|
JUDGE RIZALINA T.
CAPCO-UMALI, RTC, Complainant, - versus - JUDGE PAULITA B. ACOSTA-VILLARANTE, RTC, City, Respondent. x - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - x JUDGE PAULITA B. ACOSTA-VILLARANTE, RTC, Complainant, -versus- JUDGE RIZALINA T.
CAPCO-UMALI, RTC, Respondent. |
A.M.
No. RTJ-08-2124 [Formerly
A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2631-RTJ] Present: QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO MORALES, BRION, ABAD, JJ. A.M.
No. RTJ-08-2125 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2632-RTJ] Promulgated: August
27, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO
MORALES, J.:
By Complaint-Affidavit of
The facts which spawned
the filing of Judge Capco-Umali’s complaint are not disputed.
Judge Acosta-Villarante
wrote a Memorandum of
This refers
to that unfortunate incident which occurred during the first meeting of
The
conduct of the newly appointed vice executive judge does not speak well of
her being a judge who is expected to conduct herself in a way that is consistent
with the dignity of the judicial office.
While
the meeting of the judges is an ideal forum for the exchange of ideals and
information, and to promote camaraderie among judges in the interest of public
service, there is no assurance that the uncalled for incident on March 23, 2007
will not be repeated.
It
is therefore moved that the holding of monthly meeting of judges be suspended. (Underscoring supplied)
On account of the
underlined statements of Judge Acosta-Villarante in her above-quoted
Memorandum, Judge Capco-Umali filed a complaint for libel docketed as I.S. No.
07-7732-D,[7]
before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City.
Judge Acosta-Villarante countered by also filing
an Administrative Complaint of
By 1st Indorsement of
The details of Judge
Capco-Umali’s complaint are contained in her Complaint-Affidavit for Libel as
follows:
After
having been designated by the Supreme Court a[s] the new Executive Judge and
Vice-Executive Judge, Regional Trial Court, Mandaluyong City, Judge Maria A.
Cancino-Erum and the Vice Executive Judge (complainant) together with
Executive Judge Ofelia Colo of the Metropolitant [sic] Trial Court Br.
59 agreed to pay a courtesy call/visit to May[o]r Neptali “Boyet” Gonzales II,
City Mayor of Mandaluyong City. The visit took place at noontime of
x
x x x
Executive
Judge Maria A. Cancino-Erum for her part informed the Mayor, thus: “Sabi po ni
Judge Villarante nirequest daw niya po iyon sa inyo approved n’yo, at
pinirmahan niya ang payroll. Tinanggap naman po naming [sic] nitong
February.”
But
as regards the additional P3,000 (as Executive Judge) and P5,000 (as Acting
Judge) of Judge Villarante, we told the Mayor that we have no knowledge as to
how they come about…
“Wala
akong alam na request, wala akong inaprove, at lalong wala akong
pangdagdag. Walang pondo. Iyon ngang mga tao ko, hindi ko
maincreasan. E, kayo mga judges kayo,
syempre pirma na lang ako pag prisinta sa akin an[g] payroll.”
The
Mayor summoned LOIDA, her staff and directed the latter to retrieve the
previous payrolls including the 2006 payrolls.
He also said that “ang laki naman ng increase ng Executive Judge, lalo
na ang sa Acting, hindi naman ganyan yan ah.
Pero in case na naaprove ko yan, ibibigay na natin yan sa bagong
Executive Judge at iyong dating Executive Judge, balik sa dati niyang
tinatanggap.”
x
x x x
Come,
“Kayo,
simula ng maupo sa pwesto, wala ng ginawa kundi kutkutin at maghanap ng
evidencia para ako masira, nagsusumbong, nagmamanman. Wala naman pakialaman sa
allowance kanya kanya yan dapat.[”]
Having personal knowledge of the
conversation that transpired at the Mayor’s Office on
For his part, Judge Carlos A.
Valenzuela who admitted his presence during the courtesy call confirmed the
truthfulness of complainant’s report and also confirmed the transfer of
Executive Judge’s allowance to the new Executive Judge thus: “Totoo ang sinabi ni Judge Umali nandoon ako,
ililipat nga allowance sa bagong Executive Judge at ang dating Executive Judge will
receive former amount.”
While complainant is still
enlightening her fellow Judges of the real facts that transpired at the Mayor’s
Office, the respondent kept talking too and even shouting at the top [of]
her voice towards complainant visibly irked by complainant’s revelation on the
matter. Respondent even called complainant a liar (sinungaling) repeatedly[;] when complainant demanded from
respondent her basis for saying that complainant is a liar, respondent was not
able to answer it but continued calling her “sinungaling”. Even telling her to stop talking because her (complainant) voice is so sharp to her
ear (“nakakahiwa boses mo”). Respondent
continued verbally attacking complainant with words connoting malicious
imputations of being an incorrigible liar and of being in cahoots with Judge
Maria A. Cancino-Erum in peddling lies [that] the complainant got upset by the
verbal aggression made by Judge Villarante that she told the latter, thus: “Matanda
ka na, halos malapit ka na sa kamatayan gumagawa ka pa ng ganyan, madadamay pa
kami.” Judge Villarante fought back: “Bog,
Complainant welcomed the challenge,
thus: “handa akong mamatay kahit anong oras dahil wala akong ginagawang
masama”.
At said instance complainant once
more prompted Judge Villarante as to her authority or basis in the increase in
the payroll, and Judge Villarante answered: “May nag-oofer nga!”.
More heated exchanges ensued because
Judge Villarante kept o[n] saying sinungaling to the complainant.
Thereafter, cooler heads intervened.
Judge Edwin Sorongon… brought respondent out of the room while Atty. Leynard
Dumlao [was] pacifying the complainant.[11]
(Emphasis partly in the original and partly supplied; underscoring supplied; italics
in the original)
By Comment
of
In
causing the circulation of the Memorandum, Judge Acosta-Villarante explained that
she had an “obligation to bring to the attention of concerned officials the
personal demeanor of another member that would put the Judiciary in constant
public scrutiny and disrespect.” Her version of the incident goes:
After taking up the first agenda of the meeting x x x, the agenda on
allowances of Judges was called to be taken up.
Whereupon, Complainant requested to take the floor and
manifested as follows:
Judge P.A. Villarante:
“mga kapwa kong Hukom, bago natin
talakayin ang agenda ng allowances, maari bang ipaabot ko sa kaalaman ng lahat
na may tumawag ng aking kaalaman at pansin na mayroon di-umanong Hukom ng
“x x x Ugnay sa representation sa
pagtaas ng allowance ng Judges sa local Government ay napagbigyan naman. Pakiusap
ko, huwag naman siraan ang kapwa x x x,” at iba pa.
On the matter, a Judge
in the group made a comment – to wit:
“x x x upang maiwasan ang hindi
pagkakaunawaan ng isa’t isa sa atin, hinihiling ko sa bawa’t isa sa atin na
kung ano ang tinatanggap ng sino man sa atin, huwag ng questionin x x x” at iba
pa.
at that juncture Judge Capco-Umali stood
up and in a mode of anger pointing a finger against herein Complainant, she
repeatedly said in a loud voice:
“Matanda
ka na…! Mamamatay ka na!...” at iba pa na may kahalintulad.
On the impropriety of the unruly and
disrespect behavior and conduct of Judge Capco-Umali in the presence of
fellow-judges and others, a Judge tried to say something in an effort to
appease her unruliness, but she kept on unkindly berating herein Complainant
who was then speechless out of her shock on her unexpected behavior.
Regaining
a bit of composure and wit, Complainant appealed to the respondent in this
manner:
“x
x x Judge Umali magpakatao at makinig ka naman para makapagunawaan tayo,
nakakahiya na ito x x x”
to which she became more angry and shouted –
“x x x Judge ako! Judge ako x x x!”.
as she was pounding her breast continuously
with her fist; because of the shock and fright generated by the unruly behavior
of respondent, complainant did not clearly comprehend the rest of her berating
statements made against her in the process.
When
respondent Judge Umali already appeared to be more uncontrollable in her
decorum, complainant then in fear took steps to get out of the place with Judge
Sorongon then tending her on her shoulder assisted her in haste towards the
exit door; and when about to step out of the exit door, complainant turning her
face on the then commotion at her back she saw Respondent Judge Umali still
berating her and in the act of catching her at the back but on the then timely
intervention of Atty. Leynard Dumlao who then was close at complainant’s back,
prevented respondent to reach her who then hastily moved to the safety of her
courtroom still with the assistance of Judge Sorongon, thus complainant got out
of the wrath of respondent Judge Umali.[13]
(Italics and underscoring in the original)
In her
In her June 8, 2007 Reply,[15]
Judge Acosta- Villarante, admitting calling
Judge Capco-Umali “sinungaling,” explained that she was only
“constrained” by the situation, adding that Judge Capco-Umali is a
“pathological liar.”
In its
x x x x
The admissions made by the concerned Judges anent the allegations they
hurled against each other provide for the strongest evidence to establish their individual liability.
Time and again, the Court has
constantly reminded Judges that as magistrates of the law, they must comport
themselves at all times in such a manner that their conduct, official or
otherwise, can bear the most searching scrutiny of the public that looks up to
them as epitome of integrity and justice. They must be the first to abide by
the law and weave an example for others to follow. They must studiously avoid
even the slightest infraction of the law (Alumbres vs. Caoibes, A.M. No.
RTJ-99-1431,
Section 1, Canon 4 of the New Code
of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (A.M. [No.] 03-05-01-SC,
[effective]
Judge
Capco-Umali failed to live up to the standard of propriety entrenched
in the aforequoted code of conduct. While, she might have been provoked by
Judge Acosta-Villarante’s referral to her as a liar, she should have
maintained her composure instead of shouting back at a fellow judge. She
should have exercised self-restraint instead of reacting in such a very
inappropriate manner considering that she is in the presence of fellow Judges
and other employees of
Judge Capco-Umali, however, does not
bear this responsibility alone. Judge Acosta-Villarante should also be
required to answer for her failure to observe the basic norm of propriety
demanded from a judge in relation with the aforementioned
Judge Acosta-Villarante also
repeated the uncalled for conduct when she wrote the memorandum dated
Judge Acosta-Villarante cannot also use as justification in writing and circulating of the memorandum the claim that “she has an obligation to bring to the attention of concerned officials the personal demeanor of another member that would put the Judiciary in constant public scrutiny and disrespect” pursuant to her oath of office. As a Judge, respondent Acosta-Villarante is aware that there are proper avenues for ventilation of grievance against anyone in government service…. Moreover, the termination of the conflict between her and Judge Capco-Umali (through the suggestion of giving the parties opportunity for “cooling off”) is clearly not what she is up to for what she did only worsened the situation (with the filing of several complaints and counter-complaints).
An act complained of anchored on a violation of Code of Judicial Conduct, may only constitute a serious charge under Section 8 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court if the same amounts to gross misconduct. The respective acts for which the herein respondents have been charged do not amount to gross misconduct. Thus, the charges against them cannot be considered serious. Nevertheless, respondents should be held administratively liable for violation of Section 1, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. Under Section 11(B) in relation to Section 9 (A) of Rule 140, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, violation of Supreme Court rules constitutes a less serious charge. Respondents, therefore, may be sanctioned with: [1] suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than (1) nor more than three (3) months; or [2] a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.
In the case of Judge Capco-Umali, however, the imposable penalty should be tempered because it is clear from the record that she was dragged into the tiff by an act of provocation.[17] (Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Thus, for violating Section 1, Canon
4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct which is a less serious charge under
Section 11(B) in relation to Section 9 (A) of Rule 140, as amended by A.M. No.
01-8-10-SC, the OCA recommended that Judges Capco-Umali and Acosta-Villarante
be fined in the amount of P11,000 and P16,000, respectively.
The Court
finds the evaluation of the complaints by the OCA well-taken.
Courts are
looked upon by the people with high respect. Misbehavior by judges and employees
necessarily diminishes their dignity.
Any fighting or misunderstanding is a disgraceful occurrence reflecting
adversely on the good image of the Judiciary.[18]
By fighting within the court premises, respondent judges failed to observe the
proper decorum expected of members of the Judiciary. More detestable is the fact that their
squabble arose out of a mere allowance coming from the local government.
Under Rule 140, as amended by A.M.
No. 01-8-10-SC[19] (P10,000 but not exceeding P20,000.
The Court finds, however, that Judges
Capco-Umali and Acosta-Villarante should each be fined P11,000.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds
Judges Rizalina T. Capco-Umali and Paulita B. Acosta-Villarante GUILTY of
violation of Section 1, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary, for which they are each FINED in the amount of Eleven
Thousand (P11,000) Pesos.
In view of the retirement of Judge
Paulita B. Acosta-Villarante, the Fiscal Management and Budget Office, Office
of the Court Administrator is ordered to DEDUCT the amount of Eleven Thousand
Pesos (P11,000) from her retirement benefits.
Judge Rizalina T. Capco-Umali, who is still in the service, is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of
similar acts will be dealt with more severely. The same stern warning applies to retired
Judge Paulita B. Acosta-Villarante in her capacity as a member of the Bar.
SO
ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
MARIANO C. Associate Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
[1] Rollo, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2124, pp. 1-5.
[2] Compulsorily retired from the
service on
[3] A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC (
[4] SEC. 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the people’s faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but must also be seen to be done.
[5] SECTION 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.
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.
[6] Rollo, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2124, p. 6.
[7]
[8] Supra note 5.
[9] Rollo, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2124, pp. 170-174.
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] Rollo, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2125, pp. 6-9.
[14]
[15]
[16] Rollo, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2124, pp. 384-393.
[17]
[18] Re: Fighting Incident Between Two
(2) SC Drivers, Namely, Messrs. Edilberto L. Idulsa and Ross C. Romero, A.M
No. 2008-24-SC, July 14, 2009; Nacionales
v. Madlangbayan, A.M. No.
P-06-2171,
[19] Took
effect on