Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
EN BANC
JOSEPHINE JAZMINES TAN, Complainant, - versus - JUDGE SIBANAH E. USMAN, Regional
Trial Court, Branch 29, Catbalogan, Samar, Respondent. |
A.M. No. RTJ-11-2666 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No.
09-3320-RTJ] Present: CORONA, C.J., CARPIO, CARPIO MORALES, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA,* LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN,* DEL CASTILLO,* ABAD, VILLARAMA, JR., PEREZ, MENDOZA, and SERENO, JJ. Promulgated: February
15, 2011 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO
MORALES, J.:
By a verified November 22, 2009
Complaint,[1]
Josephine Jazmines Tan (complainant) charges Judge Sibanah E. Usman
(respondent), Presiding Judge of Branch 28,[2]
Regional Trial Court, Catbalogan, Samar, with abuse of power and authority,
conduct unbecoming a judicial officer, mental dishonesty, grave misconduct,
gross ignorance of the law and knowingly rendering an unjust order, and bribery
and corruption, in connection with Civil Case No. 7681[3]
and Criminal Case No. 6536.[4]
It appears that complainant, together with his co-plaintiffs in the civil
case/co-accused in the criminal case, filed a Motion for Inhibition[5]
against respondent. The movants attached to their motion the Affidavit[6] of
complainant.
Complainant claims that during the hearing of the Motion for Inhibition, respondent
became very emotional, coerced her to testify without the assistance of counsel
and demanded a public apology from her; and
that while she requested to refer the motion to the Executive Judge, respondent
interrogated her relentlessly following which he issued an Order[7] of
August 28, 2009 finding her guilty of Direct Contempt and ordered her detention. Thus respondent disposed in his Order:
IN VIEW THEREOF, premises considered, in order to set as an example for anyone not to make fabricated charges against the Court employees and judges, and also to restore the integrity of the Court, the affiant, Josephine Jazmines Tan is hereby cited of Direct Contempt of Court and thus ordered detained at the Samar Provincial Jail until she divulges the name of the informant/employee of the Court or publicly apologize to the employees of the Court, the Presiding Judge and the Executive Judge, but the period of detention shall not exceed more than thirty (30) days beginning from her service of confinement. Mrs. Perla Santiago, PO3 Marlon Villanueva and PO3 Doroteo Montejo are hereby directed to escort the affiant, Josephine Jazmines Tan, to the Samar Provincial Jail for detention.[8] (emphasis supplied; underscoring partly in the original, partly supplied)
Complainant was in fact detained from August
28, 2009 until September 16, 2009[9] or
for a total of 19 days.
In his January 14, 2010 Answer[10]
to the complaint, respondent explained that during the hearing of the Motion
for Inhibition, the employees of the court appeared before complainant but she failed
to name any of them as having allegedly told her that Jaime Cui, Jr. “was
bragging that they have disbursed a substantial amount of money” to him
(respondent); that Atty. Lee M. Zosa,
the private prosecutor in the criminal case, and Atty. Benly Frederick
Bergonio, counsel for the PNB in the civil case, moved that complainant be
cited for Direct Contempt of Court and that she be detained until she divulges
the name of her informant; and that Atty.
Jose M. Mendiola, complainant’s lawyer, failed to give any comment because,
according to him, complainant did not consult him about the filing of the
Motion for Inhibition.[11]
Respondent went on to explain that since he issued his August 28, 2009 Order
in an official capacity, the remedy of complainant was to file a motion for
reconsideration or an appeal, not an administrative case; that he gave complainant a maximum of 30 days
detention to give her “a wider opportunity to either apologize or divulge the name
of her informant, so that even before the expiration of the period, the court
can lift the Order of Contempt.”[12]
By Report of November 25, 2010,[13]
the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) came up with the following
evaluation of the Complaint:
The instant administrative case is partly meritorious.
Complainant Tan failed to prove that
respondent Judge Usman committed an Act Unbecoming a Judge by shouting at her
at the hearing on the Motion for
Inhibition. Aside from her
allegation, there is nothing on record to support her claim. The
The charge of Mental Dishonesty has no merit. When respondent Judge Usman included other court employees and the Executive Judge in his discourse on the charge of bribery/corruption against him, he was not twisting the facts but was merely discussing the projected overall effect of the complainant Tan’s accusation. The perception that a particular employee of the judiciary is corrupt, eventually, engulfs the entire institution.
Hence, complainant Tan failed to prove by substantial evidence her charge of Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Order. The records bear nothing to show that a competent court had previously adjudged respondent Judge Usman guilty of the crime of Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Order in Civil Case No. 7681 and/or Criminal Case No. 6536.
Complainant Tan likewise failed to prove the charge of Bribery/Corruption. Bare allegation alone is insufficient to hold respondent Judge Usman liable. Complainant Tan admitted the deficiency of her proof when, at the outset, she reserved her right to submit other proofs in support of this particular charge.
Based on the evidence presented, respondent Judge Usman gravely
abused his authority and is grossly ignorant of the rule on Direct Contempt of
Court….
x x x x
. . . [I]n the Order dated 28 August 2009, respondent Judge Usman directed that complainant Tan be detained for a period not exceeding thirty (30) days. No amount of rationalization can reconcile the limit of the 10-day period of imprisonment for Direct Contempt of Court set in section 1, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court with the 30-day (maximum period of) imprisonment that respondent Judge Usman fixed in the Order. This Office finds nothing in the rule, which suggests, however remotely, the theory that the 10-day period of imprisonment in Section 1, Rule 71 is pliable enough to validly stretch to 30 days. By virtue of his office, respondent Judge Usman knows or should have known this so basic a rule. The glaring clarity of the rule tripped respondent Judge Usman to commit a glaring error, which was made even more flagrant by the fact that complainant Tan was actually imprisoned for 19 days.
Further, respondent Judge Usman failed to indicate in the Order the amount of bond as required under Section 2, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. Due to this omission, complainant Tan’s option to stay the execution of the judgment had been rendered nugatory, and a result thereof caused her immediate detention. An order of direct contempt is not immediately executory. Respondent Judge Usman’s error, however, made it so.
Respondent Judge Usman wielded power abusively by depriving complainant Tan her liberty for nine (9) days without due process of law. Lest any misperception of this institution thrive, this regretful incident must be decisively addressed.[14] (emphasis partly in the original, partly supplied; italics in the original; underscoring supplied)
In its Report, the OCA also listed
the other administrative complaints filed against respondent[15]
and their respective status, viz:
x x x Per Alphalist as of 30, June 2010, respondent Judge Usman was the subject of other administrative complaints, to wit:
RTJ-91-777 |
Irregular Financial Support |
Complaint
Dismissed (3.23.93)
Fine 2 mos. Salary (3.5.02) |
03-1744-RTJ
w/ RTJ-02-1713 |
Violation
of R.A. No. 3019, knowingly rendering unjust orders, bias and partiality,
etc. |
Suspension
2 mos. & Fine 10T (10.25.05) |
RTJ-08-2098
(05-2170-RTJ) |
Falsification of Certificate of Service and Dishonesty |
Fine
2T (1.16.08) |
RTJ-07-2053
(05-2171-RTJ) |
Grave abuse of discretion, dishonesty |
Suspension
1 mo. (11.27.08) |
RTJ-02-1713
(01-1257-RTJ) |
Graft and Corruption, incompetence, gross ignorance of the
law, dishonesty, and partiality, absenteeism |
Suspension 2 mos. & Fine 10T (10.25.05) |
RTJ-05-1922 (02-12-18-SC) |
(per instruction of Court
En Banc) |
Suspension 2 mos. & Fine 10T (10.25.05) |
RTJ-05-1923 (03-3-157-RTC) |
(per instruction of Court
En Banc) |
Suspension 2 mos. & Fine 10T (10.25.05) |
Thus, the OCA recommended that this case be re-docketed as a regular
administrative matter and that
a. the administrative complaint . . . for Conduct Unbecoming a Judicial Officer, Mental Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Order and/or Bribery/Corruption be DISMISSED for lack of merit;
b. respondent Judge Usman be found guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law for which he should be ordered to pay a FINE in the amount of TWENTY ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P21,000.00) to be paid within fifteen (15) days from finality of the Resolution of the Court[.][16] (underscoring supplied)
Rule 71 of the Rules of Court provides:
SECTION. 1. Direct contempt punished summarily. ─ A person guilty of misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same, including disrespect toward the court, offensive personalities toward others, or refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe an affidavit or deposition when lawfully required to do so, may be summarily adjudged in contempt by such court and punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand pesos or imprisonment not exceeding ten (10) days, or both, if it be a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank; or by a fine not exceeding two hundred pesos or imprisonment not exceeding (1) day, or both, if it be a lower court.
SEC. 2. Remedy therefrom. ─ The person adjudged in direct contempt by any court may not appeal therefrom, but may avail himself of the remedies of certiorari or prohibition. The execution of the judgment shall be suspended pending resolution of such petition, provided such person file a bond fixed by the court which rendered the judgment and conditioned that he will abide by and perform the judgment should the petition be decided against him. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Failure to follow basic legal
commands as prescribed by law and the rules is tantamount to gross ignorance of
the law. By accepting the exalted position of a judge, respondent ought to have
been familiar with the legal norms and precepts as well as the procedural
rules.[17]
Contrary to respondent’s claim, complainant has no remedy of appeal, as the
above-quoted Section 2 of Rule 71 shows. And the penalty for direct contempt if
imprisonment is imposed should not, as Section 1 of Rule 71 provides, exceed 10
days. As stated earlier, complainant was
detained for 19 days or 9 days more than the limit imposed by the Rules.
More. Respondent did not fix the
bond, in violation of the same Section 2 of Rule 71, which complainant could
have posted had she desired to challenge the order. And on the same day the Order
was issued, respondent ordered the confinement of complainant to the provincial
jail.
Oclarit v. Paderanga[18] instructs:
… [A]n order of direct contempt is not immediately executory or enforceable. The contemner must be afforded a reasonable remedy to extricate or purge himself of the contempt. Thus, in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, the Court introduced a new provision granting a remedy to a person adjudged in direct contempt by any court. Such person may not appeal therefrom, but may avail himself of certiorari or prohibition. In such case, the execution of the judgment shall be suspended pending resolution of such petition provided the contemner files a bond fixed by the court which rendered the judgment and conditioned that he will abide by and perform the judgment should the petition be decided against him.[19] (underscoring supplied)
Under Section 8 (of Rule 140, gross ignorance of the law or
procedure is classified as a serious charge which is, under Section 11(A), punishable
by:
1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government- owned or –controlled corporations. Provided, however, That the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits;
2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or
3. A
fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00
Respondent having been repeatedly penalized by this Court, with
suspension and fine, as shown by the above-listed administrative charges, the
recommended penalty of P21,000 should be increased to P30,000.
WHEREFORE, for
gross ignorance of the law and procedure, Judge Sibanah Usman is FINED
in the amount of Thirty Thousand (P30,000) Pesos, with a WARNING that a repetition of the same
or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
SO
ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief
Justice
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice (NO PART) |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
|
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice (NO PART) |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice (NO PART) |
|
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice |
MARIANO C. Associate Justice MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
|
JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ Associate Justice |
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA Associate Justice |
MARIA
LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Associate Justice
* No part.
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-5.
[2] Branch 29 in some parts of the rollo.
[3] Entitled Heirs of Soledad Jazmines Tan, et al v. Vicente Tuazon, et al. Complainant is one of the plaintiffs.
[4] Entitled People of the Philippines v. Nilo Tan, et al. Complainant is one of the accused.
[5] Rollo, pp. 6-8.
[6] Id. at 9.
Complainant alleged:
1.
I am the accused
in Criminal Case No. 6536 filed
by Allan Tan as private
complainant and also I am one of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 7681 filed by us against the same Allan Tan and others, with both
cases now pending before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, presided by Hon. Sibanah E. Usman;
2.
Civil Case No. 7681was originally docketed with Branch 29 presided by Honorable Agerico Avila who voluntarily inhibited on motion by our
opponents;
3.
At the time the
aforesaid cases were raffled to
4.
That probability
became a reality to us in some way as we learned that Jaime Cui, Jr., a known subaltern and loyal representative of Allan Tan, private complainant in the
criminal case aforecited and one of the defendants in the civil case also
aforecited, has been bragging that our convictions in the said criminal case
and defeat in the said civil case are already a done deal because they have
disbursed a substantial sum of money to the presiding judge above-named;
5.
With the
repetitious informative braggadocio of Jaime
Cui, Jr., corroborated by informations from employees of this Honorable
Court, along with our own observations in the course of the proceedings in both
cases aforecited, sad to say, we now honestly believe that we cannot expect
a fair and/or just disposition and decision from the presiding judge
above-named and that he is no longer capable to act with the desired cold
neutrality and objectivity of an impartial judge;
6. I am executing this affidavit in the interest of truth and for all legal intents and purposes. (emphasis in the original; underscoring supplied)
[7] Id. at 10-12.
[8] Id. at 11-12.
[9] Vide September 15, 2009 Order of Judge Yolanda U. Dagandan ordering her release, citing Section 1 of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court, and Certificate of Discharge from Prison issued by the Office of the Provincial Warden, id. at 58-59.
[10] Id. at 82- 85.
[11] Id. at 157.
[12] Id. at 84.
[13] Id. at 148-152.
[14] Id. at 150-151.
[15] Id. at 150.
[16] Id. at 152.
[17] Vide
Baculi v. Belen, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2176,
[18] 403 Phil. 146 (2001).
[19] Id. at 152. Vide Tiongco v. Salao,
A.M. No. RTJ-06-2009,