PERLA
BURIAS, A.M. No. MTJ-07-1689
Complainant, [Formerly OCA-I.P.I. No. 07-1897-MTJ]
Present:
QUISUMBING,
J.,
-
versus - Chairperson,
CARPIO
MORALES,
TINGA,
VELASCO,
JR., and
JUDGE
MIRAFE B. VALENCIA, BRION, JJ.
MTC-Irosin,
Sorsogon,
Respondent.
Promulgated:
March 13, 2009
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Tinga,
J.:
In a verified complaint dated
The undisputed facts follow.
On 4 and P5,000.00 and P2,500.00,
respectively. The loans were evidenced
by promissory notes.[1]
On
On
On
On
15 and
On
On
4 and P15,000.00 and
P3,000.00, as evidenced by two (2) handwritten notes.[6]
On
Respondent
denied the motion on
Complainant
moved for reconsideration but the motion was denied by respondent on
In
her administrative complaint, complainant alleged that on P5,000.00 that complainant provided. Said check however was dishonored when
presented for payment by complainant.
She also averred that sometime in March 2007, respondent verbally
demanded from her the sum of P50,000.00 and that her P30,500.000
indebtedness be written off in exchange for a favorable decision in Civil Case
No. 590. According to complainant, she refused to accede to the demands of
respondent. In April 2007, respondent
reportedly called her up and threatened that she would release any of the two
(2) draft decisions she allegedly prepared favoring respondent in the civil
case. Complainant claimed that by reason
of these threats, she was constrained to file the instant administrative case.[9]
In
a 1st Indorsement dated
On
P50,000.00
from complainant and that the P30,500.00 indebtedness be written off for
being malicious, baseless and simply intended to destroy her standing as a
member of the bench.[13] She also denied flaunting the two (2) draft
decisions. While she admitted that the
first eight (8) pages of the purported decisions are similar to her draft, the
rest of their pages differ.[14] She justified the
In a Resolution dated
On
In
its Report dated P21,000.00 with a warning that the
commission of a similar offense in the future shall be dealt with more
severely.[18]
The
OCA held respondent accountable for contracting loans of money from persons
with whom her office has official relations.
It ruled that it was improper for respondent to take a loan from a
party-litigant. However, the OCA
considered the proof inadequate to support the allegation that the loan was
extended on a promised favorable decision. With respect to the charge of delay
in the resolution of Civil Case No. 590, the OCA sustained respondent’s Order
dated
Complainant’s
allegations were categorized by OCA into two issues–the first relates to the
charge of borrowing money and the second deals with the apparent delay in the
resolution of Civil Case No. 590.
This
Court shall proceed to resolve the issues in this order.
With
respect to the charge of borrowing money in exchange for a favorable judgment, Rule
5.02, Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a judge shall
refrain from financial and business dealings that tend to reflect adversely on
the court’s impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of judicial
activities, or increase involvement with lawyers or persons likely to come
before the court. A judge should so manage investments and other financial
interests as to minimize the number of cases giving grounds
for disqualification.
Under
Rule 5.04 of Canon 5, a judge may obtain a loan if no law prohibits such
loan. However, the law prohibits a judge
from engaging in financial transactions with a party-litigant. Respondent admitted borrowing money from
complainant during the pendency of the case.
This act alone is patently inappropriate.[20] The impression that respondent would rule in
favor of complainant because the former is indebted to the latter is what the
Court seeks to avoid. A judge’s conduct
should always be beyond reproach.
This Court has time and again emphasized
that no government position is more demanding of moral righteousness and
uprightness than a seat in the judiciary.
Judges as models of law and justice are mandated to avoid not only
impropriety, but also the appearance of impropriety, because their
conduct affects the people’s faith and confidence in the entire judicial system.[21]
Complainant
also cites intentional delay on the part of respondent as a ground in her
motion for inhibition, which motion was denied by respondent. The OCA however correctly disposed this
issue as a judicial matter which should not be treated as administrative in
character, thus:
x x x hence, the party who alleges to be aggrieved may apply for the appropriate legal remedy. In the absence of such a proceeding, the order either for or against inhibition stands.[22]
However, we do not completely agree
with OCA’s finding on the propriety of the issuance of 6 December 2006
order. Section 10 Rule 70 of the Revised
Rules of Civil Procedure provides:
Sec. 10. Rendition of judgment.—Within thirty (30) days after receipt of the last affidavits and position papers, or the expiration of the period for filing the same, the court shall render judgment.
However should the court find it necessary to clarify certain material facts, it may, during the said period, issue an order specifying the matters to be clarified, and require the parties to submit affidavits or other evidence on the said matters within ten (10) days from receipt of said order. Judgment shall be rendered within fifteen (15) days after the receipt of the last clarificatory affidavits, or the expiration of the period for filing the same.
The court shall not resort to the clarificatory procedure to gain time for the rendition of the judgment.
The above-quoted rule explicitly
mandates that should the court find it necessary to clarify certain material
facts, it shall issue a clarificatory order during said period, which is
construed as “within 30 days after receipt of the last affidavits or position
papers, or the expiration of the periods for filing the same.” The last position paper was filed by
respondent in the civil case on
Be
that as it may, all orders relating to a motion for inhibition should not be
treated as administrative in character.
Under Section 8 in relation to
Section 11, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, borrowing
money or property from lawyers and litigants in a case pending before the court
constitutes a serious charge punishable by any of the following sanctions:
SEC. 11. Sanctions. – A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be imposed:
1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits;
2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or
3. A fine
of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00
Since respondent
retired from service last
WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing, Judge Mirafe B. Valencia of the MTC of Irosin, Sorsogon is meted
with a FINE of P20,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Acting Chief Justice
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
[14]
[21]Adriano v. Judge Villanueva, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1232,