Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
Resolution to protect members of
judiciary from baseless complaints
• First of all, we deem it necessary to determine the applicability of
A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC, a Resolution Prescribing Measures to
Protect Members of the Judiciary from Baseless and Unfounded
Administrative Complaints, which took effect on November 3,
2003.
2
Cont …
• 2. If the complaint is
(a) filed within six months before the compulsory retirement of a Justice or
Judge;
(b) for an alleged cause of action that occurred at least a year before such
filing; and
(c) shown prima facie that it is intended to harass the respondent, it must
forthwith be recommended for dismissal.
3
Cont…
4
Power of the Sup rem e Cou r t
5
Com petence to rev iew a jud icia l o rder
o r decision belongs to the Cou r t
• “No other ent ity o r offic ial of the Government , no t the
p ro secu tion o r in vestig ation se r v ice of any o ther b ranch ,
no t any functionar y thereof, h as competence to rev iew a
jud ic ial o rder o r decis ion--w hether fin a l and execu to r y o r
not--and p ronounce it e rroneous so as to lay the basis fo r a
crim ina l o r adm in istra tive com p la in t fo r rendering an un ju st
judgm en t o r o rder. That p re rogative be longs to the cou r ts
a lone.” - De Vera v. Pelayo, 335 SCRA 281(2000)
6
Powers, funct ions, and dut ies of the
Off ice of the Ombudsman
Section 13. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following
powers, functions, and duties:
( 1) I nvestigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or
omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when
such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or
inefficient.
( 2) Direct, upon complaint or at its own instance, any public official
or employee of the Government, or any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, as well as of any government-owned or
controlled corporation with original charter, to perform and
expedite any act or duty required by law, or to stop, prevent,
and correct any abuse or impropriety in the performance of
duties.
xxx
7
Ombudsman Act of 1989 [ R. A. 6770]
• Republic Act No. 6770, otherwise known as the Ombudsman Act of 1989,
provides:
• “Sec. 15. Powers, Functions and Duties. - The Office of the Ombudsman shall
have the following powers, functions and duties: (1) Investigate and prosecute on
its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer
or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal,
unjust, improper or inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable
by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction, it may take
over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of Government, the investigation
of such cases.”
xxx xxx
• “Section 21. Officials Subject To Disciplinary Authority, Exceptions.- The Office of
the Ombudsman shall have disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive
officials of the Government and its subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies,
including members of the Cabinet, local government, government-owned or
controlled corporations and their subsidiaries, except over officials who may be
removed only by impeachment or over Members of Congress, and the
Judiciary.
8
When criminal complaint against a Judge or
other cour t employee arises from their
administrative duties
9
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman could
enter tain a criminal complaint for the alleged
falsification of a judge's cer tification
submitted to the Supreme Cour t, and assuming
that it can, whether a referral should be made
first to the Supreme Cour t.
• Thus, the Om budsm an should f irst refer the matter of
petit io ner's ce r t if icates of se r v ice to th is Cour t fo r
dete rm inatio n of w hether sa id ce r tifica tes re flected the true
sta tu s of h is pend ing case load , as the Cou r t has the
necessar y reco rd s to m ake such a dete rm ination .
• The Om budsm an canno t com pe l th is Cour t, as one of the th ree
b ranches of governm en t, to subm it its reco rd s , o r to allow
its p ersonnel to test if y o n th is matter, as suggested by
pub lic responden t Ab ie ra in h is a ffidavit -com p la in t. - Maceda
v. Hon. Ombudsman Vasquez, G.R. No. 102781. April 22, 1993
10
Whether the Ombudsman may conduct an investigation
over the acts of a judge in the exercise of his
official functions alleged to be in violation of the
Anti-Graf t and Corrupt Practices Act, in the
absence of an administrative charge for the same
acts before the Supreme Cour t.
11
Whet her t he MTC can t ake cogni zance of a
compl ai nt of reckl ess i mpr udence agai nst an
i ncumbent j udge pendi ng t he resol ut i on of an
admi ni st r at i ve compl ai nt ar i si ng f rom t he same
f act s
• On January 31, 2003, complainant filed a letter complaint before the
Ombudsman-Vizayas, charging Judge Rodolfo B. Garcia, then Presiding
Judge of the MCTC, Calatrava-Toboso, Negros Occidental with the crime
of murder and the administrative offenses of grave misconduct and
abuse of authority.
• The complaint arose from the death of complaianant’s husband, on
November 12, 2002, as a result of a vehicular mishap between a Toyota
Land Cruiser driven by Judge Garcia and the motorcycle driven by the
deceased.
• The Graft Investigation Officer found the existence of probable cause for
the crime of Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide and
recommended the filing of the corresponding charges against Judge
Garcia.
12
Cont …
13
He ld
• In the case at bar, the crim ina l case filed aga inst
petitioner w as in no w ay related to the per fo rmance of h is
dut ies as a judge .
• From the fo rego ing , the filing of th e crim ina l charges
aga in st the petitioner b e fo re the M CTC w as w arranted by the
above c ircum stances.
• To re ite ra te , the case filed aga in st petitioner befo re the M CTC
is a crim inal case under its ow n ju risd iction as p rescribed
by law and no t an adm in istra tive case . To be su re, tria l
cou r ts re ta in ju risd iction over the crim ina l aspect of
offen ses com m itted by ju dges of the low er cou r ts . – Garcia
v. Miro, G.R. No. 167409, March 20, 2009
14
When to file adm in istrat ive case
aga in st jud ges
• Now, the established doctrine and policy is that disciplinar y
proceedings and criminal actions against Judges are not
complementar y or suppletor y of, nor a substitute for, these
judicial remedies, whether ordinar y or extraordinar y. Resor t to
and exhaustion of these judicial remedies, as well as the entr y
of judgment in the corresponding action or proceeding, are pre-
requisites for the taking of other measures against the persons
of the judges concerned, whether of civil, administrative, or
criminal nature. It is only af ter the available judicial
remedies have been exhausted and the appellate tribunals have
spoken with finality, that the door to an inquir y into his
criminal, civil, or administrative liability may be said to have
opened, or closed. - Bello III v. Judge Diaz, AM-MTJ-00-1311.
October 3, 2003
15
Cont…
16
A n o n ym o u s co m p laint
17
Lack o f verificatio n is
o n ly a fo rm al d efect
• A s to the con ten tion of responden t that the Cour t shou ld no t
have taken cogn izance of the com p la in t because the letter-
compla int w as not verif ied , as requ ired in Ru le 139-B , §1 of
the Ru les of Cou r t on D isbarm en t and D isc ip line of A tto rneys ,
su ffice it to say that such const itutes o nly a fo rmal defect
and does not affect the jurisd ict io n of the Cour t o ver the
subject matter of the compla int . "The ve rifica tion is m ere ly
a fo rm a l requ irem en t in tended to secu re an assu rance that
m atte rs w h ich are a lleged are true and co rrect — the cour t
may s imp ly ord er the co rrect io n of unverif ied p lead ings o r
act on it and w a ive strict com p liance w ith the ru les in
o rder that the end s of justice m ay be se r ved ." (Fernandez v.
Atty. Novero Jr., A.C. No. 5394, December 02, 2002)
18
Effect of retirem ent of resp o n d ent jud ge
19
D eath o f resp o n d ent ju d ge
20
Ju d ge also liab le if co u rt em p lo yee
fratern ized w ith litigant
• Unfo r tunately, these standard s w ere no t m et by responden t
Judge A lagar in th is case hav ing tolerated unknow ingly h is
employee to fratern ize , rece ive o r give personal favo rs no
m atte r how sm all, w ith par ty litig an ts in a case pend ing
befo re h is sa la .
21
H a vin g lu n ch w ith co u n sel
22
Effect of reco n ciliatio n o f the p arties
23
Co n victio n in a crim in al case
24
Effect of resign atio n fro m o ffice
25
Grounds for outright dismissal
26
W a rn in g is n ot a p en alty
27
G ross igno rance of the law
• oT constitu te g ro ss igno rance of the law, the sub ject dec is ion,
o rder o r actuation of th e judge in the per fo rm ance of h is
offic ia l du tie s must not o nly be contrar y to exist ing law
and jurisp rudence but , most impo r tantly, he must be moved by
bad fa ith , fraud , d ishonesty o r co rrupt io n. In the case
befo re u s, the adm in istrative com p lain t does no t even a llege
that the e rroneous decision of responden t w as thus m o tiva ted.
- Sps. Daracan v. Judge Natividad, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1447.
September 27, 2000
28
Render i ng an unjust j udgment
• Knowingly rendering an unj ust j udg ment is bot h a cri minal and
an ad mi nist rat ive charge. As a crime, it is punished under Art.
204 of the Revised Penal Code the elements of which are:
(a) the offender is a judge;
( b) he renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision;
( c) the judgment is unjust; and
(d) the judge knows that his judgment is unjust.
• The gist of the offense therefore is that an unjust judgment be
rendered maliciously or in bad faith, that is, knowing it to be
unjust. - Sps. Dar acan v. Judge Nati vidad, A. M. No. RTJ-99-
1447. Sept ember 27, 2000
29
There is no liab ility at a ll fo r a m ere
erro r
31
W h e n go o d faith w ill n ot b e ap p lied
32
Co m p laint fo r gro ss ign o ran ce o f the law
is im p erm issib le if case is ap p ealed
• The m ain issue fo r ou r reso lu tion is w hether the in stan t
adm in istra tive com p la in t fo r g ro ss igno rance of the law is
perm issib le in l ight of the f il ing by compla inants of a
not ice of appeal and a p et it io n fo r cer t io rari assa iling
responden t judge ’ s dec ision and h is o rder of execu tion .
33
Perio d to d ecid e o r reso lve the case
su b m itted fo r d ecisio n
• The 90-day period to decid e o r reso lve the case subm itted fo r
decis ion , fixed no less by the Constitu tion , is a mandato r y
requ irement . Hence , non-com p liance thereof sha ll sub ject the
erring judge to adm in istra tive sanction as th is Cour t m ay
deem app rop ria te .
• It is on ly in cer ta in merito rio us cases , i.e ., tho se
in vo lv ing d ifficu lt question s of law o r com p lex issues o r
when the judge is bu rdened by heavy case load s, that a longer
period to dec ide m ay be a llow ed but only upon p roper
applicat io n m ade w ith the Sup rem e Cou r t b y the concerned
judge .- Dr. Seares v. Judge Salazar, A.M. No. MTJ-98-1160
November 22, 2000
34
Ju d ge attend ed the hearin g o f his
b rother
35
Cont…
36
Judge is a heck le r
37
No d ichotom y of p ersona lity
38
Co mme nt on Certior ari filed by publ ic
respondent judge in behal f of privat e
respondent
• Further, respondent judge, in signing and filing a comment with the
court on behalf of one of the parties, engaged in the private practice
of law.
• Under Section 35, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, and Rule 5.07
of the Code of Judicial Conduct, judges are prohibited from engaging in
the private practice of law.
• In filing such comment, respondent judge violated the provision in the
Revised Rules of Court which provides:
“Unless otherwise specifically directed by the court where the petition
is pending, the public respondents shall not appear in or file an answer
or comment to the petition or any pleading therein. If either party
elevates the case to a higher court, the public respondents shall be
included therein as nominal parties. However, unless otherwise
specifically directed, they shall not appear or participate in the
proceedings therein. - Tuzon v. Judge Cloribel-Purugganan, A.M. No.
RTJ-01-1662 [2001]
39
C an the m e m b ers of the S upre m e C ourt be
re m oved fro m office only b y im p e ach m e nt?
• Ju stice Reyes m ain ta in s that Mem bers of the Cou r t m ay be rem oved
from office o n ly b y im peachm en t. S in ce rem ova l from office is a
d isc ip lin a r y o r adm in istrative sanctio n , it fo llow s that the re is
no m anner b y wh ich a Ju stice of th is Cou r t m ay be d isc ip lined fo r
acts done du ring h is in cum bency. Considering that the pow er to
im peach a Ju stice of th is Cou r t is lodged in the legis la tive b ranch
of the governm en t, the Cou r t is w ithou t au tho rity to p roceed
aga in st and disc ip line its fo rm er M em ber. H e added that w hat
constitu tes im peachab le offen ses is a p u re ly po litica l question
wh ich the Constitu tion has le f t to the sound d iscre tion of the
leg is la tu re , and that the m isconduct of leakage is n o t one of the
im peachab le offen ses. - In Re: Undated Letter of M r. Lou is C .
B iraog o , Pet it ioner in B iraogo v . N og rales and L imkaichong , G .R .
N o.179120A .M . N o. 09-2 -19-SC : A ugust 11 , 2009
40
Cont…
• When Ju stice Reyes compulso rily ret ired upon reach ing the
mandato r y age of 70 , h is perce ived m antle of p ro tection and
im m un ity, that the m ode of h is rem oval from office can be done
on ly th rough im peachm en t, no longer ex ists . H is du ties and
responsib ilitie s as a Justice hav ing ceased by reason of h is
re tirem en t, he is reve r ted to the statu s of a law yer and ,
consequen tly, can be sub jected to approp ria te sanctions fo r
adm in istra tive offen ses, par ticu la rly, an act of m isconduct.
The fact that the Investigat ing Committee , created per
Resolut io n d ated December 10 , 2008 of the Cour t, co mmenced
the invest igat io n d uring the incumbency of Just ice Reyes is
of no moment, as he w as then no t ye t a respondent in an
adm in istra tive m atte r aga in st h im . - In Re: Undated Letter of
M r. B iraog o , Petit ioner in B iraog o v . N og ra les and Limka ichong ,
G .R . N o.179120 A .M . N o. 09-2 -19-SC : A ugust 11 , 2009
41
Res ipsa loquitor
42
Res ipsa loquitor
• In severa l cases, the Cou r t has d isc ip lined law yers w ithou t
fu r ther in qu ir y o r reso r t to any fo rm a l in vestig a tion w here
the facts on reco rd su ffic ien tly p rov ided the basis fo r the
dete rm inatio n of the ir adm in istra tive liab ility. – Query of
Atty. Karen M. Silverio-Buffe, A.M. No. 08-6-352-RTC,
August 19, 2009
• Cour t d isbarred a law yer w ithou t need of any fu r the r
in vestig atio n a fte r consid e ring h is actions based on reco rds
show ing h is uneth ica l m isconduct. - In re: Complaint against
Atty. Asoy, Adm. Case No. 2655 July 9, 1987
• A tria l-type hearing is no t de riqueur . - In re: Complaint
against Atty. Asoy, Adm. Case No. 2655 July 9, 1987
43
Q u antum o f evid en ce
44
Quant um of evidence requir ed for re moval of
judge fro m office
• Jurisprudence dictates –
45
A cts o f a co lle gial co u rt
46
“
R end ering know ingly unjust jud g m e nt" does
n ot apply to a collegial court
• Responden ts shou ld know that the p rov is ions of Ar tic le 204 of the
Rev ised Pena l Code as to "rendering know ing ly unju st judgm en t"
re fe r to an ind iv idua l judge w ho does so " in any case subm itted to
h im fo r dec isio n" and even then , it is n o t the p ro secu to r w ho w ou ld
pass judgm en t on the "un justness" of th e dec is ion rendered by h im
bu t the p roper appe lla te cou r t w ith jurisd iction to rev iew the
sam e, e ither the Cou r t of Appea ls and/or the Sup rem e Cou r t.
Responden ts shou ld likew ise know that said pena l a r tic le has no
app lica tion to the m em bers of a co lleg iate cou r t such as th is
Cou r t o r its D iv is ion s w ho reach the ir conclu sions in consu lta tio n
and acco rd ingly render their co llective judgm en t a fter due
de libe ra tion . It a lso fo llow s, consequen tly, th at a charge of
v io la tion of the An tiG ra f t and Co rrup t Practices Act on the g round
that su ch a co llective d ecis ion is "unjust" canno t p ro sper. -
Baut ista v . Just ice Abdu lwah id A .M . OCA IPI N o. 06-97-CA -J [2006 ]
47
Ju d ge's co n victio n b y the R TC d o es n ot
n ecessarily w arrant her su sp en sio n
• The m ere ex istence of pend ing crim ina l charges aga in st the
respondent- law yer canno t be a g round fo r d isbarm en t o r
su spension of the la tter. To ho ld o ther w ise w ou ld open the
doo r to harassm en t of a tto rneys th rough the m ere filing of
num erous crim ina l cases aga in st them .
• By parity of reason ing , the fact of respondent's conv ict io n by
the RTC does not necessarily w arrant her suspension. We ag ree
w ith responden t's a rgum ent that s in ce he r conviction of the
crim e of ch ild abuse is cu rren tly on appea l be fore the CA ,
the sam e has no t ye t a tta ined fina lity. As such , she st ill
enjoys the const itut io nal p resumpt io n of inno cence . - Re:
Conviction of Judge Angeles A.M. No. 06-9-545-RTC January
31, 2008
48
Existence of a presu m ption ind icating the guilt
of the accused d oes not in itself d estroy the
constitutional presu m ption of innocence
49
Preventive su sp en sio n n ot ap p licab le to
ju d ges
• Based on the fo rego ing disqu is ition , the Cou r t is of the
reso lve that, w h ile it is true that p reven tive suspension
pendente lite does no t vio la te the rig h t of the accused to be
p resum ed innocen t as the sam e is no t a pena lty, the rules o n
p revent ive suspensio n of jud ges, no t h av ing been exp ressly
included in the Rules of Co ur t , a re am o rphous at best. – Re:
Conviction of Judge Angeles A.M. No. 06-9-545-RTC January
31, 2008
50
Preventive su sp en sio n fo r errin g law yer
51
Co lle gial co u rt n eed s to
act as o n e b o d y
• Responden t Ju stices con tend tha t they p rese r ved the co lleg ia lity of
the Fou r th D iv is ion desp ite the ir hav in g separa te ly conducted
hearing s, consid e ring that the th ree of them w ere in the sam e venue
and w ere acting w ith in hearing and commun icating d istan ce of one
ano ther.
• The in fo rm ation and ev idence upon w h ich the Fou r th Div is ion w ou ld
base any dec ision s o r o ther jud ic ia l action s in the cases tried
befo re it m ust b e m ade d irectly ava ilable to each and ever y one of
its m em bers d u ring the p roceed ing s. Th is necessita tes the equa l and
fu ll pa r tic ipation of each m em ber in th e tria l and ad jud ica tion of
the ir cases. It is s im p ly no t enough, there fo re, that the th ree
m em bers of th e Fou r th D ivis ion w ere w ith in hearing and
comm un ica ting d istan ce of one ano ther at th e hearings in question,
as they exp lain ed in h ind sig h t, b ecause even in tho se c ircum stances
no t a ll of th em sat together in session. - A SP Jamsan i-R od riguez
v . Just ice Ong , et , a l. A .M . N o. 08-19-SB-J A ugust 24 , 2010
52
Thank you for your
attention!!
53
• There is another reason why the complaint for disbarment here must be
dismissed. Members of the Supreme Court must, under Article VIII (7) (1) of
the Constitution, be members of the Philippine Bar and may be removed
from office only by impeachment (Article XI [2], Constitution). To grant a
complaint for disbarment of a Member of the Court during the Member's
incumbency, would in effect be to circumvent and hence to ran afoul of the
constitutional mandate that Members of the Court may be removed from
office only by impeachment for and conviction of certain offenses listed in
Article XI (2) of the Constitution. Precisely the same situation exists in
respect of the Ombudsman and his deputies (Article XI [8] in relation to
Article XI [2], Id.), a majority of the members of the Commission on
Elections (Article IX [C] [1] [1] in relation to Article XI [2], id.), and the
members of the Commission on audit who are not certified public
accountants (Article XI [D] [1] [1], id.), all of whom are constitutionally
required to be members of the Philippine Bar. – Cuenco v. Hon. Marcelo B.
Fernan, A.M. No. 3135 February 17, 1988
54