MELY HANSOR MAGPALI,
Complainant, - versus
- Judge MOISES M. PARDO,
Regional Trial Court of Cabarroguis, Quirino, Branch 31,
Respondent. |
A.M. No.
RTJ-08-2146
(Formerly OCA-I.P.I. No.
07-2742-RTJ
Present:
QUISUMBING, J.,
Chairperson,
carpio MORALES, TINGA, VELASCO, JR., and BRION, JJ. Promulgated: November 14, 2008 |
x
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
|
|
|
D E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
BRION, J.: |
|
|
|
|
We
pass upon the verified Complaint dated September 25, 2007 filed by Mely Hansor Magpali
(complainant) charging Judge Moises Pardo (respondent judge, Presiding Judge, Regional
Trial Court, Branch 31, Cabarroguis, Quirino) with violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct in
the handling of Civil Case No. 659-2007 entitled “Mely
Hansor Magpali v. Moises Magpali.”
The
complaint originated from the civil case filed on
The
complainant also alleged that in one of her visits to the court to follow-up
the status of her case, she spoke with a member of the court’s staff (a certain
Mr. Jose Enriquez) and with the respondent judge who inquired about the purpose
of her visit. On learning that she is
the wife of Moises Magpali,
the respondent judge allegedly became hostile and commented that she has no
right to claim any property from her husband because these properties were
acquired prior to their marriage. She
explained that the properties were acquired during their marriage, while Mr.
Enriquez told the respondent judge that the complaint was for support from her
husband. This information elicited the
remark from the respondent judge that the complainant has no right to claim
support. The complainant interpreted
this incident to be a manifestation of the respondent judge’s extreme bias,
partiality in her husband’s favor, and pre-judgment of the case. The complaint
lastly alleged that respondent judge had delayed the hearing of the case
notwithstanding its urgency; in fact, the case had not been set for hearing
since it was filed.
The
respondent judge filed on
The
respondent judge denied the charge that he violated the Code of Judicial
Conduct. To prove his point, he
contended that: he had not issued any order or document in connection with
either of the two cases showing his partiality or bias towards Moises Magpali; the annulment
case was scheduled ahead because the party asked for its scheduling, whereas
the complainant did not in any manner request that her petition for support be
scheduled for hearing; under Rule 18, par. 1, of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, the complaining party should request for the setting of the case for
pre-trial.
The
respondent judge likewise denied the remarks attributed to him by the
complainant and submitted the affidavit of the Clerk of Court Officer-in-Charge
who was present when he talked with the complainant. The affidavit clarified that the respondent
judge did not utter the statements attributed to him. Finally, to convince the complainant of the
absence of any bias against her, the respondent judge issued an Order
inhibiting himself from handling the two cases.
The
OCA informed the Court that the case was already ripe for resolution in a
Report dated
The
OCA recommended that the respondent judge be fined in the amount of P10,000.00
for gross ignorance of the law with a stern warning that a repetition of the
same offense shall be dealt with more severely. The recommendation was based on
an evaluation which reads:
EVALUATION: A close examination of
the records of this administrative case shows that there is no solid evidence
to substantiate the complainant’s allegation of bias and partiality against the
respondent Judge. Bias and partiality
can never be presumed. Bare allegations
of partiality will not suffice in the absence of clear and convincing proof
that will overcome the presumption that the judge dispensed justice according
to law and evidence, without fear and favor (Chin v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. 144618,
Settled is the rule that
in administrative proceedings, the burden of proof that the respondent committed
the acts complained of rests on the complainant. The complainant must be able to show this by
substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion, otherwise, the complaint must be
dismissed (Adajar v. Develos,
A.M. No. P-05-2056, [
In this case, complainant
failed to substantiate the allegation that the respondent Judge exhibited
extreme bias and has already pre-judged her case. Other than her bare allegations, there is
nothing in the records that would prove that the respondent Judge was hostile
and made the remarks that she has no right to claim for support. Complainant could have gathered evidence to
support the alleged bias or partiality of the respondent Judge. On the other hand, respondent Judge was able
to submit an affidavit executed by Mr. Enriquez that no such remark was made or
the cited incident actually occurred. On
the whole, the evidence on record deals only with evidently self-serving
statements of complainant vis-à-vis that of the denial of the respondent Judge.
However, respondent
Judge should be sanctioned when he disregarded a fundamental rule. The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary requires judges to be embodiments of judicial competence
and diligence. Those who accept this
exalted position owe to the public and this Court the ability to be proficient
in the law and the duty to maintain professional competence at all times (Lim v. Dumlao, 454
SCRA 196,
Respondent Judge fell
short of these standards when he failed in his duties to follow elementary law
and to keep abreast with prevailing jurisprudence. His claim that the party did not in any
manner request that the case be scheduled for hearing as provided under Rule
18, par 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, and that it should be the party
who will ask an ex-parte setting/scheduling of the
case for its pre-trial is not exactly correct.
A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC,
We concur with the finding of the OCA
that the respondent judge is answerable for gross ignorance of the law. Indeed,
we find that the respondent judge mishandled the complainant’s case, mainly
because of his lack of a full understanding of the procedural rules applicable
to the case. Without doubt, respondent
judge had been remiss in the performance of his duties by failing to keep
himself updated on the current law, jurisprudence, and the rules of
procedure. As we held in fairly recent
administrative cases,[1] a
magistrate owes to the public and to this Court the duty to be proficient in
the law and to be abreast of legal developments. The respondent judge failed to come up to
this exacting standard and this, we cannot countenance.
We
approve as well the OCA’s recommendation that a fine
of P10,000.00 be imposed on the respondent judge. This level of fine stresses upon all the need
to be legally proficient and competent, while taking into account the level of
harm the judge’s gross ignorance wrought on the complainant.
WHEREFORE, premises considered,
Judge Moises M. Pardo, RTC,
Branch 31, Cabarroguis, Quirino
is hereby FINED in the amount of P10,000.00 for gross ignorance
of the law, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same offense
shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
|
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
[1]