Jr.) for LACK OF MERIT; and
5) DISMISS the charge in A.M. No. 99-7-273-RTC
(Re: Resolution Dated 11 May 1999 of Judge Florentino
V. Floro, Jr.) for MOOTNESS.
Judge
Floro filed three[1]
Partial Motions for Reconsideration
grounded on the following:
I.
The Intent of the Framers of the 1987
Constitution (1 Record 443, 495-6, and 1 Journal 237 of the 1986 Constitutional
Commission, specifically, the Constitutional Convention’s Mr. Concepcion & Fr. Bernas,
S.J.) is: The power to determine the incapacity of judges to discharge the
duties of their office is part of the overall administrative authority of the
Supreme Court over all its members and all the members of the judiciary. It can only declare ‘the incapacity of a
judge’ (under Sec. 11, Art. VIII, Constitution) by creating a panel of
impartial (private) doctors-specialists in the field.
Ms. Francianina
G. Sanchez, Clinical Psychologist and Chief Judicial Staff Officer,
Psychologist Ms. Beatriz O. Cruz, Dr. Celeste P. Vista, M.D. (Psychiatrist and
Medical Officer IV), and Supreme Court Senior Chief Staff Officer, general
practitioner and government physician Dr. Rosa J. Mendoza, M.D. who conducted the
mental tests on Judge Floro (on December 15, 2000) are absolutely
disqualified by the Constitutional provision; and their March 7, 2001
psychological/psychiatric evaluation reports are NULL and VOID ab initio/inadmissible for any
legal purpose.
II.
Without the complainant,
OCA’s presenting the 6 mental health professionals
--- Dr. Cecilia Villegas and Ms. Melinda Grio, 1995
and Dr. Celeste Vista, Ms. Beatriz Cruz, (I.Q. 68 of Judge Floro)
Ms. Francianina G. Sanzhez,
1998, 2001, and general physician Dr. Rosa J. Mendoza, M.D. --- their
questioned (evaluation) report on Judge Floro, aside
from being grossly incomplete and inadequate, is HEARSAY evidence.
Judge Floro is entitled to cross-examine said mental health
professional who made the report.
Without such examination, he would be deprived of the right to confront
and examine the witnesses against him.
The Investigator (Ret.)
Justice Pedro A. Ramirez’s repeated denials of (1) Judge Floro’s
Continuing Trial Objections and (2) December 5, 2000, September 28, October 9,
2001 & February 21, 2002 Omnibus Motions to a) put on the witness stand, to
confront and to determine their qualifications as experts b) to cross-examine
and c) to disqualify or inhibit, the said 6 mental health professionals,
violated the cardinal primary rights of Judge Floro (Ang Tibay vs. CIR) to
administrative, substantive and constitutional due process of law; it is no
less than denial of justice; such denial suffices to cast on the investigation,
official acts and the mental reports the impress of nullity.
III.
Judge Floro’s cardinal primary rights --- “2. the tribunal must
consider the evidence presented; 3. the decision must have something to support
itself; 4. the evidence must be substantial 5. the decision must be based on
the evidence presented at the hearing” --- were flagrantly violated by the
Investigator (Ret.) Justice Ramirez’s
Under Sec. 50 (c), Rule
130, Rules on Evidence, Judge Floro’s ordinary
witnesses proved by unrebutted, clear, convincing and
straightforward testimonies/opinions (excluded by J. Ramirez’s Report and
Conclusions) his medical and mental capacity/fitness to sit as RTC Judge.
III.A.
Under Sec. 50 (c), Rule
130, Rules on Evidence, Judge Floro’s ordinary
witnesses --- a) RTC Malabon Court Officers ---
Fiscal Pacifico Flores, Fiscal Neptali
Aliposa, PAO Lawyer Erwin Gallevo,
Legal Researcher Aina Talag
Pascual and NCR/RTC Judge Edmundo
T. Acuna (former Malabon
Fiscal), Atty. Arsenio Reyes (Malabon
Lawyer), and b) Judge Floro’s neighbors/townmates Jocelyn Fernandez, Belen Gomez, Asuncion Borjal, Jovita Estrella, Dr. Ma. Nieves Celeste, M.D., & Danilo Cuarto --- proved by unrebutted, clear, convincing and straightforward
testimonies/opinions (excluded by J. Ramirez’s Report and Conclusions) his
medical and mental capacity/fitness to sit as RTC Judge.
Their opinions refuted, traversed
and nullified the lies, fabrications and falsehood offered by the OCA’s witness Judge Aquino, Jr.,
inter alia.
III.B.
Judge Floro’s cardinal primary rights --- “2. the tribunal must
consider the evidence presented; 3. the decision must have something to support
itself; 4. the evidence must be substantial 5. the decision must be based on
the evidence presented at the hearing” --- were flagrantly violated by the
investigator (Ret.) Justice Ramirez’s March 7, 2001 Partial Confidential Report:
it blatantly discarded, excluded, and failed to consider the expert testimony
and opinion of Mr. JAIME T. LICAUCO, a parapsychologist and Visiting Faculty
Member of the Rosebridge Graduate School of Intergrative PSYCHOLOGY in Concord, California.[2]
Then, on 30 June 2006, Judge Floro filed a Verified Third Supplement dated 23 June 2006
essentially praying that a) the instant administrative complaint against Judge Floro for mental unfitness to sit as Judge be DISMISSED for
lack of merit; b) Judge Floro be fully REINSTATED;
and c) concomitantly, Judge Floro be declared
entitled to back wages, back salaries, allowances and other economic benefits,
LESS the amounts Judge Floro already received by
virtue of paragraph 3 of the Decision in this case.
Incidentally,
in one of the pleadings dated P1,180,325.80
pursuant to the Decision dated
The Partial
Motions for Reconsideration, as well as the supplements thereto, are DENIED
as Judge Floro has not shown any compelling reason
that would warrant the reconsideration he seeks.
In denying said motions, neither the
etiology of Judge Floro’s belief in “dwendes” nor
the validity of such belief is being passed upon. We reiterate that judges are expected to be
guided by the rule of law and to resolve cases before them with judicial
detachment. The acceptance by the public of the legitimacy of the judicial
process and the binding effect of court decisions is mostly dependent on the
judges’ adherence to such judicial behavior.
The psychological finding of mental
unfitness (made not only by the psychiatrists of the Supreme Court Clinic but
by Judge Floro’s own doctors during the hearing of
his cases), when taken together with Judge Floro’s
claimed dalliance with “dwendes,” poses a serious challenge to such required
judicial detachment and impartiality and would eventually erode the public’s
acceptance of the judiciary as the rational guardian of the law, if not make it
an object of ridicule.
His
insistence on the existence of “dwendes,” among other beliefs, conflicts with the prevailing expectations
concerning judicial behavior and manifests a mental state that should lay to
rest any doubts about his valid removal from office for lack of the judicial
temperament required of all those in the Bench.
In
fine, Judge Floro himself has confirmed that he is
incapable of discharging the duties of a judge free from extrajudicial
influences and that he falls short of the fundamental requirements of
competence and objectivity expected of all judges.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Judge Floro’s Partial Motions for Reconsideration as well as the
Supplements thereto are hereby DENIED
WITH FINALITY there being no merits. No other pleading, however denominated, shall henceforth
be entertained by this Court.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate
Justice |
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice |
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate
Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO Associate
Justice |
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate
Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
Associate
Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate
Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate
Justice |
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate
Justice |
|
|
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice |
|