Unwavering in its commitment to increase competence and safeguard integrity within the Judiciary, the Supreme Court recently dismissed from service two judges and a process server and imposed penalties on 11 other erring court officials and employees in separate administrative cases, stressing that it “will not tolerate any conduct that violates the norms of public accountability and diminishes the faith of the people in the judicial system.”
In a per curiam decision, the High Court ordered the dismissal from service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and with prejudice to reinstatement or appointment to any public office, of Presiding Judge Maximo G.W. Paderanga of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 38, Cagayan de Oro City for gross ignorance of the law and unbecoming conduct.
Paderanga was found to have taken cognizance of a replevin suit and, subsequently, issued a writ of replevin in a favor a third party for the delivery of forest products previously seized by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) for want of legal documentation and for having been abandoned by the owner.
The High Court held that Paderanga was grossly ignorant of the law as he should have had dismissed the replevin suit outright for three reasons: first, under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, courts cannot take cognizance of cases pending before administrative agencies, i.e. the DENR; second, under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, courts cannot take cognizance of cases pending before administrative agencies of special competence; and third, the forest products were already in legal custody and, thus, could not be the subject of a replevin suit.
Paderanga was also found liable for conduct unbecoming a judge for his use of inappropriate language in court. The transcripts of the proceedings to quash the writ of replevin showed that the dismissed judge was “impatient, discourteous, and undignified in court.” The Court held that Paderanga’s frequent interruption of the lawyers and utterances of “shut up,” “that’s baloney,” and “the problem with you people is you do not use your heads” were also deemed undignified and very unbecoming a judge.
Another member of the Bench dismissed from service was Judge Cesar M. Dumlao of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), San Mateo, Isabela.
Dumlao was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law and violation of SC directives for approving an application for bail filed by an accused in an estafa case pending before another court, i.e.,the RTC of Santiago City, absent any showing that the judge where the case was already pending was unavailable or absent, in violation of the provisions of the Rules of Court. He then ignored five successive directives from the Court requiring him to comment on an affidavit-complaint filed against him for gross ignorance of the law as regards his approval of the said application for bail.
The Court held that even if the judge of the court where the estafa case was filed was absent or unavailable, or even if the accused was arrested in San Mateo where Dumlao sat as a judge, the latter would still be liable “because the bail should have been filed with another branch of the RTC in Santiago City or with the RTC of San Mateo, respectively.”
Stressing that resolutions of the Court requiring judges to comment on administrative complaints are not mere requests, the High Court said that Dumlao’s refusal to comment on the affidavit-complaint for almost five years “blatantly demonstrated gross misconduct, outright disrespect, indifference, and a recalcitrant streak in his character.” The Court also took note of the fact that the instant case was the third time that Dumlao was found liable for ignoring Court directives, showing that the latter was undeterred by the several penalties and stern warnings the Court had given him.
Also dismissed from service was a process server who failed to expeditiously serve the summons in a case for declaration of nullity of marriage, and who admittedly received PhP3,000 from the complainant in the said case for travel expenses in serving the summons, in violation of the procedures laid down by the Court for such.
Sherwin M. Baloloy of the RTC, Branch 130 of Caloocan City, was found guilty of grave misconduct not only for having been remiss in the performance of his duties, but also for his failure to follow the procedure in the submission of both a statement of personal expenses for the court’s approval and a statement of liquidation after service. The Court noted that the instant case was the fourth time that Baloloy had been administratively charged.
The Court emphasized that “A process server plays a vital role in the administration of justice.” It added that Baloloy “subjected the court’s image to distrust” when he willfully violated the established rules for the conduct of his duties.
The Supreme Court also imposed fines on two other RTC judges, both for incurring delay in resolving motions and in rendering orders.
In an eight-page resolution, the High Court’s First Division, through Justice Antonio T. Carpio, fined Judge Leoncio M. Janolo, Jr. of the RTC, Branch 264, Pasig City in the amount of PhP20,000 after the latter was found guilty of simple misconduct and undue delay in rendering orders. The Court found that Judge Janolo unjustifiably failed to act on a civil case for more than one year, and that he also failed to act on two motions related to the said case within the prescribed periods.
In another resolution, penned by Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, the Court’s Third Division imposed a fine of PhP10,000 on Judge Jesus B. Mupas of the RTC, Branch 112, Pasay City, after the latter was found guilty of undue delay in rendering orders. The Court found that Judge Mupas failed resolve within the reglementary period three motions filed by both the complainant and two defendants in a civil case. The Court found that while the complainant filed his Urgent Motion to Declare All Defendants in Default on May 12, 2006 and the defendants filed their respective motions to dismiss on March 20, 2006 and April 7, 2006, it was only on December 18, 2006 that Judge Mupas issued an order resolving all three motions.
As regards the explanation of the respondent judge that the delay was because he was handling two branches of court, one of which is a special commercial court, the Court said that while it has been sympathetic to requests of judges for reasonable extensions of time within which to decide cases and resolve matters related thereto, Judge Mupas did not ask for such extension, leaving the Court with no recourse but to hold him liable for the delay he incurred.
“Judges must cultivate a capacity for quick decision, and must not delay the judgment which a party justly deserves,” said the Court. “For truly, inability to decide a case within the required period is inexcusable and constitutes gross inefficiency, which warrants the imposition of administrative sanction against the erring magistrate.”
Other court officials and employees who were administratively disciplined were Abe C. Andres, Sheriff IV, RTC, Branch 16, Davao City, who was suspended for one year and six months after he was found guilty of gross neglect of duty and grave abuse of authority (oppression) for repeatedly straying from the regular course observed in the proper implementation of court orders, and for hastily enforcing a writ of replevin/order of seizure on the same day the order of seizure was issued; Anthony E. Rimas, Utility Worker, RTC, Branch 92, Calamba City, who was suspended for six months and 1 day after he was found guilty of falsification of official document and dishonesty for making false entries in his Daily Time Records; Jesusa Susana Cardozo, Clerk III, RTC, Branch 44, Dagupan City, who was suspended for six months and 1 day after she was found guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct for maintaining an illicit relationship with a man other than her husband; Bernardo G. Saulog, Sheriff IV, RTC, Branch 9, Kalibo, Aklan, who was fined in an amount equivalent to his six months salary after he was found guilty of grave abuse of authority (oppression) for making illegal warrantless arrests in connection with the implementation of a writ of execution in a case for partition and/or recovery of real property; Theresa C. Remotigue, Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities-OCC, Cebu City, who was suspended for one month after she was found guilty of violating Administrative Cirular No. 5 (Re: Prohibition for All Officials and Employees of the Judiciary to Work as Insurance Agents) for having been engaged in the lending business; Ciriaco I. Urdaneta, Jr., Utility Worker I, RTC, Branch 14, Baybay, Leyte, who was fined PhP30,000 from his retirement benefit after he was found guilty of grave misconduct after he found a ring and a bracelet belonging to a co-worker of his and, dishonestly and in bad faith, kept them for himself; Jocelyn C. Fernandez, Court Stenographer I, MTC, Caba, La Union, who was fined PhP5,000 for her willful failure to pay a just debt; and Villa M. Caballero, Clerk of Court II, and Edwin B. Almosara, Junior Process Server, both of the MTC, San Pascual, Masbate, who were both fined PhP1,000, for fighting with and shouting at one another during office hours. In addition, Caballero was admonished to be more circumspect in her dealings with her co-workers and was further advised to promote and maintain harmony among court employees. (AM No. RTJ-06-2017, Dagudag v. Paderanga, June 19, 2008; AM No. MTJ-07-1682, Barbero v. Dumlao, June 19, 2008; AM No. P-06-2192, Sardillo v. Baloloy, June 12, 2008; AM No. RTJ-07-2035, China Banking Corp. v. Janolo, Jr., June 12, 2008; AM No. RTJ-07-2067, Mina v. Mupas, June 18, 2008; AM No. P-07-2384, Hao v. Andres, June 18, 2008; AM No. P-06-2118, De Vera v. Rimas, June 12, 2008; AM No. P-06-2143, Re: Anonymous Letter-Complaint Against Cardozo, June 12, 2008; AM No. P-07-2330, Rafael v. Saulog, June 12, 2008; AM No. P-05-1969, Go v. Remotigue, June 12, 2008; AM No. P-07-2399, Palero-Tan v. Urdaneta, Jr., June 18, 2008; AM No. P-07-2362, Catungal v. Fernandez, June 12, 2008; and AM No. P-07-2413, Ginete v. Caballero, June 19, 2008)
