EN
BANC
|
FRANCISCO
PALON, JR., Complainant,
|
A.M. No. MTJ-04-1530 |
Present:
PUNO, C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
- versus - CARPIO MORALES,
CALLEJO, SR.,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
GARCIA,
VELASCO,
JR., and
NACHURA,
JJ.
JUDGE PLACIDO B. VALLARTA,
Promulgated:
Municipal Circuit Trial Court,
Cabiao-San Isidro, Nueva Ecija,
Respondent.
March 7, 2007
x - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - x
PER CURIAM:
On
It appears that Palon is the offended party in
another case, Criminal Case No. 66-01,
for Attempted Homicide filed against accused Arturo Mendoza (
Palon filed the instant complaint for
Ignorance of the Law, Dereliction of Duty, and Partiality claiming that
respondent judge failed to “evaluate the Information” filed by the Office of
the Provincial Prosecutor of Nueva Ecija and likewise failed to sign the
warrant of arrest in Criminal Case No.
66-01.
Palon
asserts that respondent judge refused to act on the information because
respondent judge is related by affinity within the fourth civil degree to Pangilinan,
one of the accused in Criminal Case No. 66-01. Palon further alleges that he
filed a motion[3] to
remand Criminal Case No. 198-2000 to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of
Nueva Ecija on the ground that the offense charged is cognizable by the
regional trial court and that respondent judge is related to Pangilinan’s
sister. However, respondent judge ignored the motion.
Palon also
claims that in the scheduled preliminary investigation of Criminal Case No.
198-2000, he and his co-accused, with their counsel, were present but the
hearings were postponed at the instance of respondent judge. However, on the
only occasion that the accused requested for postponement of the hearing
because their counsel could not attend, respondent judge allegedly retorted, “Wala
akong paki-alam kung hindi darating ang abogado ninyo; magsumbong na kayo kahit
saan.” When respondent judge stepped
down from his rostrum, he approached the father of Palon and told him, “Kapitbahay,
ang magiging bail ninyo ay P20,000 bawat isa; kaysa ibayad ninyo ito sa
bail ay ibayad na lang ito kay Carlos Pangilinan, at kung kukulangin man, ay
ako na ang bahala, at hulugan ninyo nalang ito.”[4]
Respondent judge failed to comment on
the complaint despite the notice sent to him.[5] He is therefore deemed to have waived his
right to file the same. Further, it appears that per Certification by the Clerk
of Court of MCTC-Cabiao-San Isidro, respondent judge filed a letter of
resignation on
On
The Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA) stated that respondent judge was given an opportunity to explain his side
but he chose not to comply with the Court’s directives. His refusal to
controvert the allegations against him is deemed an admission of the truth of
the charges.
Upon verification, the OCA found that
respondent judge filed a letter of resignation as municipal judge of MCTC-Cabiao-San
Isidro on
Respondent judge failed to comment on
the complaint or file any responsive pleading or manifestation despite receipt
of notice to do so. He, instead, filed a letter of resignation. The natural instinct of man impels him to
resist an unfounded claim or imputation and defend himself. It is against human nature to just remain
reticent and say nothing in the face of false accusations. Hence, silence in
this case is an admission of the truth of the charges.[7] Respondent judge is deemed to have admitted the charges against him.
Every officer or employee in the
judiciary has the duty to obey the orders and processes of this Court without
delay.[8] A resolution of this Court requiring comment
on an administrative complaint is not a mere request from the Court. It cannot be complied with partially,
inadequately, or selectively.
Respondents in administrative complaints should comment on all
accusations or allegations against them in the administrative complaints
because it is their duty to preserve the integrity of the judiciary. The Court
will not tolerate indifference of respondents to administrative complaints and
to resolutions requiring comment on such administrative complaints.
There is no
place in the judiciary for those who cannot meet the exacting standards of
judicial conduct and integrity. It is gross misconduct, even disrespect to the
highest Court of the land, for a respondent judge to exhibit indifference to
the resolution requiring him to comment on the accusations in the complaint.[9] Indifference or defiance to this Court’s
orders or resolutions is punishable with dismissal, suspension, or fine as
warranted by the circumstances.[10]
Complainant further alleged that
respondent judge “failed to evaluate the information” or “sign the warrant of
arrest” because the latter is related by affinity within the fourth civil
degree to one of the accused in the criminal case. The rule is that a judge who
is related within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity to a party is
disqualified from sitting in the case without the consent of all parties,
expressed in writing, signed by them, and entered in the records.[11] Rule 3.12, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct[12] provides:
Rule 3.12 – A judge
should take no part in a proceeding where the judge’s impartiality might
reasonably be questioned. These cases include proceedings where:
x x x x
(d) The judge is
related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the sixth
degree or to counsel within the fourth civil degree; x x x
The rationale of the rule on disqualification of judges springs from the long-standing precept that a judge should not handle a case where there is a perception, rightly or wrongly, that he is susceptible to bias and partiality because of relationship or some other ground.[13]
On the utterances made by respondent
judge, we stress that as a dispenser of justice, a judge should demonstrate
sensitivity in his choice of words as normally expected of men of his stature.
Here, respondent judge used language hardly the kind of circumspect words
expected of a magistrate.
Judges must
observe judicial decorum, which requires a magistrate to be at all times
temperate in his language, refraining from vilification or inflammatory
rhetoric.[14]
It is essential that judges live up to the high standards demanded by the Code
of Judicial Conduct. Patience is an
essential part of dispensing justice and courtesy is a mark of culture and good
breeding. Belligerent behavior has no
place in the judiciary where its judges and personnel should act at all times
with self-restraint and civility even when confronted with rudeness and
insolence.
This is not the first infraction of
respondent judge. In A.M. No. MTJ-02-1398 entitled Enriquez v. Vallarta,[15]
we found respondent judge guilty of ignorance of the law and delay in the
disposition of cases. We fined him P2,000, with a warning that
repetition of similar infractions would merit more severe sanctions.
In another case, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1541
entitled Jacinto v. Vallarta,[16]
the Court found respondent judge guilty
of vulgar and unbecoming conduct and fined him P5,000.
Another administrative case, A.M. No.
MTJ-04-1531 entitled Pastora dela Cruz v. Judge Placido B. Vallarta for
Gross Inefficiency, Gross Negligence, and Gross Ignorance of the Law, is
pending before this Court.
With the previous warning, respondent
judge deserves the maximum administrative penalty, which is dismissal from the
service. However, since respondent judge has resigned from the service, we can
only order the forfeiture of all his benefits, except accrued leave
benefits.
WHEREFORE,
we find respondent Judge Placido B. Vallarta guilty as charged. We declare the FORFEITURE
of all benefits due him, except accrued leave benefits, if any, with prejudice
to re-employment in the government service, including government-owned or
controlled corporations. This judgment is immediately executory.
SO
ORDERED.
Chief 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 |
|
MINITA
V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
[1] Rollo, p. 16.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] The registry return receipt
showed that the notice was received by a certain Gloria B. Vallarta on
[6] Per Certification of Yolanda L. Batoon, Clerk of Court II. Rollo, p. 43.
[7] Grefaldeo v. Judge Lacson, 355 Phil. 266 (1998).
[8] Chan v. Castillo, A.M. No.
P-94-1055,
[9]
[10] Guerrero v. Deray, 442 Phil. 85 (2002).
[11] Lazo v. Judge Tiong, 360 Phil. 359 (1998).
[12] Amended as Section 5, Canon 3 of
the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC,
effective
[13]
Urbanes, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 112884,
[14] Negros Grace Pharmacy, Inc. v. Judge Hilario, 461 Phil. 843 (2003).
[15] 428 Phil. 13 (2002).
[16]