Republic of the
Supreme Court
FIRST DIVISION
|
OLIVIA LAUREL, Court
Stenographer III, DIANA RAMOS, Utility Worker, both of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 25, Biñan, Laguna and HERMINIA JAVIER, Clerk III, RTC-Office of
the Clerk of Court, Biñan, Laguna, and ALBERTO R. NOFUENTE, 3rd Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor of Laguna, Complainants, - versus - JUDGE PABLO B.
FRANCISCO, Presiding Judge,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, Sta. Cruz, Laguna, Respondent. x - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - x
JUDGE PABLO B.
FRANCISCO, Presiding Judge,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, Sta. Cruz, Laguna, Complainant, - versus - OLIVIA LAUREL, Court
Stenographer III, DIANA RAMOS, Utility Worker, both of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 25, Biñan, Laguna and HERMINIA JAVIER, Clerk III, RTC-Office of
the Clerk of Court, Biñan, Laguna, Respondents. x - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x JUDGE PABLO B.
FRANCISCO, Presiding Judge,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, Sta. Cruz, Laguna, Complainant, - versus - OLIVIA LAUREL, Court
Stenographer III, and DIANA RAMOS, Utility Worker, all of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 25, Biñan, Laguna, Respondents. x - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x JUDGE
PABLO B. FRANCISCO, Presiding Judge,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, Sta. Cruz, Laguna, Complainant, - versus - GERARDO P. HERNANDEZ,
Clerk of Court V, JULIAN R. ORFIANO, JR., Court Legal Researcher III, MARIA
FE L. LOPEZ, Court Stenographer III, DIOSALYN N. PEREZ, Court Stenographer
III, and JULIETA M. CHAVES, Court Stenographer III, all of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 24, Biñan, Laguna, Respondents. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- x JUDGE PABLO B.
FRANCISCO, Presiding Judge,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, Sta. Cruz, Laguna,
Complainant, - versus - NICANOR B. ALFONSO,
Process Server, ANGELITO A. BATI, Utility Worker I, ARNEL G. MAGAT, Sheriff
IV, HERMINIA S. JAVIER, Clerk III, all of the Regional Trial Court-Office of
the Clerk of Court, BENEDICTO B. PASCUAL, Interpreter III, DIANA A. RAMOS,
Utility Worker I, OLIVIA M. LAUREL, Court Stenographer III, ANDREW A. SANTOS,
Clerk III, RAMON LUIS SEVILLA, Process Server, all of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 25, Biñan, Laguna, JULIAN R. ORFIANO, JR., Court Legal
Researcher II, CARIDAD D. CUEVILLAS, Clerk III, CARMELITA D. MORENO, Clerk
III, MA. FE L. LOPEZ, Court Stenographer III, DIOSALYN N. PEREZ, Court
Stenographer III, JULIETA M. CHAVES,
Court Stenographer III, all of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Biñan,
Laguna and ATTY. MELVIN D.C. MANE, Clerk of Court V, Respondents. x - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
JUDGE PABLO B.
FRANCISCO, Presiding Judge,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, Sta. Cruz, Laguna, Complainant, - versus - CARIDAD D. CUEVILLAS,
Clerk III, Branch 24, Regional Trial Court, Biñan, Laguna, Respondent. x - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x JUDGE PABLO B. FRANCISCO, Presiding Judge,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, Sta. Cruz, Laguna, Complainant, - versus - HERMINIA S. JAVIER,
Clerk III, NICANOR B. ALFONSO, Process Server, ANGELITO A. BATI, Utility
Worker I, ARNEL G. MAGAT, Sheriff IV, all of the Regional Trial Court-Office
of the Clerk of Court, Biñan, Laguna, CARIDAD D. CUEVILLAS, Clerk III,
CARMELITA D. MORENO, Clerk III, DIOSALYN N. PEREZ, Court Stenographer III,
MARIA FE LOPEZ, Court Stenographer III, JULIAN ORFIANO, JR., Legal Researcher
III, all of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Biñan, Laguna, BENEDICTO
PASCUAL, Court Interpreter III, RAMON LUIS SEVILLA, Process Server, ANDREW A.
SANTOS, Clerk III and OLIVIA M. LAUREL, Court Stenographer III, all of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 25, Biñan, Laguna. Respondents. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- x JUDGE
PABLO B. FRANCISCO, Presiding Judge,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, Sta. Cruz, Laguna, Complainant, - versus - ATTY. ROWENA A. MALABANAN- GALEON, Clerk of Court V and
BENEDICTO PASCUAL, Court Interpreter III, both of Branch 25, Regional Trial
Court, Biñan, Laguna,
Respondents. x - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x JUDGE
PABLO B. FRANCISCO, Presiding Judge,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, Sta. Cruz, Laguna, Complainant, - versus - ATTY. ROWENA A.
MALABANAN-GALEON, Clerk of Court V, Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Biñan,
Laguna,
Respondent. x - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x JUDGE
PABLO B. FRANCISCO, Presiding Judge,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, Sta. Cruz, Laguna, Complainant, - versus - ATTY. ROWENA A. MALABANAN-GALEON, Clerk of Court V and
OLIVIA M. LAUREL, Court Stenographer III, both of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 25, Biñan, Laguna, Respondents. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- x JOEL O. ARELLANO and
ARNEL M. MAGAT, both Deputy Sheriff, Regional Trial Court-Office of the Clerk
of Court, Biñan, Laguna, Complainants. - versus - JUDGE
PABLO B. FRANCISCO, Presiding Judge,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, Sta. Cruz, Laguna, Respondent. |
A.M. No. RTJ-06-1992 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 98-603-RTJ) A.M. No. P-10-2745 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 98-511-P) A.M. No. RTJ-00-1992 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 00-974-P) A.M. No. P-10-2746 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 00-963-P) A.M. No. P-10-2747 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 99-740-P) A.M. No. P-10-2748 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 99-573-P) A.M. No. P-10-2749 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 02-1338-P) A.M. No. P-10-2750 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 02-1410-P) A.M. No. P-10-2751 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 02-1411-P) A.M.
No. P-03-1706 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 02-1409-P) A.M. No. RTJ-10-2214 (Formerly OCA
I.P.I. No. 02-1592-RTJ) Present: Chairperson,
NACHURA,* LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, PERALTA,* and ABAD,* JJ. Promulgated: July 6, 2010 |
x - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- x
D E C I S I O
N
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
For our resolution are 11 consolidated administrative cases.
While Judge
Pablo B. Francisco (Judge Francisco) was detailed as acting Presiding Judge of
Branch 25, and later on, of Branch 24, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Biñan, Laguna, he instituted nine administrative complaints (A.M. No.
P-10-2745, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1992, A.M. No. P-10-2746, A.M. No. P-10-2747, A.M.
No. P-10-2748, A.M. No. P-10-2749, A.M. No. P-10-2750, A.M. No. P-10-2751, and
A.M. No. P-03-1706) against the following
officers and rank and file personnel of the RTC of Biñan, Laguna:
|
NAMES[1] (in
alphabetical order) |
POSITIONS |
|
Nicanor B. Alfonso |
Process
Server |
|
Joel O. Arellano |
Sheriff |
|
Angelito A. Bati |
Utility
Worker |
|
Julieta M. Chaves |
Court
Stenographer III |
|
Caridad D. Cuevillas |
Clerk III |
|
Atty. Rowena M. Galeon |
Branch Clerk
of Court |
|
Atty. Gerardo P. Hernandez |
Clerk of
Court V |
|
Herminia Javier |
Clerk III |
|
Olivia Laurel |
Court Stenographer III |
|
Maria Fe L. Lopez |
Court Stenographer
III |
|
Arnel G. Magat |
Sheriff IV |
|
Atty. Melvin D.C. Mane |
Branch Clerk
of Court |
|
Carmelita D. Moreno |
Clerk III |
|
Julian R. Orfiano, Jr. |
Court Legal
Researcher II |
|
Benedicto B. Pascual |
Interpreter
III |
|
Diosalyn N. Perez |
Court
Stenographer III |
|
Diana Ramos |
Utility Worker |
|
Andrew A. Santos |
Clerk III |
|
Ramon Luis Sevilla |
Process
Server |
The two other administrative
cases at bar were filed against Judge Francisco: (1) A.M. No. RTJ-06-1992, by
Javier, Laurel, and Ramos, together with Prosecutor Alberto R. Nofuente (Pros.
Nofuente); and (2) A.M. No. RTJ-10-2214, by Magat and one Joel O. Arellano
(Arellano).
We consolidated all 11 administrative cases for a more expedient and
exhaustive determination, since all said cases were related to each other and
essentially involve the same parties, issues, and causes of action. However, also considering the insufficiency
of the records initially available to us, and our inability to resolve the
issues based only on the pleadings submitted by the parties, we agreed in the
recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to refer the
cases to the Court of Appeals for investigation, report, and
recommendation. The cases were raffled
to Associate Justice Roberto A. Barrios of the Court of Appeals.
I
FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS
Judge Francisco was originally
assigned as the Presiding Judge of RTC-Branch 26 of Sta. Cruz, Laguna. After encountering a disconcerting problem in
an election case, Judge Francisco requested that he be detailed elsewhere. He was thereafter detailed as the acting
Presiding Judge of RTC-Branch 25 of Biñan, Laguna from January 1996 to January 1998, and then of RTC-Branch 24,
also of Biñan, Laguna, from
February 1998 to September 1998.
At first, the relations between Judge
Francisco and the personnel of the RTC of Biñan, Laguna, were friendly and harmonious, but animosity crept in after
some time. Even then Executive Judge
Helario Corcuera (Executive Judge Corcuera) and Judge Rodrigo Cosico[2]
of the RTC of Biñan, Laguna, were brought into the fray, with Judge Francisco filing various administrative
complaints against the previous two judges, which were eventually dismissed.
In a letter[3]
dated August 3, 1998 to Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo (Benipayo),
Alfonso, Arellano, Bati, Cuevillas, Javier, Laurel, Lopez, Magat, Atty. Mane,
Moreno, Orfiano, Pascual, Perez, Ramos, Santos, and Sevilla expressed their
sentiments against Judge Francisco, and demanded that said judge be relieved of
his detail at the RTC of Biñan, Laguna and be ordered to return to his
permanent post at the RTC of Sta. Cruz, Laguna.
The court personnel wrote:
We, the undersigned
court personnels of Regional Trial Court, Branches XXIV and XXV and Office of
the Clerk of Court, Biñan, Laguna respectfully communicate and convey unto your
Honorable Office our sentiments toward temporary Presiding Judge, HON. PABLO B.
FRANCISCO of Branch XXIV, RTC-Biñan, Laguna.
It is the wish of the
overwhelming court personnels to have a good and harmonious relationship with
their judges so they can have a pleasant working condition to ensure a prompt
and efficient performance of their duties and responsibilities. Unfortunately, this wish is now difficult and
probably impossible to achieve in the Regional Trial Court, Biñan, Laguna
during the incumbency of HON. PABLO B. FRANCISCO in RTC-Branch XXIV.
It all began when
Judge Francisco was ordered by your Office to vacate Branch XXV and assume his
temporary assignment in Branch XXIV.
From them on, we never had an occasion to have an ideal mood and nice
atmosphere to perform efficiently our assigned tasks in the judiciary. Four (4) of the staff in Branch XXIV were
charged administratively for inexistent and imaginary reasons solely to show his
might to those who go against him even on personal matters.
Two (2) employees in
Branch XXV and one (1) from the Office of the Clerk of Court and even the
Assistant Provincial Public Prosecutor were likewise victims of his suspicious
mind when he cited them in direct contempt based on concocted ideas which could
have cost their liberties for a period of nine (9) days if not for the timely
temporary restraining order issued by the Honorable Court of Appeals.
Two (2) deputy
sheriffs [of] the Court were obliged by HON. PABLO B. FRANCISCO to contribute
Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) each to defray the “salary” of his
personal bodyguard which amount is a big imposition on their meager
salary. Out of fear, the two (2)
sheriffs were constrained to shoulder that burden even though it is against
their will.
Court employees had
to bear insults even in open Court for slightest mistakes. He always gives bad interpretation to
laughters and smiles. He always
interpreted glances to mean making faces to ridicule him. He is also fond of delivering speeches in
open Court and even after court sessions practically accusing all court
personnel in RTC-Biñan, Laguna, are engaged in graft and corruption. Demoralizing remarks to humiliate and
downgrade reputation and morals as public servants of employees are more often
than not the order of the day. This
uncalled behavior already caused the untimely resignation of his Branch Clerk
of Court and utility aide and probably we will end up the same if his continued
stay in Branch XXIV will be allowed by your Honorable Office.
Lately, he announced
that he will prevent any retirement benefits available to those future retirees
as he is decided to file administrative cases against each and every one of the
Court personnel.
We, the undersigned
Court employees of Branches XXIV and XXV of the Regional Trial Court are now
totally demoralized, scared and afraid of the vindictive mind and future moves
of HON. PABLO B. FRANCISCO. Fears now
engulfed our minds as simple glances on him might cost our liberties if not our
positions.
Thus, we are
respectfully appealing unto your Honorable Office to give due course to this
petition of ours to forestall a total demoralization if not complete
destruction of this component part of the judiciary.
Furthermore, we
understand that Hon. RTC-Judge Pablo B. Francisco has a pending request to
extend his stay as Presiding Judge in Branch XXIV up to October 1, 1998. As things stand now in our Court, we
respectfully appeal to you that the said request of Hon. Pablo B. Francisco be
turned down and instead he be ordered to return soonest to his original and
legitimate sala at Branch XXVI RTC-Sta. Cruz, Laguna.
Furthermore, HON.
PABLO B. FRANCISCO boasts that he is [a nephew of HON. CHIEF JUSTICE ANDRES V.
NARVAZA], and consequently, he is untouchable.
We do hope this to be false.
We earnestly appeal
that HON. PABLO B. FRANCISCO be ordered to return to his legitimate station in
Branch XXVI of Regional Trial Court, Sta. Cruz, Laguna, where he belongs or
somewhere else but not in Biñan, Laguna.
Should you desire, we
are willing to have an audience with you to enable us to ventilate our
grievances.[4]
Aware of the open animosity exhibited between Judge Francisco and
several personnel of the RTC of Biñan, Laguna, and its damaging effect on the administration of justice,
some members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), practicing their
profession in Biñan, Laguna, sent a letter[5]
dated August 19, 1998 to then Court Administrator Benipayo, likewise requesting
the return of Judge Francisco to his original court of assignment at RTC-Branch
26 of Sta. Cruz, Laguna.
After consideration of the two letters, we issued Administrative Order
No. 113-98 on August 27, 1998 revoking the designation of Judge Francisco as
acting Presiding Judge of RTC-Branch 24 of Biñan, Laguna.
Despite Judge Francisco’s return to
the RTC of Sta. Cruz, Laguna, the administrative charges and counter-charges
between Judge Francisco and the personnel of RTC of Biñan, Laguna, still subsist and await our resolution.
In a Resolution dated August 19, 2003,
the Court En Banc accepted the resignation of Judge Francisco upon the
recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator without prejudice to
the continuation and outcome of the proceedings of the administrative complaints
filed against him.
A.M. No. RTJ-06-1992
As the acting Presiding Judge of RTC-Branch 24 of Biñan, Laguna, Judge Francisco issued an Order[6]
dated July 14, 1998 holding Javier, Laurel, Ramos, and Pros. Nofuente guilty of
Direct Contempt, for supposedly disrupting the court proceedings in Sp. Proc.
No. B-2433 held on July 14, 1998, and sentencing them to nine days’
imprisonment at the Biñan Municipal Jail.
Javier, Laurel, Ramos and Pros. Nofuente filed before the Court of
Appeals a Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition with a prayer for the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction,
docketed as CA-G.R. SP. No. 48356. In
its Resolution dated July 23, 1998, the Court of Appeals issued a Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO) against the implementation of Judge Francisco’s July
14, 1998 Order. Subsequently, the
appellate court promulgated its Decision[7]
dated September 9, 1998, setting aside the assailed Direct Contempt Order for
having been issued by Judge Francisco with grave abuse of discretion. Judge Francisco’s appeal of the Court of
Appeals judgment was denied by this Court.[8]
Judge Francisco’s issuance of the Order dated July 14, 1998 also led to
the filing by Javier, Laurel, Ramos, and Pros. Nofuente of a Complaint for Gross Ignorance of the Law and Incompetence
against Judge Francisco. According to
the Complaint, Judge Francisco’s Direct Contempt Order was issued in violation
of due process and Rule 71, Section 1 of the Rules of Court. Said Complaint was docketed as A.M. No. RTJ-06-1992.
Pros. Nofuente narrated that around 10:00 a.m. on said date, he was with
Zenaida Manansala (Manansala), a complainant in one of the cases he was
handling at the RTC-Branch 25 of Biñan, Laguna, to request Process Server Sevilla to subpoena the next
witness in Manansala’s case. Pros.
Nofuente maintained that his voice was in the ordinary conversational volume
which could not have disrupted the court proceedings, if there was any at
all. He was just one or two meters away
from the courtroom and, at that time, Judge Francisco was not wearing his robe
and was seated at the lawyers’ table.
Pros. Nofuente denied he was conversing with Laurel and Ramos for the
latter two were inside the staff room, busily doing their assigned tasks. They were all within the sight of Judge
Francisco, but they were not aware that Judge Francisco was already throwing
dagger looks at them. When Pros.
Nofuente left, Judge Francisco shouted “Mga
tarantado kayo.” Three days after
the incident, Judge Francisco released the Order declaring, not only Laurel,
Ramos, and Pros. Nofuente, but also Javier, guilty of Direct Contempt.
Laurel and Ramos also denied that they disrupted the court proceedings
in Sp. Proc. No. B-2433 on July 14, 1998.
Both of them could not remember talking to each other or to anybody or
making noise at that time. Judge
Francisco did not call their attention for the supposed disruption although his
sala was just one or two meters away
from their office.
Javier, for her part, argued that she was cited of direct contempt in absencia.
She was not within the court
premises at 10:00 a.m. of July 14, 1998, as she was in Landbank, Calamba,
Laguna to encash her check. She
presented her Daily Time Record (DTR) for the month of July, showing that on
July 14, 1998, she reported for work only for half a day, particularly, from
1:00 to 5:00 p.m. Javier also asserted
that she had not even once disrupted court proceedings by boisterous
conversation or laughter or by making any noise within the court premises.
In his Answer, Judge Francisco explained that his Direct Contempt Order
was not the result of a single disrespectful act, but the culmination of a
series of discourteous acts of Javier, Laurel, Ramos, and Pros. Nofuente, which
impeded the administration of justice, particularly, causing the disruption of
the court proceedings in Sp. Proc. No. B-2433 on July 14, 1998. Judge Francisco recounted that:
For several months
now, after the undersigned Presiding Judge vacated Branch 25 of this Court, a
group of persons composed of Assistant Public Prosecutor Alberto R. Nofuente of
the Department of Justice, and Olivia Laurel, Diana Ramos and Herminia Javier,
court employees, has subjected the undersigned to spite and ridicule. Prosecutor Nofuente, in more than a dozen
times, while within the court premises and upon sensing the presence of the
Presiding Judge anywhere near him, would evidently blurt unsavory remarks aimed
at the Presiding Judge although most of the time he would make them appear to
be directed at Mayet, the food caterer of court employees. At one time, Prosecutor Nofuente even spit on
the floor to show his ill will for the Presiding Judge who was passing by. The group also would frequently engage
themselves even during office hours in raucous laughter within the presence and
hearing of the Presiding Judge with nothing funny to laugh about. At one time, the Presiding Judge caught Diana
Ramos acting like a cheerleader, egging on Prosecutor Nofuente, Olivia Laurel
and Herminia Javier to laugh harder simultaneously, which prompted the
Presiding Judge to call the attention of Olivia Laurel about her group’s
uncanny behavior. Even during court
sessions of Branch 24, Olivia Laurel and Herminia Javier would throw sharp
glances and make faces at the Presiding Judge.
Almost every member of this group has an axe to grind against the
Presiding Judge for events which transpired during his incumbency in Branch
25. Olivia Laurel was eased out of [her]
position as OIC-Branch Clerk of Court after the undersigned recommended a
lawyer, a qualified one, in her place.
Diana Ramos was caught by the undersigned tearing certain pages of case
records and was publicly rebuked for it.
The Presiding Judge had refused to drop charges against a relative of
Herminia Javier arising out of the implementation of a search warrant. Of course, Herminia’s unwavering loyalty to
her group knows no bounds. Prosecutor
Nofuente had on several occasions asked from the undersigned for the dismissal
of certain criminal cases but which request were all refused on the ground that
the evidence of guilt was strong. The
prosecutor was also criticized severely by the Presiding Judge in several court
decisions for filing about twenty (20) faulty informations in incestuous rape cases
which absolved the accused from the death penalty.
Lately, the group has
been disrupting proceedings in Branch 24 by creating noise through boisterous
conversations punctuated by laughters inside the court premises.
In the hearing of
Special Proceedings No. B-2433, on July 14, 1998, at about 10:00 o’clock a.m.,
the session was disrupted lengthily because Prosecutor Nofuente engaged in a
monologue at the top of his voice so near the place where the proceedings are
going on and drowning out in the process the examination being conducted by the
Presiding Judge on William Martinez.
When the Presiding
Judge was about to confront him, Prosecutor Nofuente hastily entered his nearby
office. At lunch time, the group of
Prosecutor Nofuente was heard by the Presiding Judge laughing heartily over the
incident.
The Court expected
Prosecutor Nofuente to explain at least why he committed those acts which
disrupted the proceedings in Special Proceedings No. B-2433, but up to now he
has not done so, which arrogance led the Court to conclude that he did disrupt
said session deliberately.[9]
Judge Francisco presented as evidence the transcript of stenographic
notes (TSN) of the hearing of Sp. Proc. No. B-2433 on July 14, 1998, taken down
by Lopez, to prove what actually transpired during the proceedings:
TRANSCRIPT
Of stenographic notes taken down by the undersigned
Court Stenographer during the hearing of the above-entitled case on July 14,
1998 at 10:30 o’clock in the morning.
Presided over by the Hon. PABLO B. FRANCISCO, Presiding Judge.
x x x x
COURT
What kind of drug or drugs are you taking
in?
Shabu, Your Honor.
COURT
Since when have you been taking shabu? (At this juncture, the presiding judge
appears to be irritated by the loud voice of Fiscal Nofuente).
For a year, Your Honor.
COURT
Were you examined by Dr. Melinda Fernando?
Yes, Your Honor.
COURT
And what was the result of the
examination. Is this the record?
(Examining the record) (At this juncture,
the Presiding Judge stood up to confront the person creating noise.)
Yes, Your Honor.
COURT
Your father wants you to be rehabilitated,
are you willing to be sent to a rehabilitation center?
Yes, Your Honor.
COURT
Are you willing to comply with the rules
and regulations set by any of the rehabilitation centers of your choice?
Yes, Your Honor
(At this juncture, the Presiding Judge was
advised by the stenographer to rest because his face was becoming reddish.)
COURT
Please
place on record that the proceedings was disturbed because of the loud voice
coming from Provincial Prosecutor Alberto Nofuente who was laughing and
discussing in a very loud voice a certain matter with the employees of Branch
25 and the Presiding Judge has called the attention of those concerned,
especially employees of Branch 25 about disturbing the hearing of this
case. Let it be recorded further that
this is not the first time that Provincial Prosecutor Alberto Nofuente has
caused such disturbance while proceedings at Branch 24 is going on.
(Emphasis ours).[10]
Judge Francisco further explained that it took him almost three days to
release the Direct Contempt Order because he first had to confer with Executive
Judge Corcuera as two of the respondents, Laurel and Ramos, were the Executive
Judge’s subordinates and their work might be disrupted. Judge Francisco also brought up the matter
with Emilina Santos, Javier’s mother, who was also an employee at the
RTC-Branch 25 of Biñan,
Laguna. He also relayed the controversy
to Atty. Julita Escueta-Gonzales, a close friend of Laurel, Ramos and Javier,
who promised to work out a peaceful settlement among the parties but Judge
Francisco never received any apology or expression of regret from Javier,
Laurel, Ramos, or Pros. Nofuente. Judge
Francisco also averred that after the Court of Appeals issued a TRO in CA-G.R.
SP. No. 48356, enjoining the implementation of the Direct Contempt Order, Pros.
Nofuente roamed around the court premises during office hours, and the loud
conversations and raucous laughter of the prosecutor and his group could be
heard all the way inside the judge’s chamber.
As a result, Judge Francisco sent a letter to Executive Judge Corcuera
stating that if such disrespectful attitude would continue then he would issue
another contempt citation.[11]
Judge Francisco added
that Pros. Nofuente’s story that he was simply requesting for the issuance of
subpoena from Process Server Sevilla was hypocritical since a process server
has no authority to issue a subpoena, a request for subpoena cannot be made
orally, and RTC-Branch 25 of Biñan, Laguna was not in session at that time.
A.M. No. P-10-2745
Judge Francisco’s Answer in A.M. No. RTJ-06-1992 served as his Complaint for Grave
Misconduct against Javier, Laurel, and Ramos, and was docketed as A.M. No. P-10-2745.
Investigating Officer Justice Barrios summed up Judge Francisco’s
charges against Javier, Laurel, and Ramos as follows:
In charging
Regarding his complaint against Ramos, Judge
Francisco averred that she glorifies herself as a clerk in charge of civil
cases when in truth is she is but a utility worker who moonlights as caterer,
and which is why she is absent most of the time. In the month of December 1996 alone, Ramos
reported to work for only 2 days. She
did not file her leave of absence but she was able to draw her full month’s
salary because
As to Judge Francisco’s complaint against Javier,
it was alleged that she is a close relative of a certain Alfredo Artecen. Sometime in August 1997, CIS operatives
stationed in Pacita Complex, San Pedro, Laguna, applied for a search
warrant. Due to the irregular service of
said search warrant, the Court asked the CIS Operatives and the wife of Alfredo
Artecen to explain why they should not be held for contempt. Javier expressed her displeasure to the show
cause order, and told Judge Francisco that she would not testify for the arrest
of Alfredo Artecen. Apart from this,
Laurel, Javier and Ramos converged most of the time during office hours near
the table of
In their Joint Comment, Javier, Laurel, and Ramos claimed that Judge
Francisco’s accusations against them were malicious and made to satisfy the
judge’s personal grudge against them.
Justice Barrios, in his Report, provided the following summary of
Javier’s,
Ramos for her part declared that aside from being a
utility worker she also works as a record custodian of civil cases, but
strangely this is not known to Judge Francisco.
Ramos stated that she acted as the maid of Judge Francisco for a long
time. She was tasked with the cleaning
of his chamber and the court premises, including serving him free snacks,
shining his shoes, preparing his bench, stitching his pants, and other errands
she never could say no to, and a dance instructor in his ballroom practices
which sometimes starts at 3:00 o’clock p.m. and lasts until midnight. Ramos denied that she moonlights as caterer,
although she admitted having cooked food but then only for a few relatives and
mostly during Christmas season and for free.
She stated however that she cooked on the request of Judge Francisco
every time he arranged ballroom parties.
Javier also denied the allegations against her and
averred that there was no instance that she showed her displeasure over the
actions taken by Judge Francisco in the case of Alfredo Artecen. She could have easily warned Alfredo Artecen
who happened to be his neighbor about the search warrant, but she did not. [13]
In addition, Javier, Laurel, and Ramos accused Judge Francisco of
falsifying the TSN of the proceedings in Sp. Proc. No. B-2433 on July 14,
1998. They alleged that Judge Francisco
coerced and threatened Stenographic Reporter Lopez to insert and add words,
phrases, and situations in the said transcript to make it appear that Pros.
Nofuente disrupted court proceedings. Lopez
even executed an Affidavit attesting that she was pressured by Judge Francisco
into entering the said falsities into the TSN, to wit:
1.
I am
one of the court stenographer assigned at the Regional Trial Court, Branch 24,
Biñan, Laguna.
2. On
July 14, 1998, at about 10:30 o’clock in the morning, a proceedings for
confinement, docketed as SP PROC NO. B-2433 entitled “William I. Martinez vs.
Jose Martinez” was made by the Regional Trial Court presided by the Honorable
Pablo B. Francisco and in such proceedings I was the court stenographer
assigned to take the stenographic notes of the proceedings which I did, copy of
the original stenographic notes is hereto attached and made integral part
hereof, as Annex A;
3. A
few days after the Honorable Judge Pablo B. Francisco was served a copy of the
petition for certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 48356 entitled “Public Prosecutor
Alberto R. Nofuente, Olivia M. Laurel, Diana A. Ramos and Herminia Javier
–versus– Hon. Judge Pablo B. Francisco,” I was called in the afternoon by the
Honorable Judge Pablo B. Francisco to transcribe the stenographic notes taken
on July 14, 1998 at SP PROC No. B-2433 entitled “William I. Martinez vs. Jose
Martinez” which I complied with;
4.
After
I have transcribed the stenographic notes before a computer, the Honorable
Judge Pablo B. Francisco went to my place and instructed me to add and insert
into the transcript of the stenographic notes the following words and phrases.
x x x x
a.
appears to be irritated by the loud
voice of Fiscal Nofuente – line 18, 19 and 20, page 2, T.S.N. July 14, 1998.
x x x x
b. stood up to confront the person creating
noise – line 9 and 10, page 3, T.S.N. July 14, 1998.
c. (At this juncture, the Presiding Judge
was advised by the stenographer to rest because his face was becoming reddish)
line 3, 4 and 5, page 4, T.S.N. July 14, 1998.
x x x x
5.
The truth of the matter is that the
aforequoted portions which were required by the Honorable Judge Pablo B.
Francisco to be added and inserted into the transcript do not appear in the
original stenographic notes, Annex A hereto and I complied because of fear that
if I would not comply, I might be subjected to some actions against me similar
to those members of the staff of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial
Court, Biñan, Laguna who are being charged administratively, for one reason or
the other, by the Honorable Judge Pablo B. Francisco, aside from the fact that
he was my superior being the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 24, Biñan, Laguna.
6.
I am executing this affidavit for the purpose
of setting the records straight and to attest to the truth of the foregoing.[14]
Javier, Laurel, and Ramos further stated that almost all of the court
personnel of the RTC of Biñan, Laguna had fallen victim to Judge Francisco’s
vindictiveness. Judge Francisco became hostile to everybody. He branded the court personnel as
disrespectful, misinterpreting the latter’s smiles and glances as making faces
or laughter as insult. It was for this
reason that some personnel filed a petition with the Supreme Court requesting
for Judge Francisco’s return to his original station at the RTC of Sta. Cruz,
Laguna.
A.M. No. RTJ-00-1992
A.M. No. RTJ-00-1992 involves Judge Francisco’s Complaint for Falsification of Public Documents against
Laurel and Ramos. He averred that
Justice Barrios culled the following antecedent facts in A.M. No.
RTJ-00-1992 from the pleadings submitted by the parties:
Judge Francisco averred that when he was still the
detailed presiding judge of Branch 25, he noticed that Ramos did not report to
work everyday and that she did not perform her duties of cleaning the courtroom
and surrounding areas. He confronted Ramos about this but she reasoned out that
she was always tasked by the then Branch Clerk of Court to bring certain
documents to the Supreme Court and that whenever she is absent, she filed her
leave of absence. When the Branch Clerk
of Court resigned,
Ramos in addition to her refutations and assertions
in [A.M No. P-10-2745], declared that “Kulot”
never cleaned the courtroom in her sake but he frequented their office because
she recommended him to Judge Francisco upon the judge’s request to be taught of
other variations in ballroom dancing. It
was “Kulot” who helped her clear the
area of the courtroom before ballroom practices thus they pulled and pushed
tables and chairs and sometimes it was he who swept the floor and put back the
tables and chairs for the next day’s hearing.
Ramos denied too that she had some participation in the processing of
EASCO surety bonds and typing marriage licenses.
According to Ramos and Laurel, this case is only
one of the several cases filed by Judge Francisco against all the court
personnel of Branches 24 and 25 who petitioned for his ouster from the said
courts and he filed administrative and criminal cases though unfounded and
baseless just to get even with them.
In his Reply-Affidavit, Judge Francisco averred
that contrary to the assertions that Ramos was her dance instructor, he stated
that he received his dancing lessons from one Vinia Bulfaney of Jun Encarnacion
Dance Studio from September to December 1996 and that he took dance lessons at
home from one Jennifer Monte. In his
attack against Ramos, Judge Francisco stated that speaking of intestinal fortitude, respondent Diana Ramos indeed
possesses an abundance of this debasing quality as she now reports for work
heavy with a child, without any qualm as to how the public might react to this
“interesting stage” of her life, considering that her marriage to her husband,
has been recently annulled and she is not known to have contracted a second
marriage or reconciled with her husband; that [Judge Francisco] is quite
thankful that he has been away from Biñan for the past one year and a half
otherwise, given the moral depravity of [Ramos] in claiming abuse of respondent
Diana Ramos by [Judge Francisco], a claim by [Laurel and Ramos] of filial
relation between [Judge Francisco] and the baby within respondent Diana Ramos’
womb might not have been a distinct possibility.[15]
A.M. No. P-10-2746
A.M. No. P-10-2746 is another Complaint for Falsification of Public Documents filed by Judge Francisco against
Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Hernandez, Legal Researcher Orfiano, and
Stenographers Chaves, Lopez, and Perez, all of RTC-Branch 24 of Biñan, Laguna. Judge Francisco instituted a similar case
against the same court personnel before the Office of the Ombudsman but it was
ordered closed and terminated by the said office. Justice Barrios’s Report presented a gist of
Judge Francisco’s Complaint:
Judge Francisco averred in his affidavit that when
he was detailed as the Presiding Judge of Branch 25 he noticed that some
personnel of Branch 24, particularly the stenographers Perez, Lopez, Dilay
(deceased) and Chaves were not reporting for work everyday. Since he frequented the library which is near
the working tables of the stenographers, he noticed that only the stenographer
on duty reported to work. Branch 24 was
still then being presided by Justice Rodrigo Cosico. Chaves disappeared sometime in July 1997 and
surfaced only in November or December of the same year and that according to
her she went on vacation to the
The concerned court personnel all denied Justice Francisco’s allegations
that they were involved in the falsification of DTRs, arguing that these were
merely uncorroborated and false accusations which should be dismissed.
Chaves contradicted Justice Francisco’s claim that she disappeared in
July 1997 and resurfaced only in November or December of the same year. She averred that for the days she was absent
from work, she had filed the corresponding leave of absence. She admitted being on leave from July 21 to
September 15, 1997 but it was a vacation leave with pay. She went to the
Lopez and Perez pointed out that Judge Francisco only made a general
allegation that they falsified their DTRs from April 1996 to July 1998, without
specifying the particular dates when they were purportedly absent without
leave. They countered that it was Judge
Francisco who was not filing his leave of absence and falsified his monthly
certificates of service because he did not conduct hearings on Wednesdays
during the same time period. They also
contested Judge Francisco’s claim that he went to the library to research
almost everyday because said judge was only sending somebody else to borrow
books or reading materials for him.
Perez explained that it was impossible for her to have reported for work
only twice a week because she was rendering services as stenographer to
Branches 24 and 25 of the RTC of Biñan, Laguna. Lopez asserted that
she dutifully reflected in the attendance logbook the exact time of her arrival
and departure, and she filed the corresponding leave of absence whenever she
was unable to report to work. However,
at one instance, Judge Francisco called her,
Orfiano could not recall having signed the allegedly falsified DTRs of
the stenographers Chaves, Lopez, and Perez for April 1996 to July 1998. Orfiano further explicated that it was not
only he who approved the DTRs, but also the two Branch Clerks of Court, who
have since resigned, and even Judge Francisco himself from the months of May to
July 1998, when he (Orfiano) was the OIC Branch Clerk of Court.
Atty. Hernandez, in his Comment, stated that he served as the Branch
Clerk of Court of RTC-Branch 24 of Biñan, Laguna from July 17, 1997 until his
resignation on June 30, 1998. At the
time he assumed his position, no bundy clock was available for the employees of
RTC-Branch 24. As there was no way to
verify the employees’ actual time of arrival and departure, Atty. Hernandez, in
signing the DTRs, just relied on the employees’ representation that the entries
therein were true and correct. Use of an
attendance logbook was implemented beginning only on February 20, 1998,
pursuant to Judge Francisco’s Memorandum Circular No. 08-98. Judge Francisco subsequently issued
Memorandum No. 01 on May 20, 1998 transferring the authority to sign the
employees’ DTRs from Atty. Hernandez to himself. From February 20 to May 28, 1998, when Atty.
Hernandez was still allowed to sign the DTRs, he made sure that his
co-employees faithfully reflected therein their absences by comparing the
entries in their respective DTRs with those in the attendance logbook.
A.M. No. P-10-2747
Judge Francisco was not yet through with filing administrative charges
against the personnel of the RTC of Biñan, Laguna. In his Letter-Complaint dated August 21,
1998, docketed as A.M. No. P-10-2747,
he accused several court personnel with different administrative offenses, viz:
a. NICANOR
B. ALFONSO is a process server in the Office of the Clerk of Court. But I came to know that he is a court
employee only in December 1997 because, in the almost two (2) years then of my
detail in Biñan, I seldom saw him in the court premises. I knew him more as the driver-bodyguard of
Mayor Bayani “Arthur” Alonte of Biñan.
When I interviewed Mr. Alfonso, he told me that he
was already rendering service exclusively for Mayor Alonte and his family for
about five (5) years. He admitted though
that all the while he was drawing his salary from the Supreme Court. I then directed him to return to work, but he
refused reasoning out that his stint with Mayor Alonte “had been the
arrangement” with the other executive judges of the RTC before me.
x x x x
b. BENEDICTO
B. PASCUAL is the Court Interpreter in Branch 25. He manages to hold on to his position despite
his lack of civil service eligibility. A
perennial bar candidate, Mr. Pascual took his last examination in October 1996.
To prepare for the bar exams, Mr. Pascual managed
to obtain leave with pay on the following dates:
“81 days sick leave with pay from April 1 to July 31, 1996, and 43 days
vacation leave with pay from August 1 to September 30, 1996.”
x x x. There
was almost no leave credits left for Mr. Pascual as he began attending his review
classes.
The bar examination was given in October 1996 and,
understandably, Mr. Pascual was absent the whole month. He reported for work only in the middle of
November 1996 as a matter of fact. So
that his absence for one and a half (1 ½) months from October 1, 1996 was no
longer covered by the leave granted to him.
But he was still able to draw his salaries in full for the months of
October and November as he even earned leave credits during his unauthorized
absence.
c.
ANGELITO BATI is a Utility Worker in the Office of
the Clerk of Court. Sometime in May
1998, I came to know that he was the person serving summons upon the defendants
in civil cases assigned in Branch 24.
When confronted by the undersigned, Mr. Bati admitted doing so
supposedly with “proper authorization” from Sheriff IV Arnel Magat. On October July (sic) 28, 1998, I issued a
memorandum, x x x, calling for an investigation of the anomaly. So far, at least two (2) defendants in those
civil cases have come up and identified Mr. Bati as the person who served the
summons upon them.
d.
ARNEL G. MAGAT is Sheriff IV under the Office of
the Clerk of Court. He was the one who
“deputized” Angelito Bati to do the service of summons aforesaid. Yet, he prepared and signed the Sheriff’s
Return certifying that said service of summons were done by him personally on
the dates given.
Mr. Magat also has a
pending administrative case wherein Elizabeth Tiongco, a plaintiff in an
unlawful detainer case, accuses him of diverting to his personal use the amount
of about P40,000.00 collected by him from the defendant. When I called the parties to a conference to
settle the dispute, Mr. Magat promised to turn over said sum of P40,000.00
to Ms. Tiongco in installments. Ms.
Tiongco has been complaining to me that Mr. Magat has not remitted to her any
installment payment under his promise.
e.
JULIAN ORFIANO, JR. is the Legal Researcher and
former OIC Branch Clerk of Court in Branch 24.
While conducting an inventory of the cases in Branch 24, soon after my detail
therein, I noticed that the number of the expediente of active cases far
exceeded by more than a hundred number pending cases reported to the Supreme
Court monthly.
Mr. Orfiano was the
first court personnel to raise his voice in protest when apprised of my move to
request the OCAD for a physical audit of said cases. Later on, I came to know that Mr. Orfiano was
the one personally responsible for the preparation of said monthly reports.
In April 1998, certain
OCAD personnel, accompanied by Justice Molina, did conduct said physical audit,
the result of which despite my follow-up, has not yet been released. x x x.
Mr. Orfiano was also
the OIC Branch Clerk of Court who during his tenure of office approved the
falsified Daily Time Records (DTR) of Branch 24 court personnel.
f.
CARIDAD CUEVILLAS AND LITA MORENO are the clerks in
charge of criminal and civil cases, respectively, in Branch 24. Both of them detested being required to
report for work everyday and being reprimanded for not doing their work
properly. So many hearings of cases have
been postponed due to their failure to prepare either the notices to the
parties or the subpoena to witness.
Lately, Ms. Moreno
concealed from me certain motions which required my immediate attention. x x x.
g.
MARIA FE LOPEZ AND [DIOSALYN] PEREZ are Stenographers in Branch 24. During the time that Judge (now Justice)
Cosico was presiding in Branch 24, all four (4) stenographers in the branch
reported for work, at most, two (2) times a week. Yet, they were drawing their
full monthly salary by falsifying their DTRs which were approved by Mr. Julian
Orfiano and later by Atty. Gerardo Hernandez, resigned Branch Clerk of Court.
x x x x
h.
DIANA RAMOS, OLIVIA LAUREL, ANDREW SANTOS, [RAMON]
LUIS SEVILLA AND HERMINIA JAVIER are court employees closely identified with a
group headed by Third Public Prosecutor Alberto R. Nofuente, the prosecutor who
filed about twenty (20) Informations for simple rapes before Branch 25,
notwithstanding the private complainants’ statements that those who ravished
them were either their fathers, step fathers, uncles etc., thus allowing all
the accused to escape from the death penalty.
For severely criticizing Prosecutor Nofuente for his ignorance of criminal
procedure, I was subjected by this group to spite and ridicule for several
months until I finally cited them, except Luis Sevilla and Andrew Santos, for
direct contempt. x x x.
Some members of this
group are also known as brokers for EASCO bail bonds and for fast tracked
wedding ceremonies in court. They felt
bad when I worked for the banning of EASCO as surety due to unpaid liabilities
under its bonds x x x.
Of course, some members
of this group do not report for work everyday and yet are able to draw their
full months salary, especially DIANA RAMOS who moonlights as a food caterer.
i.
ATTY. MELVIN D.C. MANE resigned recently as Deputy
Clerk of Court in Branch 25. He dreams
of becoming a judge so he acted like one during his tenure. He asked me to assign to him several cases
for drafting of the decisions. He failed
to accomplish his task before my imposed limit of sixty (60) days, so I was
constrained to work on these cases double time to catch the deadline. I chastised him severely for his indolence.[17]
In a letter[18]
dated March 9, 1999, addressed to the then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide,
Jr., Judge Francisco requested immediate action on A.M. No. P-10-2747.
In their Joint Comment[19]
dated January 6, 2000, all the charged court personnel contended that Judge
Francisco’s Letter-Complaint should be considered a mere scrap of paper because
it was not verified nor corroborated.
Nevertheless, they also voiced their denial of the charges against
them. They accused Judge Francisco of
falsifying his certificates of service by not reflecting therein that he was
not holding session every Wednesday from December 4, 1995 to January 5,
1997. In fact, there was one Wednesday
when then Deputy Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepaño (DCA Elepaño) called by long distance to inquire about a case
handled by Judge Francisco, but the judge was not around. Judge Francisco did not file his leave of
absence yet still received in full his monthly salary for the period.
Judge Francisco filed a Reply[20]
dated January 25, 2000, in which he insisted on the validity of his unverified
Letter-Complaint against the court employees, reasoning that the Rules of Court
does not require that such a complaint be under oath since he, the complainant,
is a judge. Judge Francisco also denied
that he was not conducting trials on Wednesdays and, as proof, he attached
photocopies of the calendar of cases falling on Wednesdays.
A.M. No. P-10-2748
In A.M. No. P-10-2748, Judge Francisco filed a
Complaint for Grave Misconduct
against Cuevillas.
Judge Francisco’s Complaint stemmed from Civil Case No. B-5217, entitled
Edward Potenciano v. Rogelio “Ogie”
Almoro, an ejectment case which originated from the Municipal Trial Court
(MTC) of Biñan, Laguna. As soon as the
complete records of said case were elevated to the RTC on appeal, Judge
Francisco issued an order directing the counsels of both parties to submit
their respective memoranda, after which, the case would be deemed submitted for
decision. However, Cuevillas never
informed Judge Francisco that the parties have already submitted their
memoranda and, as a result, Judge Francisco was not able to render a decision
within the prescribed period. Judge
Francisco asserted that this was not the first time such an incident happened. On previous occasions, Cuevillas hid
pleadings and other important documents from Judge Francisco, thus, the latter
was not able to act promptly on said communications.
Cuevillas admitted in her Comment[21]
that she received the memoranda of the parties in Civil Case No. B-5217 but she
did not hide said pleadings from Judge Francisco. Cuevillas clarified that she was in charge of
the records in criminal cases. She only
received the memoranda of the parties in Civil Case No. B-5217 because
In his Reply,[22]
Judge Francisco reiterated that Cuevillas intentionally concealed the
memoranda. Cuevillas’s story was unlikely
as the parties filed their memoranda on separate dates in April 1998 and
Cuevillas, in her Rejoinder, laid the blame for the delay in the
resolution of Civil Case No. B-5217 on Judge Francisco. Judge Francisco was aware that the case would
be deemed submitted for decision in April 1998 whether or not the parties filed
their memoranda, and the judge should have already demanded the case records
from Moreno by that time. Cuevillas
further denied that she intentionally failed to bring to Judge Francisco’s
attention several urgent matters.
A.M. No. P-10-2749
Judge Francisco filed a Letter-Complaint for Dishonesty and Misconduct against Alfonso, Bati, Cuevillas, Javier,
Laurel, Lopez, Magat, Moreno, Orfiano, Pascual, Perez, Santos, and Sevilla, who
accused the judge of falsifying his certificates of service because he was not
reporting for work on Wednesdays, and yet was receiving his full monthly
salary. The Complaint was docketed as A.M. No. P-10-2749.
In his Letter-Complaint, Judge Francisco denied the court personnel’s
accusation against him, averring that he always conducted hearings on
Wednesdays during his detail at the RTC of Biñan, Laguna. As evidence, he presented some of the court
calendar that fell on Wednesdays between January 17 to December 18, 1996.[23] Aside from conducting hearings in Biñan, Judge Francisco was also tasked to preside over
Election Contest Nos. SC-10 and SC-11 in Sta. Cruz, which were heard every
Wednesday afternoon from March 1996 until September 1997. On such days, Judge Francisco had to travel
from Biñan to Sta. Cruz, with a distance of about 50 kilometers, to fulfill his
assignments. Judge Francisco likewise
contradicted the allegation that he was absent the day DCA Elepaño called his
office, and he was actually able to talk to DCA Elepaño. Lastly, Judge Francisco claimed that
In their Comment,[24]
the concerned court personnel pointed out that Judge Francisco’s charges
against them were not corroborated by material witnesses and that the purported
court calendar of cases presented by the judge were uncertified photocopies,
hence, inadmissible as evidence. They
insisted that Judge Francisco did not talk to DCA Elepaño when the latter
called the judge’s office. The truth was
DCA Elepaño was able to talk to Justice Cosico who politely suggested to her
that she talk personally with Judge Francisco.
The court personnel reiterated their charge against Judge Francisco for
falsification of his certificates of service, based on the certifications
issued by Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Galeon.
According to Atty. Galeon’s certifications: (1) except for December 14,
1995, no other session was held every Wednesday between December 4, 1995 and
January 5, 1996; and (2) no setting of cases was
made between February 7, 1996 and August 27,
1997. During these periods, Judge Francisco
was still detailed at the RTC of Biñan. Laguna.
When the court personnel verified with the OCA, they found that no
application for leave was filed by Judge Francisco for the above stated periods
except for October 16, November 20 and 27, 1996. They additionally alleged that Judge
Francisco made a trip abroad without approval from the Supreme Court. Finally, they accused Judge Francisco of
extortion and corruption in relation to an election case he was handling in
Biñan, Laguna.
Judge Francisco maintained in his Reply[25]
that he was present and conducting hearings from January to November 1996,
except April 8, 1996. Acording to Judge Francisco, he had already discussed his
trip abroad with Chancellor Ameurfina Melencio-Herrera of the Philippine Judicial
Academy and then Court Administrator Benipayo, who were both satisfied with his
explanation. Judge Francisco also
asserted that the evidence introduced by the court personnel in their Comment,
specifically, Atty. Galeon’s certifications, were falsified documents. Consequently, Judge Francisco expressed his
intention to file another administrative complaint against Atty. Galeon,
Laurel, and Pascual.
A.M. No. P-10-2750
A.M. No. P-10-2751
A.M. No. P-03-1706
True enough, Judge Francisco filed three more administrative cases for Falsification of Public Documents docketed
as: (1) A.M. No. P-10-2750, against
Atty. Galeon and Pascual; (2) A.M. No.
P-10-2751, against Atty. Galeon alone; and (3) A.M. No. P-03-1706 against Atty. Galeon and Laurel.
Judge Francisco charged Atty. Galeon and Pascual in A.M. No. P-10-2750
with Falsification of Public Documents
in relation to the photocopies of two supposed pages of the court calendar book
of RTC-Branch 25 of Biñan,
Laguna, which were in the handwriting of Pascual and certified by Atty. Galeon,
showing that no case was set for hearing on June 11 and 18, 1997. Judge Francisco alleged that the certified
photocopies in question contained untruthful narration of facts because so many
cases were set for hearing and actually tried on June 11 and 18, 1997, and
these could be corroborated by the minutes and TSNs of the proceedings.[26]
Judge Francisco again accused Atty. Galeon in A.M. No. P-10-2751 of Falsification of Public Document for
issuing a certification stating that per the court calendar book, no court
session was held under Presiding Judge Francisco every Wednesday for the period
of December 4, 1995 to January 5, 1996, except December 14, 1995.[27]
In A.M. No. P-03-1706, Judge Francisco took Atty. Galeon and Laurel to
task for conspiring with each other and making untruthful narration of facts in
the certified photocopies of ten alleged pages of the court calendar book which
showed that no case was set for hearing on August 1, 4-8, 11-15, 18-22, and
25-28 of the year 1997. The false
entries in the court calendar book were written by
The certified photocopies of the court calendar book were presented as
evidence against Judge Francisco in A.M. No. P-10-2749. The said documents caused Judge Francisco
damage and prejudice for they made it appear that the judge falsified his
certificates of service. Judge Francisco
attributed malice on the parts of Laurel and Pascual, for making false entries
into the court calendar book; and on the part of Atty. Galeon, for certifying
the photocopies of the falsified book pages.
Pascual, as Court Interpreter, was present during the hearings held on
June 11 and 18, 1997, and even prepared the minutes of the proceedings.
Expectedly, Atty. Galeon, Laurel, and Pascual denied the charges against
them.
Atty. Galeon pointed out that it was her
ministerial duty to issue the certifications.
Moreover, she did not make any false narration of facts in her
certifications. She merely certified
that the photocopies were the faithful reproduction of the original pages of
the court calendar book after careful comparison. Her certifications also did not contain any
derogatory or malicious remarks against Judge Francisco. Atty. Galeon maintained that there was no
malice or ill will on her part when she issued the certifications and she was
not aware that these would be used by her co-employees in support of their
accusations against Judge Francisco.
Pascual acknowledged that the entries in the court calendar book were in
his handwriting, but this was easily done because it was his duty to maintain
and keep custody of the court calendar books.
On March 26, 2003, we issued a Resolution adopting
the Report and Recommendation of the OCA and dismissing A.M. No. P-10-2750 for
lack of merit. Said Resolution
reads:
Considering
the Office of the Court Administrator’s Report dated March 3, 2003, on the
sworn complaint charging respondents with falsification of public documents,
reporting as follows:
In the instant
case, respondents did not make any statement in a narration of facts. What respondent Galeon did was just to
certify that Annexes “A” and “B” are certified Xerox copies. Respondent can not also be held liable for
falsification of public documents under paragraph 7 of Article 171 of the Revised
Penal Code because what she certified were Xerox copies of pages of the
calendar book in the Office of the Branch Clerk of Court. Complainant was not able to prove that the
originals from where the certified Xerox copies were taken did not exist, or that
RTC, Branch 25 of Biñan, Laguna had no calendar book when the certifications
were issued.
the Court Resolved to
ADOPT the recommendation to DISMISS the case for lack of merit. [28]
Not long thereafter, we issued another Resolution
on April 9, 2003 dismissing A.M. No. P-10-2751 for lack of merit, to wit:
Considering
the complaint dated May 24, 2002 filed by Judge Pablo B. Francisco charging
Atty. Rowena A. Malabanan-Galeon with falsification of public documents for
issuing a certification dated July 2, 2001 which has relevance to [A.M. No. P-10-2749],
the Court Resolves to:
(a)
NOTE the said
complaint; and
(b)
DISMISS the case for
lack of merit. [29]
We subsequently denied Judge Francisco’s Motions
for Reconsideration of the dismissal of A.M. No. P-10-2750 and A.M. No.
P-10-2751 on the ground that the motions merely reiterated the same arguments
earlier raised and did not present any substantial reason not previously
invoked or any matter not considered and passed upon by the Court.[30]
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2214
During the investigation of A.M. No. RTJ-06-1992
and A.M. No. P-10-2745 by Justice Barrios, Arellano and Magat, both Deputy
Sheriffs of the of the RTC of Biñan, Laguna, testified that Judge Francisco
exerted undue influence upon them to shell out P1,000.00 and P3,000.00,
respectively, to defray the salary of the judge’s bodyguard Joselito Nuestro
(Nuestro). Because of the said
testimonies, Judge Francisco filed before the OCA an administrative complaint
for Gross Misconduct against Arellano
and Magat, docketed as OCA I.P.I. No. 02-3331-P. This case, however, was not among those
assigned to Justice Barrios for investigation.
Arellano and Magat countered with a Complaint for Grave Misconduct against Judge
Francisco, docketed as A.M. No.
RTJ-10-2214. Justice Barrios
presented the allegations of the opposing parties in his Report, thus:
Arellano and Magat averred that
Judge Francisco personally handpicked Joselito Nuestro from Indang, P4,000.00 for Joselito Nuestro’s
monthly compensation. Because he was
their superior, they were obliged to accede with Arellano contributing P1,500.00
and Magat P2,000.00. This matter
has been brought to the attention of the Biñan police where they both gave
their statements on July 17, 1998 x x x but these
were not subscribed because at that time the Prosecutors and Clerks of Court
refused to take part for fear of the wrath of Judge Francisco. These were only subscribed on December 16,
2002 when Arellano and Magat were called to testify.
In his Comment x x x, Judge Francisco denied that Joselito Nuestro became his bodyguard. Rather he was his personal utility worker
from September 1997 to February 8, 1998, and he was constrained to hire him
because Ramos was not doing the chores assigned to her. He added that he employed him also because
the man needed money for his ailing father.
It was PO3 Melchor Dionisio who was assigned by the Philippine National
Police as his security from October 1995 to May 1999. Judge Francisco claimed that their statements
were not only unsubscribed but were also inconsistent. These two sheriffs allowed themselves to
become the tools of Justice Rodrigo Cosico who harbored a grudge against him
because he initiated the judicial audit for Branch 24 of which he was the
Presiding Judge before his promotion to the Court of Appeals. Arellano was Justice Cosico’s full time
driver while drawing salary from the government. As for Magat, he was the subject of a
complaint filed by a certain Elizabeth Tiongco who reported to him that Magat
asked for P2,500.00 in exchange for the implementation of the writ of
execution in an ejectment case. Nothing
happened to the writ but Magat failed to return the check issued to him which
prompted Judge Francisco to advise Elizabeth Tiongco to file the necessary
administrative complaint.
In their reply, Arellano admitted
that he served as driver of Justice Rodrigo Cosico when he was still the
utility worker of Branch 24, but he did not let this interfere with his
duties. He drove for Justice Cosico only
early in the morning in going to the court and then back to his residence in
the afternoon. Magat and Arellano argued that if there were inconsistencies in
the sworn statements executed in 1998 these were minor only and should not
negate the fact that Judge Francisco extorted money from them.[31]
As a result of
his investigation of the 11 administrative cases, Justice Barrios made the
following recommendations:
WHEREFORE,
it is respectfully recommended that (a) the charges/complaints docketed as
OCA-I.P.I. No. 98-511-P [A.M. No.
P-10-2745], OCA-I.P.I. No. 00-974-P [A.M. No. RTJ-00-1992], OCA-I.P.I. No.
00-963-P [A.M. No. P-10-2746],
OCA-I.P.I. No. 99-740-P [A.M. No.
P-10-2747], OCA-I.PI. No. 02-1338-P [A.M.
No. P-10-2749], OCA-I.P.I. No. 99-573-P [A.M. No. P-10-2748], OCA-I.P.I. No. 02-1410-P [A.M. No. P-10-2750], OCA-I.P.I.
No. 02-1411-P [A.M. No. P-10-2751],
OCA-I.P.I. No. P-03-1706 (formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 02-1409-P) [A.M. No. P-03-1706], and OCA-I.P.I.
No. 02-1592-RTJ [A.M. No. RTJ-10-2214], be DISMISSED,
and that (b) in OCA-I.P.I. No. 98-603-RTJ [A.M.
No. RTJ-06-1992] Judge Pablo Francisco be found GUILTY of Gross Ignorance of the Law and FINED the amount of P30,000.00, taking into account that he
has since resigned.[32]
II
DISCUSSION AND
RESOLUTION
After a careful review of Justice Barrios’s Recommendation and Report,
we now render judgment on the 11 administrative cases.
At the outset, we take note of the previous dismissal for lack of merit
of Judge Francisco’s Complaints for Falsification of Public Document in A.M. No. P-10-2750 (against Atty. Galeon
and Pascual) and A.M. No. P-10-2751
(against Atty. Galeon), through our Resolutions dated March 26, 2003 and
April 9, 2003, respectively. With the
denial of Judge Francisco’s Motion for Reconsideration, the dismissal of A.M.
No. P-10-2750 and A.M. No. P-10-2751 had already become final and executory,
and already beyond our power to review, modify, or set aside.
Given also that Atty. Hernandez[33]
and Atty. Mane[34]
had already resigned from their posts as Branch Clerks of Court long before
Justice Francisco filed his complaints against them, then we deem the charges
against Atty. Hernandez in A.M. No.
P-10-2746 and Atty. Mane in A.M. No.
P-10-2747 dismissed.
We
further dismiss Judge Francisco’s complaints against
Judge Francisco
Your
Honor please, I regret to say that he was not charged so, why we need to
present him?
x
x x x
Justice
Barrios
But
Judge Francisco is saying now on record that he is not charging Mr. Santos.
x
x x x
Justice
Barrios
Whatever it is, he is saying that he is not
charging Mr.
Having settled the foregoing, we now turn our attention to the remaining
administrative matters.
Judge Francisco’s
Issuance of the Direct Contempt Order (A.M. No. RTJ-06-1992)
At the crux of the case is the issuance by Judge Francisco of the Order
dated July 14, 1998 finding Javier, Laurel, Ramos, and Pros. Nofuente guilty of
direct contempt of court for allegedly disrupting the proceedings in Sp. Proc.
No. B-2433 at the RTC-Branch 24 of Biñan, Laguna, on July 14, 1998, and sentencing them to a penalty of nine
days imprisonment.
Contempt of court is defined as “some act
or conduct which tends to interfere with the business of the court, by a
refusal to obey some lawful order of the court, or some act of disrespect to
the dignity of the court which in some way tends to interfere with or hamper
the orderly proceedings of the court and thus lessens the general efficiency of
the same.” It has also been described as
“a defiance of the authority, justice or dignity of the court; such conduct as
tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or
to interfere with or prejudice parties litigants or their witnesses during
litigation.” Simply put, it is despising of the authority, justice, or
dignity of the court.[36]
Direct contempt is one done “in the
presence of or so near the court or judge as to obstruct the administration of justice.” It is a contumacious act done facie
curiae and may be punished summarily without hearing. In other words, one
may be summarily adjudged in direct contempt at the very moment or at the very
instance of the commission of the act of contumely.[37] It is governed by Rule 71, Section 1 of the Rules
of Court, as amended by Administrative Circular No. 22-95, which reads:
Section 1. Direct
contempt punished summarily. - A person guilty of misbehavior in the
presence of or so near a court or judge as to obstruct or interrupt the
proceedings before the same, including disrespect toward the court or judge,
offensive personalities toward others, or refusal to be sworn or to answer as
witness, or to subscribe an affidavit or deposition when lawfully required to
do so, may be summarily adjudged in contempt by such court or judge and
punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand pesos or imprisonment not
exceeding ten (10) days, or both, if it be a superior court, or a judge
thereof, or by a fine not exceeding two hundred pesos or imprisonment not
exceeding one (1) day, or both, if it be an inferior court.
As previously mentioned herein, the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No.
48356, granted the Petition for Certiorari
of Javier, Laurel, Ramos, and Pros. Nofuente, and set aside Judge Francisco’s
Direct Contempt Order for having been issued in grave abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals adjudged that:
Considering that the acts alluded to as the basis
by which the Respondent [Judge Francisco] declared the petitioners [Javier,
Laurel, Ramos, and Pros. Nofuente] in contempt of court, are neither
constitutive of direct or indirect contempt, this Court is of the opinion that
the Order of Respondent declaring petitioners in contempt and imposing a
penalty of nine (9) days imprisonment is a GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
WHEREFORE, the assailed order dated July 14, 1998
is SET ASIDE for having been issued in grave abuse of discretion.[38]
The Court of Appeals already settled in the aforementioned certiorari proceedings that Judge
Francisco’s issuance of the Direct Contempt Order was in grave abuse of his
discretion. We are now called upon to
determine in the present administrative proceedings whether the same act
constitutes an administrative offense by Judge Francisco. A review of the records of the case leads us
to rule affirmatively.
Judge Francisco’s issuance of the Direct Contempt Order is completely
baseless and unjustified. There is utter
lack of evidence that Javier, Laurel, Ramos, and Pros. Nofuente committed any
contemptuous act.
Other than his
own allegations, Judge Francisco’s only evidence to prove that Pros. Nofuente
disrupted the hearing of Sp. Proc. No. B-2433 on July 14, 1998 was the TSN for
said proceedings, taken down by Lopez.
However, serious doubts as to the truthfulness of the said TSN arose
after Lopez herself assailed the transcript.
According to Lopez, she included the lines alluding to the disruption of
the proceedings by Pros. Nofuente into the TSN upon Judge Francisco’s
order. Lopez explained that she complied
out of fear that she might be subjected to a suit just as the other employees
of the RTC of Biñan,
Laguna. Lopez stood by her affidavit
even when cross-examined by Judge Francisco.
She responded to the judge’s questions, thus:
Q: Let me go to Exhibit S. On page 4 of Exhibit S the court stated
“please place on record that the proceedings was disturbed because of the loud
voice coming from Provincial Prosecutor Alberto Nofuente who was laughing and
discussing in a very loud voice certain matters with employees of branch 25 and
the presiding judge has called the attention of those concerned especially
employees of Branch 25 both disturbing the hearing of this case. Let it be recorded further that this is not
the first time that Provincial Prosecutor Alberto Nofuente has caused such
disturbance while proceedings in Branch 24 is going on.” Is this an insertion?
A: That is not an insertion, sir, you
manifested that.
Q: The court stated that soon after the
Presiding Judge stood up and according to you approach the entrance door of the
court, wasn’t it?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: How long ago did the court made that
statement after the Presiding Judge stood up and went to the entrance door,
about 2 minutes, 3 minutes?
A: That was after the proceedings when you
made that manifestation.
Q: What do you mean by after the
proceedings?
A: That was after the proceedings for the
drug dependence hearing. That came last.
Q: You mean to say after the Presiding
Judge has finished asking questions to the witness?
A: Yes, sir. That was already after we have gone to our
conference room when you said that.[39]
Lopez’s testimony was corroborated by Sevilla who declared during
cross-examination and re-direct examination that Judge Francisco went out of
the session hall only after the hearing to find out who was making the
noise. At such time, Pros. Nofuente was
no longer around. Judge Francisco did
not mention then that Pros. Nofuente was the one being noisy.
Q: Isn’t it a fact that Judge Francisco
came out of the session hall and told the persons there not to make noise in
that morning of July 14, 1998?
A: No, sir. What happened was that you came out after the
session and asked who were those persons making noise.
Q: At that time Fiscal Nofuente was no longer
there?
A: Yes, sir.
x x x x
Q: Isn’t it a fact that Judge Francisco
even talked to that lady who was the companion of Fiscal Nofuente at that time?
A: Yes, sir.
x x x x
RE-DIRECT BY
ATTY. NOE
CANGCO ZARATE
Q: When Judge Francisco came out, did he
tell you as to who was the person who was then noisy?
A: No, sir.
Q: He did not mention Fiscal Nofuente?
A: No, sir.[40]
The testimonies of Lopez and Sevilla prove that although distracted by
the outside noise, Judge Francisco was still able to proceed with and finish
the hearing of Spec. Proc. No. B-2433 on July 14, 1998. Moreover, during and immediately after said
hearing, Judge Francisco was unaware of who made the noise, so he could not
have summarily cited anyone for direct contempt.
The lack of basis for the issuance by Judge Francisco of the Direct
Contempt Order is even more evident when it comes to Javier, Laurel, and Ramos,
who were not mentioned at all in the TSN of the hearing of Spec. Proc. No.
B-2433 on July 14, 1988. By Judge
Francisco’s own allegations in his Complaint, the purportedly contemptuous acts
of the three court personnel were not particularly committed on July 14, 1998
nor the cause of the disruption of the proceedings at RTC-Branch 24 of Biñan, Laguna, on said date. Furthermore, Judge
Francisco’s averments that Pros. Nofuente’s group, which included Javier,
Laurel, and Ramos, engaged in raucous laughter in the judge’s presence even
“with nothing funny to laugh about,” threw sharp glances and made faces at
Judge Francisco, and engaged in boisterous conversation punctuated by laughter
inside the court premises, are insufficient to constitute contumacious
behavior. Contempt of court presupposes
a contumacious attitude, a flouting or arrogant belligerence, a defiance of the
court,[41]
something that is not evident in this case.
There is absolute lack of proof that the laughter, conversations, and
glances of Pros. Nofuente’s group were about or directed at Judge Francisco and
they disrupted or obstructed proceedings before the judge.
We believe that in issuing this baseless and erroneous contempt order,
Judge Francisco was prevailed upon by his personal animosity against Pros.
Nofuente and his group. This can be
easily fathomed from Judge Francisco’s inclusion of Javier, who is Pros.
Nofuente’s friend, in the Direct Contempt Order when Javier was not even within
court premises at the time of the hearing of Spec. Proc. No. B-2433 on July 14,
1998. Clerk of Court Ernesto Luzod, Jr.
attested to this fact, thus:
[ATTY. ZARATE]
Q This Exhibit M pertains (sic) Herminia
S. Javier for the month of July 1-31, in the year 1998. Please go over it and confirm this honorable
[LUZOD, JR.]
A This is the Daily Time Record for the
month of July 1 to 31, 1998. That is our
usual form of our Daily Time Record.
Q Go over with Exhibit M and examine
precisely the particular date of July 14, 1998.
Will you please tell this Court what did you find out for that date?
A She’s under half day that morning and
then she attended in the afternoon 1-5:30, sir.
Q When you said half day from what time
will it commence an end of the half day absence.
A Eight to Twelve, sir.
ATTY. ZARATE:
Q Would you be able to know why on July
14, 1998, Herminia S. Javier obtain leave from your former office. If you know?
A On July 14, 1998, she asked permission
from me for her to go to Calamba, Laguna, Land Bank.
Q Would you be able to tell us why she
went to Calamba Laguna?
A She told me that she’s going to refund
her tax.
Q Were she (sic) obtain her leave for
half day. Would you be able to tell us
what time did he asked you for leave?
A More or less passed (sic) eight.[42]
It is well-settled that the power to punish a person in contempt of
court is inherent in all courts to preserve order in judicial proceedings and
to uphold the orderly administration of justice. However, judges are
enjoined to exercise the power judiciously and sparingly, with utmost
restraint, and with the end in view of utilizing the same for correction and
preservation of the dignity of the court, and not for retaliation or
vindictiveness. It bears stressing that
the power to declare for contempt must be exercised on the preservative, not
vindictive principle, and on the corrective and not retaliatory idea of
punishment.[43] This was aptly expressed in the case of Nazareno v. Barnes[44]:
A judge, as a public servant, should not be so
thin-skinned or sensitive as to feel hurt or offended if a citizen expresses an
honest opinion about him which may not altogether be flattering to him. After
all, what matters is that a judge performs his duties in accordance with the
dictates of his conscience and the light that God has given him. A judge should
never allow himself to be moved by pride, prejudice, passion, or pettiness in
the performance of his duties. He should always bear in mind that the power of
the court to punish for contempt should be exercised for purposes that are
impersonal, because that power is intended as a safeguard not for the judges as
persons but for the functions that they exercise.
Nevertheless, we find that in issuing the Direct Contempt Order without
legal basis, Judge Francisco is more appropriately guilty of the administrative
offense of grave abuse of authority, rather than gross ignorance of the law and
incompetence. In point is the case of Panaligan v. Ibay,[45]
where Judge Francisco Ibay improperly cited John Panaligan for contempt.[46] We ruled:
The integrity of
the judiciary rests not only upon the fact that it is able to administer
justice but also upon the perception and confidence of the community that the
people who run the system have done justice.
The assumption of office by a judge places upon him duties and restrictions
peculiar to his exalted position. He is
the visible representation of law and justice.
He must be perceived, not as a repository of arbitrary power, but as one
who dispenses justice under the sanction of the rule of law. 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. In the present case,
respondent Judge may not have been urged by ulterior motives in citing
complainant in contempt and in subsequently sending him to jail for putting off
the lights in the 12th floor including his sala; nevertheless, his actuation can easily be perceived as being
a repository of arbitrary power. His
actuation must never serve to fuel suspicion over a misuse of the prestige of
his office to enhance his personal interest.
We
cannot simply shrug off respondent
Judge’s failure to exercise that degree
of care and temperance required of a judge in the correct and prompt
administration of justice; more so in this case where the exercise of the power
of contempt resulted in complainant’s
detention and deprivation of liberty.
Respondent Judge’s conduct amounts to grave abuse of authority.
We
have repeatedly reminded members of the judiciary to be irreproachable in
conduct and to be free from any appearance of impropriety in their personal
behavior, not only in the discharge of their official duties, but also in their
daily life. For no position exacts a
greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness of an individual than a
seat in the judiciary. The imperative and sacred duty of each and everyone in
the judiciary is to maintain its good name and standing as a temple of
justice. The Court condemns and would
never countenance any conduct, act or omission on the part of all those
involved in the administration of justice which would violate the norm of
public accountability or tend to diminish the faith of the people in the
judiciary, like in the case at bar.
Squarely
applicable is the case of Teodora A. Ruiz
v. Judge Rolando G. How. In this
case, respondent Judge Rolando G. How cited complainant Ruiz who was an employee of the court, in direct contempt
of court for alleged willful display of abusive and disrespectful language
hurled by the latter. This Court
disagreed with the respondent Judge in finding that the actuations of Ruiz
constitute direct contempt inasmuch as when the derogatory words were uttered
by complainant no proceedings were being held nor was it shown that respondent
Judge was performing judicial function. Thus, respondent Judge was declared guilty of
grave abuse of authority for injudiciously ordering the detention of
complainant without sufficient legal ground, and was fined in the amount of P5,000.00
with a stern warning that the same or similar act shall be dealt with more
severely.
WHEREFORE, for
improperly citing complainant Panaligan for contempt and ordering his detention
without sufficient legal basis, a fine of P5,000.00 is hereby IMPOSED upon the respondent Judge,
with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the
future will be dealt with more severely.
In three more succeeding cases, we sanctioned Judge Ibay for repeatedly
citing people in contempt of court even without legal basis. In Macrohon
v. Ibay,[47]
Judge Ibay was again found liable for grave abuse of authority for which he was
fined P25,000.00. For committing
the same offense once more, he was penalized in Nuñez v. Ibay[48] with a fine of P40,000.00. When we found Judge Ibay guilty of grave
abuse of authority for the fourth time in Inonog
v. Ibay,[49]
we ordered him to pay another fine of P40,000.00.
We note that in the matter before us that Judge Francisco was previously
found guilty in Gragera v. Francisco[50] of violating the Code of Judicial
Conduct for the unauthorized practice of law, for which he was fined P12,000.00
with a warning that the commission of a similar or other infractions shall be
dealt with severely. Despite this
warning, we yet again find Judge Francisco committing another administrative
offense, i.e., grave abuse of
authority.
Disrespecful behavior of Pros. Nofuente’s group (A.M. No. P-10-2745)
Judge Francisco charged Javier, Laurel, and
Ramos with grave misconduct. He averred
that the three court personnel were close to Pros. Nofuente, and referred to
them as Pros. Nofuente’s group, who exhibited disrespectful behavior towards
him.
We note that Judge Francisco’s charge for
grave misconduct against the three court employees is essentially based on the
same allegation of facts as his Direct Contempt Order. Consequently, for the same reasons we held
that Judge Francisco wrongfully issued his Direct Contempt Order against Pros.
Nofuente’s group, we exculpate Javier, Laurel, and Ramos from the judge’s charge
for Grave Misconduct.
Misconduct is “a transgression of some
established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior
or gross negligence by a public officer.” The misconduct is grave if it
involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to
violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be established by
substantial evidence.[51]
Judge Francisco
was unable to present any evidence at all to support his accusations against
Javier, Laurel, and Ramos. There is no
one to corroborate Judge Francisco’s narration of the instances when the three
court personnel purportedly disrespected him or of the supposed motives which
prompted said personnel to behave so. It
is difficult for us to conclude that Judge Francisco was the subject of the
boisterous conversations, raucous laughter, and sharp glances of Javier,
Laurel, and Ramos in the absence of substantial evidence. We are hard put to rule that they were guilty
of behavior amounting to misconduct, much more, grave misconduct, there being
no showing of any established and definite rule of action transgressed or
disregarded by the charged court personnel.
Falsification of DTRs by the court personnel (A.M. Nos. P-10-2745,
RTJ-00-1992, P-10-2746, and P-10-2747)
In A.M. Nos. P-10-2745, RTJ-00-1992, P-10-2746, and P-10-2747, Judge
Francisco charged several employees[52]
of the RTC of Biñan,
Laguna, with the falsification of DTRs, among other administrative
offenses. We shall jointly discuss these
administrative cases in so far as they concern the charges for falsification.
It is well-settled that in administrative proceedings, the complainant
has the burden of proving the allegations in the complaint with substantial
evidence, i.e., that amount of
relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a
conclusion. It must be remembered that
while this Court has the duty to ensure that judges and other court personnel
perform their duties with utmost efficiency, propriety and fidelity, it is also
our obligation to see to it that they are protected from unfounded suits that
serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice.[53] Judge Francisco miserably failed in this
regard.
Other than Judge Francisco’s allegations, the records are bereft of any
evidence establishing that the charged court employees did indeed falsify their
DTRs. Judge Francisco’s very own
testimony before Justice Barrios during the investigation exhibits the weakness
of his case against the court employees for falsification of their DTRs. Pertinent portions of said testimony are
reproduced below:
J. BARRIOS:
Now,
these employees charged with falsification of the Daily Time Record, they’re
employees of which Branch of the RTC of Laguna?
JUDGE FRANCISCO:
Nicanor
Alfonso is detailed at the Office of the Clerk of Court, Benedicto Pascual
employee of Branch 25, Ma. Fe Lopez Branch 24, [Diosalyn] Perez Branch 25,
Julieta Chaves Branch 24, Diana Ramos Branch 25, Olivia Laurel Branch 25,
Andrew Santos Branch 25, Luis Sevilla Branch 25 and Herminia Javier Office of
the Clerk of Court.
J. BARRIOS:
You
were at some points in time the Presiding Judge assigned to Branch 24 and
Branch 25?
JUDGE FRANCISCO:
Branch 25 then Branch 24, your honor.
J. BARRIOS:
Not
at a single given time?
JUDGE FRANCISCO:
Not
at a single given time although when J. Cosico (sic) promoted to the Court of
Appeals I was Pairing Judge.
J. BARRIOS:
But
only for a short time?
JUDGE FRANCISCO:
Only
for a short time, your honor.
J. BARRIOS:
When
these cases were filed against these parties for falsification were you then
the Presiding Judge of Branch 24 when you filed those cases against the
employees assigned to the said Branch?
JUDGE FRANCISCO:
I
was still the Presiding Judge of Branch 24.
J. BARRIOS:
And
when you filed these cases against the employees assigned to Branch 25 you were
the Presiding Judge of Branch 25.
JUDGE FRANCISCO:
No
more, your honor please.
J. BARRIOS:
What
was your basis in saying that you filed their DTR specifically those assigned
to Branch 25 when you were no longer the Presiding Judge of Branch 25?
JUDGE FRANCISCO:
When
I became the Executive Judge in Regional Trial Court in Biñan, I was able to
obtain photocopies of their leave cards with the Office of the Clerk of Court
and I found out firstly, that Benedicto Pascual exhausted all his leave credits
when he took the Bar Examinations. I was
then surprised why he was receiving his full salary notwithstanding that he was
not reporting for work. So, I conducted
the investigation.
J. BARRIOS:
So,
it was of your personal knowledge that this Benedicto Pascual was not reporting
for work but was placing his DTR that he was reporting for work?
JUDGE FRANCISCO:
Yes,
your honor.
J. BARRIOS:
What
about for the others?
JUDGE FRANCISCO:
Well,
with respect to the stenographers, sir, there was a serious dispute between
us. They were reporting for work only
once and according to them they were transcribing their note at home. Well, I told them that practice should not be
tolerated and when I assumed the position of Acting Presiding Judge in Branch
24 there were hearings cancelled because no stenographer was around and so, I
found out that they were receiving their full salary for the month.
J. BARRIOS:
And
they entered into the Daily Time Records entries that they were present on that
date?
JUDGE FRANCISCO:
That’s
the problem, your honor. That’s the
reason why I had been requesting the Office of the Court Administrator for
copies of their Daily Time Records I was not successful but from the Finance
Department I was able to determine that they were receiving their full salaries
for the month.
J. BARRIOS:
And
they assumed that progression that they have falsified the time records?
JUDGE FRANCISCO:
Yes,
your honor please.
J. BARRIOS:
You
don’t use a bundy clock?
JUDGE FRANCISCO:
There
was no bundy clock in RTC, Biñan. Now, I
consulted with Atty. Mariane Carpina and he told me that the employee should
sign in a logbook and so I issued the memorandum circular for the
employees. They would comply but . . .
and most of the time they falsified the entries in the logbook by signing their
names between or in any available space in the logbook.
J. BARRIOS:
Was
that done in your presence and observation?
JUDGE FRANCISCO:
Well,
the making of the entries was not done
in my presence but then I confronted them about this singit and they readily admitted it and change their DTR to
conform with the correct time that became the source of dispute between me and
the employees.[54]
(Emphases ours.)
The questioning of Judge Francisco continued:
PROS. NOFUENTE:
You said that you filed a criminal case of falsification of DTR against
Diana Ramos, Olivia Laurel and so on and so forth. Now my question to you is, were you able to
see these DTRs? When you filed these
cases?
WITNESS [JUDGE FRANCISCO]:
I was not able to see them because I was not furnished a copy of the
same.
PROS. NOFUENTE:
By
that answer of yours, it is now clear that you filed a falsification cases
without seeing that document which was falsified. That is a manifestation. That is not a question.
WITNESS:
Let
me answer.
PROS. NOFUENTE:
There
is no question, your Honor. That is only
a manifestation.
J. BARRIOS:
Let
me ask you the question. So you are
saying that there is DTR that were falsified without seeing the documents
supposedly falsified?
WITNESS:
As
completed and as submitted to the Office of the Court Administrator, Your
Honor. I saw them being prepared wherein
every employee states that he was working from 8 to 12 then from 1 to 5 in the
afternoon. And I know for a fact then
that Olivia Laurel was signing these DTRs in her capacity as OIC Branch Clerk
of Court.
J. BARRIOS:
How
near were you from her when you saw her preparing those DTR?
WITNESS:
I
saw Olivia Laurel signing them.
J. BARRIOS:
The
question is, how near were you to Olivia Laurel when you saw her prepare those
DTRS.
WITNESS:
About
three feet away. Your Honor please.
J. BARRIOS:
She
noticed that you were present and watching?
WITNESS:
Yes,
Your Honor please.
J. BARRIOS:
And
she continued doing it?
WITNESS:
Yes,
Your Honor please.
J. BARRIOS:
And
could you read the entries that she was making?
WITNESS:
The
entries were made by the employee and the DTR is submitted to Olivia Laurel for
her approval, Sir.
J. BARRIOS:
So
she was not entering or placing therein the entries. She was only signing the DTRs?
WITNESS:
Yes,
Your Honor please.
J. BARRIOS:
So
you did not see who prepared those DTRs?
WITNESS:
I
know that every employee prepare his or her own DTR.
J. BARRIOS:
So
it is based on your assumption?
WITNESS:
Based on the policy of the Supreme
Court and based from what I sometime saw employees doing.
J. BARRIOS:
Did you actually see the
entries? Did you read them? Did you perceive them distinctly?
WITNESS:
What I perceived, Your Honor, is
that every employee in Branch 25 made it appear that they were reporting for
work regularly from 8 to 12 then from 1 to 5 o’clock in the afternoon. Now, if there are absences they were not
reflected in the DTR. So what I perceive
was that these absences were supported by applications for leave of absences filed
with the OCAD.
J. BARRIOS:
Were these employees absent all the
time?
WITNESS:
Diana Ramos was always absent or
late, Sir.
J. BARRIOS:
When you say absent you would be
saying that for days on end, and for several days she is not present?
WITNESS:
Yes, Your Honor please.
J. BARRIOS:
She is not reporting for duty at
all.
WITNESS:
Not reporting for duty.
J. BARRIOS:
In particular, this Diana Ramos her place
of work or assigned table [was] within your view?
WITNESS:
Yes, Your Honor. Because the RTC in Biñan occupies about a
hundred square meters area of the second floor of the
J. BARRIOS:
During your stint as Presiding Judge of
Branch 25, do you have an assigned chamber?
WITNESS:
Yes, Your Honor please.
J. BARRIOS:
And is that chambers enclosed by
walls or partition?
WITNESS:
Yes, Your Honor.
J. BARRIOS:
It has a ceiling?
WITNESS:
It had a ceiling, Your Honor.
J. BARRIOS:
So you would say that this place
where you work is isolated from the rest of the court officers or areas
occupied by your staff?
WITNESS:
I do not consider my chamber
isolated, Your Honor, because I usually go to the library and go to their
place. I pass through the working place
of my staff.
J. BARRIOS:
What you mean is that it is
physically isolated?
WITNESS:
Yes, Your Honor.
J. BARRIOS:
If you close the door you would not
be able to see the employees outside?
WITNESS:
Yes, Your Honor.
J. BARRIOS:
And do you close the door during the
times when you were working?
WITNESS:
Yes, Your Honor. [55]
From Judge Francisco’s testimony alone, his cause of action is bound to
fail. His own testimony wrote finis
to his administrative cases against the court personnel for falsification of
DTRs. Judge Francisco cannot depend on mere assumptions, suspicions, and
speculations. His charges must be based
on his own personal knowledge of facts, backed up by competent evidence. As correctly observed by Justice Barrios,
“Judge Francisco failed to substantiate by convincing evidence that these
employees committed falsification especially so as he has no personal knowledge
of such act.” Judge Francisco was in no
position to have kept tabs on the daily attendance of all the court personnel
he charged, especially those who worked at another branch or office and were
not under the judge’s administrative supervision.
Alfonso, one of the court personnel charged
for falsification of DTR by Judge Francisco, was assigned at the Office of the
Clerk of Court. We can not imagine how
Judge Francisco monitored Alfonso’s presence in or absence from said
office. While Alfonso admitted that he
was on leave for a long time, he duly filed his leave of absence. According to Alfonso:
[CROSS
EXAMINATION BY
JUDGE PABLO B.
FRANCISCO]
Q From 1995 up to the date Judge
Francisco was detailed in Branches 25 and 24 in Biñan, you were receiving your
salary from the Supreme Court, isn’t it?
Atty. Zarate:
As approved by Atty. Luzod.
Judge Francisco:
Q Because you prepared your daily time
record and approved by Atty. Luzod, isn’t it?
A Yes, sir.
x x x x
Q You were confined, according to you in
the
A Yes, sir.
x x x x
Q About how many months were you
confined?
A Two (2) months more or less aside from
the complete rest in the house.
Q And you were able to draw your salary
from the Supreme Court based on the same daily time record approved by Atty.
Luzod while you were confined in the hospital?
A Yes, sir,
because of the sick leave.[56]
We stress that Judge Francisco did not even have in his
possession a single copy, whether original or certified photocopy, of the
purportedly falsified DTRs. Without
copies of the DTRs in question, there is no reasonable or logical way for us to
determine whether they were indeed falsified.
Additionally, the lack of details – such as the particular dates the
court personnel were supposedly absent but which they declared to have been
present at the court in their DTRs – not only prevents us from verifying Judge
Francisco’s allegations, it also precludes the charged court personnel from
preparing their explanation or defense.
Judge Francisco’s claim that some of the court
personnel charged, specifically, the court stenographers, admitted to
falsifying their DTRs so as to correspond to the logbook, was refuted by Lopez
in her testimony, to wit:
[CROSS EXAMINATION BY
JUDGE PABLO B. FRANCISCO]
Q Did
not Judge Francisco call you one by one in the court chamber?
A Yes,
you have called us one by one in your court chamber only for us to change some
entries in our daily time record of July 1998.
That was the time that I could very much recall that you have called the
court stenographers inside your chamber.
x
x x x
Q Now,
sometime in July 1998, did not Judge Francisco informed you that you falsified
your daily time records by making it appear therein that you were reporting for
work at 8:00 in the morning when in fact most of the time you were late?
A That
is what I’m referring to earlier, your Honor, when you asked me about the
letter addressed to Justice Benipayo.
So, I answered you that you have called us, the court stenographers,
inside your courtroom particularly because of the daily time records dated July
1998 that you have requested us to change several entries in our daily time
records.
Q To
conform with the logbook, isn’t it?
A You
requested us to change the entries of our DTR.
Q And
you complied?
A We
complied because you are our superior, your Honor.
x x x x
A Actually,
the entries in the logbook conform but you have designated a person to change
what has already been written in the logbook.
You have directed or ordered one of our court personnel to change the
entry in the logbook and then you asked us to change also the entry in our
DTR. That is what happened, your Honor.[57]
Perez recalled the same event, testifying as
follows:
[ATTY. ZARATE]:
Q Can
you tell us in details that circumstances when they (sic) forced you to change
your Daily Time Record?
[PEREZ]:
A Tinawag po niya kaming
isa-isa Evelyn, Ma. Fe [Lopez],
Lita [Chavez] at ako [Perez]. Isa-isa po
kaming tinawag tapos po galit na galit siya.
Sabi niya palitan namin yung entry lagyan namin ng late tapos inisyalan
namin. I was afraid he was very
insistent and I was very scared because he was shouting.
Q What
was [he] shouting…?
A Palitan mo iyan, palitan mo iyan kung hindi
di ko pipirmahan iyang Daily Time Record mo.
Q Is
that all that he told you?
A That
is what I can remember, sir because I was so afraid.
Q How
about the other stenographers who were with you did they also comply to the
request of Judge Francisco to change to amend their Daily Time Record?
A Yes,
because they were also afraid.[58]
Since it has not been established that the DTRs of the court employees
were falsified, then there is also no basis for us to hold administratively
liable the immediate supervisors who approved the same. The signing by the supervisors of their
subordinates’ DTRs enjoys the presumption of regularity,[59]
which Judge Francisco failed to contradict and overcome with evidence.
Service of summons (A.M.
No. P-10-2747)
Judge Francisco accused Utility Worker Bati
of serving summons upon the defendants in civil cases, with the authorization
of Sheriff Magat; then Magat and Bati made it appear that the former personally
served the summons. Records, however,
reveal that Bati merely accompanied Magat and did not serve summons and other
court processes on his own. Bati
explained:
DIRECT
EXAMINATION BY
ATTY. NOE CANGCO
ZARATE
Q You said that you are an Aid, will you
specify the duties of an Aid in the Office of the Clerk of Court?
A Performing janitorial job and all other
jobs that may be assigned to me from time to time.
Q Mr. Bati, who is your immediate
superior?
A Atty. Ernesto Luzod, Clerk of Court.
Q In this proceedings, Mr. Bati, you are
accused by Judge Pablo B. Francisco of falsification of public document which
according to him you are performing the duties of a provincial Sheriff by
serving copies of summons by yourself alone; what can you say about this?
A That is not true.
Q What is the truth now?
A I am just (sic) brought along by our
Sheriff in serving the summons because I have a vehicle.
Q: And who was that person or Sheriff that
you are referring to?
A: Arnel Magat, Sir.
Q: Why were you asked to accompany him all
the time by serving summons?
A I have a vehicle, Sir.[60]
In the course of his testimony, Bati
admitted serving a copy of a decision upon a party unaccompanied by Magat, but
Bati was acting upon the instruction of Judge Francisco himself. According to Bati:
Q Do you know, Judge Pablo B. Francisco?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Have you had the opportunity to serve
under him?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Can you recall as clear as you can if
you happen to serve a copy of decision to the parties involved by order of
Presiding Judge Francisco?
A I cannot remember the year.
Q Would you be able to tell us the case?
A I think that involved a decision in an
election protest in Sta. Cruz.
Q What did Judge Francisco ask you to do?
A He asked me to serve the decision in
Sta. Cruz.
Q How were you able to talk to him about
that decision?
A He called me and told me to serve the
decision.
Q Did you follow him?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Why?
A He is the judge and he is our boss.
Q What is that decision? What is the nature of that decision, if you
can recall?
A That referred to the election case of
Panganiban and Bautista.
Q Where did you serve that decision?
A Sta. Cruz and
Q Would you be able to tell us the name
of that person to whom you serve that decision?
A I know in court and to the lawyer of
either Panganiban or was it Bautista?
Q In serving the decision, were there any
other person that accompany you?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Who is that person?
A Dina Bautista, who is allegedly the
niece of Mayor Bautista.[61]
Bati
remained steadfast even when cross-examined:
[CROSS
EXAMINATION BY
JUDGE PABLO B.
FRANCISCO]
Q You also (sic) according to you, you
were also asked by Judge Francisco to serve decision, a decision in this
electoral protest case?
A Yes, Sir.
Q Where did you serve the decision?
A In court and with the lawyer of the
opponent of Panganiban.
Q What is the name of the lawyer?
A I cannot remember anymore because I had
a companion who brought that (sic) to the house.
Q This copy of the decision, you serve
upon the lawyer of Panganiban, is that correct?
A I am not sure whether it was the lawyer
of Panganiban or Bautista because I don’t know either of them.[62]
Bati testified very candidly,
providing details (i.e., the
electoral case in which Judge Francisco ordered him to serve a copy of the
decision, the parties, where he served the copy of the decision, who was his
companion) which Judge Francisco was not able to refute. Bati’s testimony certainly deserves more
evidentiary weight than that of Judge Francisco’s general allegations.
Necessarily, we also absolve Magat from any
wrongdoing as there is no evidence that he unlawfully authorized Bati to serve
summons and other court processes upon the parties in civil cases, and that
Magat falsified the returns to make it appear that he effected personal
service. As Bati testified, he did not
serve summons and other court processes on party-litigants by himself. Service of summons and court processes were
still personally done by Magat who only asked Bati to accompany him since the
latter had a vehicle. It even appears
that the only time Bati served a copy of a decision on a party by himself, it
was not pursuant to Magat’s authorization, but upon Judge Francisco’s
order.
Pleadings in the
ejectment case (A.M. No. P-10-2748)
Judge Francisco asserted that he was unable
to decide Civil Case No. B-5217, an ejectment case, within the prescribed
period, because Cuevillas hid the fact that the parties in said case had
already filed their memoranda. Cuevillas
was also allegedly remiss in the performance of her duties, failing to send
necessary notices to the parties, consequently, hampering court proceedings. Hence, he charged Cuevillas with Grave
Misconduct.
Once more, Judge Francisco made an
accusation which he did not substantiate with evidence. There is no dispute that Cuevillas received
the memoranda of the parties in Civil Case No. B-5217. But, as Cuevillas clarified, she is in charge
of the records for criminal cases, and it is
Furthermore, the omission, by itself, does
not constitute grave misconduct on the part of Cuevillas. The records are bereft of any proof that
Cuevillas intentionally hid the fact of the filing of the memoranda by the
parties in Civil Case No. B-5217 from Judge Francisco.
Also, Judge Francisco cannot put the entire
blame for his failure to render a decision in Civil Case No. B-5217 within the
prescribed period on the lack of notice from his staff that the parties had
filed their memoranda and the case was already submitted for decision. He must remember that as a trial judge, he
was expected to adopt a system of record management and organize his docket in
order to bolster the prompt and effective dispatch of business. Proper and efficient court management is the
responsibility of the judge. It is
incumbent upon judges to devise an efficient recording and filing system in
their courts so that no disorderliness can affect the flow of cases and their
speedy disposition.[63]
As to her alleged failure to notify the
parties in some cases, Cuevillas defended herself, thus:
DIRECT
EXAMINATION BY
ATTY. NOE CANGCO
ZARATE
Q: In this letter-complaint against you,
you were charged that you have been remiss in the performance of your duties
due to the fact that you failed to send notices to the parties and that because
you failed to do so your duties, sometimes the court has been hampered for lack
of notices, it is supposed to be your duty; what can you say about it?
A: With so many records that we have,
there are times when I have not sent notices.
Our terminal number is 400.
Q: How do you consider such situation that
you now describe as your reply to his complaint to you?
A: With so many, there are times that I
miss because I’m the only one handling such a volume.
Q: Do you consider that as normal in your
case?
A: No, Sir because in the morning, I’m the
one who would type it and in the afternoon, I would be the one to mail these.
x x x x
Q: In your letter-reply to the charges of
Judge Pablo B. Francisco, you mentioned that the motive of Judge Francisco in
filing this case was you were one of the signatories in the petition to return
to Sta. Cruz, is that correct?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: Why did you sign that petition?
A: Because I felt that there was no longer
harmony between the judge and the employees.[64]
During cross-examination and
re-cross-examination, Cuevillas further declared:
[CROSS
EXAMINATION BY
JUDGE PABLO B.
FRANCISCO]
Q: I have here a list of cases wherein you
failed to notify the counsel resulting to the cancellation of the hearing of
said case. Let’s say the case of People
vs. Ernesto Elasegui, Criminal Case No. 9319.
The hearing was set on May 12, 1998 but it was cancelled because you
failed to notify Atty. Cayetano Santos, is that correct?
A: Yes, your Honor.
Q: All right, another case. People vs. Luis Doria, the hearing was also
cancelled because you failed to notify Atty. Norberto de Jesus, can you remember?
x x x x
A: Yes, your Honor, but during that time,
you were conducting your inventory, so we were hard put.
Q: There’s another case, People vs. Angelo
Maylin, this is Criminal Case No. 9160-B, it was supposed to be heard on May
19, 1998, again the hearing was cancelled because you failed to notify counsel
for the accused.
A: Yes, your Honor, because you requested
the Supreme Court to make an inventory for the month of April.[65]
[RE-CROSS
EXAMINATION BY
JUDGE PABLO B.
FRANCISCO]
Q: And Judge Francisco summoned you in the
sala while there was a hearing and asked you why you failed to notify?
A: Yes, your Honor, because of so many
records that I am handling.
Q: And you told Judge Francisco that there
were so many cases, which were being set for hearing, isn’t it?
A: Yes, your Honor because at that time I
was also designated to work on that inventory, how can I work at the same time
on the inventory as well as in the sending of notices.[66]
While
Cuevillas herself acknowledged being remiss in the performance of her duties
for a time, we deem the same to be excusable given the circumstances. She was obviously overburdened with
work. An inventory of cases was being
conducted in their sala during the
months of February, March, and April of 1998.
In addition, she was participating in the revision of ballots in the
election case Judge Francisco was handling in the RTC of Sta. Cruz. It is not difficult to understand how
Cuevillas could have missed sending notices of hearings for May 1998 to the
parties in some cases, thus, resulting in the cancellation of said
hearings. Nevertheless, we must remind
Cuevillas that she must capably perform her duties despite the heavy workload,
and we shall not be as tolerant in the future should she be remiss again. All employees in the judiciary should be
examples of responsibility, competence and efficiency. As officers of the court and agents of the
law, they must discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence. Any conduct they exhibit tending to diminish
the faith of the people in the judiciary will not be condoned.[67]
Certifications issued by
Atty. Galeon (A.M. Nos. P-10-2749 and P-03-1706)
In A.M. No.
P-10-2749 Judge Francisco charged Alfonso, Bati, Cuevillas, Javier, Lopez,
Magat, Moreno, Orfiano, Pascual, Perez, Santos, and Sevilla with Dishonesty and
Gross Misconduct after said court personnel accused the judge, in their Comment
in A. M. No. P-10-2747, of falsifying his certificates of service by making it
appear that he was present and conducted hearings on days when he was actually
absent.
We dismiss A.M. No. P-10-2749 as there is
no basis to hold the concerned court personnel administratively liable for
dishonesty and gross misconduct.
Although we are not making a categorical finding herein that Judge
Francisco falsified his certificates of service as the court personnel merely
alleged the same in their Comment to Judge Francisco’s Letter-Complaint in A.M.
No. P-10-2747, and did not formally charge the judge for the supposed offense,
we find that the court personnel’s claims against Judge Francisco were not
completely fabricated and purely motivated by malice. They did have in their possession
Certifications issued by Atty. Galeon stating that: (1) except for December 14,
1995, no other session was held every Wednesday between December 4, 1995 and
January 5, 1996; and (2) no setting of cases was
made between February 7, 1996 and August 27,
1997.
The charged court
personnel uniformly testified:
LOPEZ
Judge Francisco:
Q: Mrs. Lopez, you were also a signatory to
a letter by court employees addressed to the Office of the Court Administrator
stating among others that Judge Francisco was not holding sessions during
Wednesdays at the time that he was the Presiding Judge in Branch 25, are you aware
of that?
A: Yes, your Honor.
Q: Do you have personal knowledge of what
you stated in that letter?
A: We only learned that Judge Francisco do
not hold hearings during Wednesdays through the Certification issued by the
Clerk of Court, Branch 25, Atty. Galleon.
Q: Is there a certification from Atty.
Galleon that Judge Francisco was not holding session every Wednesday?
A: It is attached to the petition letter.
x x x x
Judge Barrios:
But the witness has answered that
she was one of those who made that statement, one of the signatories and that
her basis was knowledge she derived from that letter.
Q: So, that is your only basis for stating
that Judge Francisco did not hold office on Wednesday?
Witness:
A: Yes, your Honor x x x.
JUDGE FRANCISCO:
Q: Anyway, I have here a certification that
I assumed duties on January 2, 1995 as Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court,
Branch 25, Biñan, Laguna. This is signed
by Atty. Ernesto Luzod, Jr. and attested by Judge Cosico. How about after January 5, 1996, what was
your basis in telling the Court Administrator that I was not holding session
every Wednesday?
A: That is based on that certification.
Q: No, that certification really states
that it was only up to January 5, 1996.
Now, after January 5, 1996, what was your basis now?
A: Your Honor, it’s not an individual
petition, it’s a petition signed by all the court personnel. Of course, we will gather all the documents
to be attached to that petition and one of those documents is the certification
issued. So, on that point, we agree that
you are not holding hearings during Wednesdays based on the documents we have
gathered, but we are not very specific.[68]
ORFIANO:
Q: And you also accused me in this letter
in [A.M. No. P-10-2749] of not conducting trial every Wednesday of the week
before Branch 25 became special court, isn’t it:
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: Is your allegation now true?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you have evidence to prove that I was
not conducting trial every Wednesday?
A: Per your court calendar, your Honor,
because we secured copies of your court calendar and the present Clerk of
Court, Atty. Galleon issued a Certification to that effect x x x.
Q: All right. You also accused me of not reporting for work
the whole month of August 1997, did you not?
A: Per your court calendar, sir.[69]
PEREZ:
Q: What else did you charge against me . .
. You were also a signatory to this letter to another letter (sic) submicious
(sic) letter addressed to the Court Administrator accusing me of not reporting or
not holding session every Wednesday. Did
you not sign this letter?
x x x x
A: Yes, sir. I signed.
JUDGE FRANCISCO:
Q: And your statements are true?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Of your own knowledge?
A: Some of my own knowledge. Some based on Court record.
Q: Will you produce those records?
A: This records (sic) certified by Atty.
Galleon.[70]
The court personnel merely relied on the
Certifications issued by Atty. Galeon, who, as Clerk of Court, is mandated to
“prepare, for any person demanding the same, a copy certified under the seal of
the court of any paper, record, order, judgment, or entry in his office, proper
to be certified xxx.”[71] And the reliance by the court personnel on
Atty. Galleon’s Certifications does not constitute dishonesty or gross misconduct.
In A.M. No.
P. 03-1706, Judge Francisco accused Atty. Galeon and Laurel of Falsification of
Public Document for making untruthful narration of facts in another
Certification which stated that the judge did not hold hearings in August 1997. According to Judge Francisco, Atty. Galeon
and Laurel conspired with each other, with the former issuing a Certification
based on the false entries in the calendar book made by the latter. A careful review of the records does not
yield any reasonable basis for disciplinary action against Atty. Galeon and
Laurel.
In
falsification by false narration of facts, (1) the offender makes untruthful
statements in a narration of facts; (2) he has a legal obligation to disclose
the truth of the facts narrated by him; (3) the facts narrated are absolutely
false; and (4) it was made with a wrongful intent to injure a third person.[72] None of these elements exists in this
case.
When Atty. Galeon certified the photocopies
of the 10 pages of the court calendar book, she was not making a narration of
facts. She was just certifying that the
photocopies were faithful reproductions of the original pages of the court
calendar book. As Atty. Galeon pointed
out, she affixed her signature on the photocopies only after she had compared
them with the original copies and was satisfied that they were exact
copies.
Also unsubstantiated is Judge Francisco’s
assertion of conspiracy between Atty. Galeon and Laurel. As we held in the preceding paragraph, Atty.
Galeon only made her Certification based on the court calendar book presented
to her. That
[DIRECT EXAMINATION BY
ATTY. NOE CANGCO
ZARATE]
Q: In preparing this Exh. “2”,
A: This logbook, Sir, is usually prepared
ahead of time.
Q: When you said ahead of time, ahead of
schedule?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: More or less, what is the month, which
you considered to be ahead of time?
A: This calendar book, Sir, as you can
see, was prepared by the former Branch Clerk of Court, so I just continue doing
this.
x x x x
Q: When was this prepared when you said
ahead of time?
A: Fiscal Casano was the Branch Clerk of
Court of Branch 25 and she prepared this January 11 of 1996 and she resigned
from the service in June of 1996 and her handwriting appears until December of
1996, Sir.
Justice Barrios:
You mean to say that the entirety of that
exhibit was prepared by Atty. Casano?
Witness:
Your Honor, this was prepared by Atty.
Casano in January of 1996 until December of 1996, but she resigned in June
1996, Sir.
Justice Barrios:
So, she was preparing that during the
period of January to June of 1996 but the entries covered [the] schedule up to
December of 1996?
Witness:
Yes, Sir, in her handwriting, Sir.
Justice Barrios:
So that even when you were already
the Officer-in-Charge, the schedules there referred to were those prepared at
the time of Atty. Casano?
Witness:
Yes, Your Honor.
x x x x
Q Now you are being charged by Atty.
Francisco of Falsification of Public Document allegedly you manufacture entries
in the month of August 1997 in this calendar book, what can you say about that?
A That is not true, Sir.
Q Why?
A Because as you can see, all the
employees in the branch has access to this logbook. I cannot manufacture the entries because as I
have explained earlier, even though Fiscal Casano was not the Branch Clerk of
Court of Branch 25, she has still here her handwriting and as you can see, Sir,
there are so many handwritings as appearing in this logbook.
Q Different handwriting?
A Yes, Sir.[73]
Consequently, we are likewise dismissing A.M. No. P.
03-1706.
The salary of Judge
Francisco’s personal security (A.M. No. RTJ-10-2214)
In their
Complaint in A.M. No. RTJ-10-2214, Magat and Arellano alleged that Judge
Francisco committed Grave Misconduct for compelling them to pay for the salary
of the judge’s personal bodyguard, Nuestro.
Similar to most of the administrative charges herein, we are dismissing
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2214 for lack of merit.
In Magat’s Sinumpaang Salaysay, he disclosed the
following:
Na noong Pebrero 1998, ako ay kinausap ni
Hukom Francisco at hiniling niya sa akin na kung maari ay kunin ko si Joselito
Nuestro, dating alalay ni Judge Francisco bilang katulong ko sa aking nga
gawain bilang Sheriff sa bayad na P100.00 bawat araw ng trabaho;
Na ayon kay Judge Francisco,
ipinagkakatiwala na niya sa akin si Joselito Nuestro sapagkat wala na siyang
pondo para sa suweldo nito;
Na wala akong malinaw na katugunan sa
alok ni Judge Francisco ngunit sa paglipas ng araw ay naging katulong ko rin sa
aking pagtupad sa tungkulin si Lito Nuestro at siya ay aking naatasan maglagay
ng mga “Notices of Sale”, magsilbi at magpadala ng aking nga liham at samahan
ako sa aking mga lakad sa humigit kumulang na dalawang (2) buwan, at biniyayaan
ko naman siya ng P3,000.00, humigit-kumulang.[74]
Magat affirmed his execution of that the
aforequoted sworn statement during his cross-examination:
[CONTINUATION OF CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY JUDGE PABLO
B. FRANCISCO]
Q: I’m showing to you another Sinumpaang
Salaysay, this is dated July 1998. Below
this Sinumpaang Salaysay above the typewritten name Arnel G. Magat, there
appears to be a signature, is this your signature?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: And the statements here are all correct?
A: Let me read that. Yes sir.[75]
Again, in their letter to the Supreme
Court, Magat and Arellano wrote:
But the charge
made to us by Joselito Nuestro that he was made to work with us in three days
period is true because at that time, there was no available process server,
and, we gave Joselito Nuestro to conduct the posting of notice of extrajudicial
foreclosure of real estate mortgage filed in our office by various banks and
financial entities.[76]
As admitted by Magat and Arellano, they had
actually availed themselves of Nuestro’s services several times, for which,
apparently, they had to pay Nuestro.
While Nuestro should not have been allowed to perform the duties and
functions of a court employee, there was no clear showing that Magat and Arellano
were allowed or coerced by Judge Francisco to use Nuestro’s services and paying
Nuestro for the same.
WHEREFORE, premises considered,
we DISMISS all charges in A.M. Nos.
P-10-2745, RTJ-00-1992, P-10-2746, P-10-2747, P-10-2748, P-10-2749, P-10-2750,
P-10-2751, P-03-1706, and RTJ-10-2214; while we DECLARE Judge Pablo B. Francisco GUILTY in A.M. No. RTJ-06-1992 for Abuse of Authority in issuing
the Direct Contempt Order dated July 14, 1998 and IMPOSE upon him a FINE
in the total amount for P25,000.00,
to be deducted from whatever benefits may be due him in view of his resignation[77]
as Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, Sta. Cruz, Laguna.
SO ORDERED.
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chief
Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate
Justice |
|
* Per Raffle dated June 28, 2010.
[1] Hereinafter referred to individually by their surnames, or collectively as Alfonso, et al.
[2] Now Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals.
[3] Rollo (A.M. No. P-10-2745), pp. 72-77.
[4] Id. at 72-75.
[5] Id. at. 78.
[6] Rollo (A.M. No. RTJ-06-1992), pp. 13-16.
[7] Rollo (A.M. No. P-10-2745), pp. 61-70.
[8] Id. at 71.
[9] Rollo (A.M. No. RTJ-06-1992), pp. 24-26.
[10] Rollo (A.M. No. P-10-2745), pp. 16-18.
[11] Id. at 42.
[12] Rollo (A.M. No. RTJ-06-1992), pp. 49-50.
[13] Id at 50-51.
[14] Rollo (A.M. No. P-10-2745), pp. 82-83.
[15] Rollo (A.M. No. P-10-2746), pp. 291-294; Report and Recommendation, pp. 53-56.
[16] Id. at 294-296; id. at 56-58.
[17] Rollo (A.M. No. P-10-2747), pp. 12-19.
[18] Id. at 1.
[19] Id. at 55-58.
[20] Id. at 69-81.
[21] Rollo (A.M. No. P-10-2748), p. 5.
[22] Id. at 6.
[23] Court Calendar falling on a Wednesday: January 17, 1996; February 14, 21, 28, 1996; March 6, 13, 20, 27, 1996; April 10, 17, 1996; May 8, 22, 29, 1996; June 5, 26, 1996; July 3, 17, 24, 31, 1996; August 7, 14, 21, 28, 1996; September 4, 11, 18, 25, 1996; October 2, 23, 1996; December 11, 18, 1996; rollo (A.M. No. P-10-2749), pp. 24-63.
[24] Id. at 65-72.
[25] Id at. 192-194.
[26] Rollo (A.M. No. P-10-2750), pp. 1-2.
[27] Rollo (A.M. No. P-10-2751), pp. 1-3.
[28] Rollo (A.M. No. P-10-2750), p. 36.
[29] Rollo (A.M. No. P-10-2751), p. 49.
[30] Rollo (A.M. No. P-10-2750), p. 42.
[31] Rollo (A.M. No. P-10-2746), pp. 313-314; Report and Recommendation, pp. 75-76.
[32] Id. at 347; id. at 109.
[33] Rollo (A.M. No. P-10-2746), p. 231.
[34] Rollo (A.M. No. P-10-2747), p. 39.
[35] TSN, May 30, 2003, pp. 22-24.
[36] Español v. Formoso,
G.R. No. 150949, June 21, 2007, 525 SCRA 216, 223-224.
[37] Id.
[38] Rollo (A.M. No. P-10-2745), p. 70.
[39] TSN, November 7, 2001, pp. 13-15.
[40] TSN,
November 14, 2001, pp. 14-15.
[41] Delgra, Jr. v. Gonzales, G.R. No. L-24981, January
30, 1970, 31 SCRA 237, 244.
[42] TSN, February 21, 2002, pp. 5-6.
[43] Tiongco v. Salao, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2009,
July 27, 2006, 496 SCRA 575, 586.
[44] 220 Phil. 452, 463 (1985).
[45] A.M. No.
RTJ-06-1972, June 21, 2006, 491 SCRA 545, 554-556.
[46] Judge
Ibay arrived early in the morning at his court, RTC-Branch 135 of Makati City,
only to find out that the electric supply was cut off. Panaligan, the Building Management System
Operator, admitted to switching off the power supply the day before after he
discovered that the lights at RTC-Branch 134 of Makati City was left on after
office hours. Since he did not have a
key to get into RTC-Branch 134 to simply turn off the lights, Panaligan had to
switch off the circuit breaker which said court shared with RTC-Branch
135. Judge Ibay deemed Panaligan’s
explanation unsatisfactory, and cited Panaligan for contempt with the penalty
of imprisonment for two days.
[47] A.M. No. RTJ-06-1970, November 30,
2006, 509 SCRA 75, 92.
[48] A.M. No. RTJ-06-1984,
June 30, 2009, 591 SCRA 229, 243.
[49] A.M. No. RTJ-09-2175, July 28, 2009.
[50]
452 Phil. 957, 963 (2003).
[51] Civil Service Commission v. Ledesma, G.R. No. 154521, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 589, 603.
[52] Laurel and Ramos in A.M. Nos. P-10-2745 and RTJ-00-1992; Chaves, Lopez, Orfiano, and Perez in A.M. No. P-10-2746; and Alfonso, Cuevillas, Javier, Laurel, Lopez, Moreno, Orfiano, Pascual, Perez, Ramos, and Sevilla in A.M. No. P-10-2747.
[53] Dulay
v. Lelina, Jr., 501 Phil. 559, 565
(2005).
[54] TSN, November 15, 2002, pp. 31-34.
[55] TSN, May 23, 2002, pp. 135-146.
[57] TSN, June 16, 2003, pp. 38-40.
[58] TSN, June 23, 2003, p. 10.
[59] According to Rule 131, Sec. 3(m):
SEC. 3. Disputable presumptions. – The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence:
x x x x
(m) That official duty has been regularly performed.
[60] TSN, May 16, 2003, p. 4.
[61] Id. at 5-6.
[62] Id. at 7-8.
[63] Office of the Court Administrator v. Legaspi, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1893, March 14, 2006, 484 SCRA 584, 608.
[64] TSN. June 16, 2003, pp. 5-6.
[65] Id. at 8-9.
[66]
Id. at 12-13.
[67] Aquino v. Lavadia, 417 Phil. 770, 776 (2001).
[68] TSN, June 16, 2003, pp. 42-44.
[69] TSN, June 9, 2003, p. 43.
[70] TSN, June 23, 2003, p. 25.
[71] Revised Rules of Court, Rule 136, Section 11.
[72] Re:Spurious Certificate of Eligibility of Tessie G. Quires, RTC, Office of the Clerk of Court, Quezon City, A.M. No. 05-5-268-RTC, May 4, 2006, 489 SCRA 349, 358.
[73] TSN, April 27, 2004, pp. 6-9.
[74] Folder of Exhibits, Exh. 15 (for Magat and Arellano).
[75] TSN, July 1, 2004, p. 6.
[76] Rollo (A.M. No. RTJ-10-2214), pp. 2-3.
[77] Court En Banc Resolution dated August 19, 2003 in A.M. No. 03-7-420-RTC.