[A.M. No. 05-12-757-RTC.
RE: SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMMITED BY JUDGE REXEL M. PACURIBOT,
En Banc
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court dated MAR. 7, 2006
A.M. No. 05-12-757-RTC (Re:
Sexual Harassment Committed by Judge Rexel M. Pacuribot, Regional Trial Court, Branch 27,
This refers to the Memorandum of the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) dated
Two (2) women filed separate complaints for sexual harassment
against Judge Rexel M. Pacuribot. The first is Sherlita
O. Tan, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 27,
Ms. Tan's ordeal started in August 2004 when she refused an
invitation from Judge Pacuribot to have dinner. On
On
Judge Pacuribot and Ms. Tan left the
motel but instead of going to the terminal, he brought her to the Discovery
Hotel saying that it would be better for Ms. Tan to sleep there instead of
traveling alone. Judge Pacuribot left Ms. Tan alone in the room because he had to
attend a Masonic Conference. She however
could not leave because she did not have enough money to pay the balance of the
hotel bill. At around
x x x x
Back in the office, the harassment continued. Whenever Ms. Tan would go inside Judge Pacuribot's chamber, the latter would grab her blouse, mash her breast, kiss her, touch the crutch (sic) of her pants, pull the string of her panty and kiss her neck while saying that she smelt so sweet. Judge Pacuribot got angry when Ms. Tan refused to answer his text messages and insinuated that this will have an adverse effect on her performance rating.
Ms. Johanna M. Villafranca, on the other
hand, was initially the recipient of amorous text messages from Judge Pacuribot with invitations for dinner. Ms. Villafranca was
wary of these invitations because both of them are married. She refused all of these invitations but
Judge Pacuribot was persistent forcing her to request
for a transfer, which was however denied.
In the last week of February 2005, she got a call from Judge Pacuribot who was furious.
According to him, he was an honorable person and yet Ms. Villafranca refused his invitations. Consumed by fear, she finally relented and
accepted a dinner invitation on
While inside his car, Judge Pacuribot displayed his firearm, which was allegedly for security purposes. It nevertheless intensified Ms. Villafranca's fear. Instead of going to a restaurant, Judge Pacuribot drove to a drive-in motel x x x.
x x x x
From that day, Judge Pacuribot constantly demanded that Ms. Villafranca send him text messages and letters expressing sweet nonsense to feed his ego and any failure or refusal would be met by a threat to divulge the incident in the motel.
x x x x
Then Judge Pacuribot started demanding food from Ms. Villafranca, which the latter was supposed to bring to his boarding house. If she refused, Judge Pacuribot would threaten to tell damaging stories to her mother-in-law with whom she had a strained relation and to show the picture he took on the cell phone. Because of these threats, Ms. Villafranca was forced to bring some food to Judge Pacuribot. x x x.
When Judge Pacuribot sensed that she was not going to file an annulment case, he drafted a document wherein it was stated that Ms. Villafranca and her husband supposedly agreed that they may freely co-habit with a third person. Judge Pacuribot, using threats of physical and social harm, forced Ms. Villafranca and her husband to sign the document.
When Ms. Villafranca still did not file the annulment case, Judge Pacuribot slapped her and hit her head with a clenched fist. Again he placed a kiss mark on her neck and when her husband saw it, he beat her up. When Judge Pacuribot knew of the beating, he forced Ms. Villafranca to file a rape case but she refused.
x x x x
The complainants filed their complaints personally before the Office of Deputy Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock. Although Ms. Tan and Ms. Villafranca knew each other professionally, their meeting at the said office was purely coincidental and they had no idea that the other was likewise the victim of Judge Pacuribot. Ms. Tan and Ms. Villafranca tearfully related to Deputy Court Administrator Christopher Lock their harrowing experience at the hands of Judge Pacuribot.
The investigation of Ms. Tan's complaint falls within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on Decorum and Investigation of the
In the same Memorandum, the OCA recommended that:
1. The complaint of Ms. Sherlita Tan be
referred to the Committee on Decorum and Investigation of the regional Trial
court (sic) of
2. The complaint of Ms. Johanna M. Villafranca be docketed as a regular administrative matter;
3. Judge Pacuribot be required to comment on the complaint of Ms. Villafranca; and
4. Judge Pacuribot be suspended immediately until further orders from this Court.
After painstaking consideration of the facts and existing laws, this Court finds the foregoing recommendations not to be wholly in consonance with, as in fact it contravenes, Section 3 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC,[1] providing for the manner by which complaints against Judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals[2] are investigated, in relation to the Supreme Court's constitutionally guaranteed power of administrative supervision [3]over all courts and the personnel thereof.
Section 3 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended, categorically provides that:
Sec. 3. By whom complaint investigated. - Upon the filing of the respondent's comment, or upon the expiration of the time for filing the same and unless other pleadings or documents are required, the Court shall refer the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report, and recommendation or assign the case for investigation, report, and recommendation to a retired member of the Supreme Court, if the respondent is a Justice of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, or to a Justice of the Court of Appeals, if the respondent is a Judge of a Regional Trial Court or of a special court of equivalent rank, or to a Judge of the Regional Trial Court if the respondent is a Judge of an inferior court.
By virtue of the aforequoted provision, Section 8 of Administrative Circular No. 03-03-1 3-SC[4], the Rule on Administrative Procedure in Sexual Harassment Cases and Guidelines on Proper Work Decorum in the Judiciary, which provides for the referral of work related sexual harassment complaints committed by officials and employees of the Judiciary, necessarily including Judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals, but excluding the members of this Court and the Judicial and Bar Council, to committees on decorum and investigation[5] (CODIs), appears to furtively dilute the exclusivity of this Court's constitutionally guaranteed power of administrative supervision which necessarily includes the authority to discipline Judges and Justices.
Section 8 of the Rule on Administrative Procedure in Sexual Harassment Cases and Guidelines on Proper Work Decorum in the Judiciary states that:
Sec, 8. Jurisdiction, powers and responsibilities of the CODIs. - The CODIs shall have jurisdiction over all complaints for sexual harassment committed by officials and employees of the Judiciary. They shall:
(a) Receive the complaint, investigate its allegations, and submit a report and recommendation to the proper court or authority, as provided for in Section 18 of this Rule;
x x x x. [Emphasis supplied.]
The composition[6] of a particular CODI, to all intents and purposes, partly grants rank and file employees of courts the competence to recommend administrative sanctions over Judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals thereby potentially diminishing the authority of this Court over the position, the person and the courts over which they preside. Appropriately, this Court deems it prudent to exclude said Judges and Justices from the ambit of the jurisdiction of CODIs as provided under Section 8 of A.M. No. 03-03-13-SC.
Moreover, upon their assumption to office, Judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals cease to be ordinary citizens. They become the visible representation of the law, and more importantly, of justice. The public look up to them as the epitome of integrity and justice. For this reason, as this Court has stated in the case of Aquino v. Acosta[7], "[a]dministrative complaints against members of the judiciary are viewed by this Court with utmost care, for proceedings of this nature affect not only the reputation of the respondents concerned, but the integrity of the entire judiciary as well." Thus, ever mindful of such propensity, investigations of sexual harassment complaints involving Judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals must be kept in strictest confidentiality - quite relatively unrealistic in proceedings vis-a-vis referral of a sexual harassment complaint to a group or panel as laid down by the subject rule.
In fine, the referral of Ms. Sherlita Tan's sexual harassment complaint against Judge Rexel Pacuribot to the CODI of the RTC of Gingoog City for investigation, report and recommendation, contravenes Section 3 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court and limits, nay, weakens this Court's constitutionally mandated disciplining authority over Judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals, besides exposing the courts to ridicule and derision.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as it is hereby Resolved, that in accordance with Section 6, Article VIII of the Constitution vesting this Court with the power of administrative supervision over all courts and personnel thereof, inclusive of which is the authority to discipline Judges and Justices, complaints of sexual harassment against Judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals should be excluded from the jurisdiction of the CODIs. Accordingly, Section 8 of A.M. No. 03-03-13-SC, the Rule on Administrative Procedure in Sexual Harassment Cases and Guidelines on Proper Work Decorum in the Judiciary is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 8. Jurisdiction, powers and responsibilities of the CODIs. - The CODIs shall have jurisdiction over all complaints for sexual harassment committed by officials and employees of the Judiciary, except those against Judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals, which shall fundamentally adhere to the proceeding laid down in Section 3 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended.
CODIs shall:
(a) Receive the complaint, investigate its allegations, and submit a report and recommendation to the proper court or authority, as provided for in Section 18 of this Rule;
x x x x. [Emphasis supplied.]
With respect to all the other recommendations of the OCA, finding them to be in accord with existing laws, the same are hereby APPROVED. In particular, Judge Rexel Pacuribot is immediately SUSPENDED until further notice from this Court. He is likewise DIRECTED to comment on the complaints of Mesdames Tan and Villafranca within ten days. The complaint, however, of Ms. Sherlita Tan should be docketed as a regular administrative matter to be consolidated with that of Ms. Johanna M. Villafranca's for proper disposition in line with the foregoing discussion.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
[1] Re: Proposed Amendment to Rule 140 of the Rules of Court Re Discipline of Justices and Judges.
[2] Judges of the Court of Tax Appeals have ceased to be referred to as Judges of special courts by virtue of Section 1 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9282, entitled AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS (CTA), ELEVATING ITS RANK TO THE LEVEL OF A COLLEGIATE COURT WITH SPECIAL JURISDICTION AND ENLARGING ITS MEMBERSHIP, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE CERTAIN SECTIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT 1125, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LAW CREATING THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Said R.A. amended Section 1 of Republic Act No. 1125, THE LAW CREATING THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, by elevating the rank of the Court of Tax Appeals to the same level as the Court of Appeals, possessing all the inherent powers of a Court of Justice. Moreover, the incumbent Presiding Judge and Associate Judges shall bear the new titles of Presiding Justice and Associate Justices.
[3] Section 6 of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution
emphatically provides that:
Sec. 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.
[4]
Promulgated by this Court on
[5]
SEC. 6. Creation of the Committee on
Decorum and investigation (CODI) - The Chief Justice shall appoint the
members of the Supreme Court Committee on Decorum and Investigation (SC-CODI),
while the Presiding Justices of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan
and the court of Tax Appeals shall appoint the members of their respective CODIs. In the Court
of Appeals Divisions in
[6] SEC. 7. Committee
on Decorum and Investigation - Composition, Voting and Term of Office. - The
SC-CODI shall be composed of the Clerk
of Court as Chairperson; a representative
from the Office of the Court Administrator as Vice - Chairperson; and a
representative each from the Office of
the Chief Attorney, the Office
of Administrative Services, the Medical
and Dental Services, the Supreme
Court Assembly of Lawyer – Employees, Inc. (SCALE), and the Supreme Court Employees Association
(SCEA). The representative of
the SCALE and the SCEA shall be designated by their respective governing boards
from among officials or members in good standing.
The CODIs
of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan and the
Court of Tax Appeals shall be composed of the Presiding Justice as Chairperson; the Clerk of Court as Vice - Chairperson; and one representative each from the
employees’ associations duly accredited by the Office of the Court
Administrator.
The CODIs of the Court of Appeals Division in Cebu City and Cagayan de Oro City shall be composed of the Executive Justice as Chairperson; the Clerk of Court as Vice - Chairperson; and one representative each from the employees' associations duly accredited by the Office of the Court Administrator.
[7] In multi - sala lower courts, the CODIs
shall be composed of the Executive
Judge as Chairperson; the
Clerk of Court as Vice - Chairperson; and one representative each from the employees' associations
duly accredited by the Office of the Court Administrator. In the case of single sala
lower courts, the Office of the Court Administrator shall cluster them for the
purpose of forming their respective CODIs.
A majority of the members of
the CODI shall constitute a quorum. A
vote of a majority of the CODI members present, there being a quorum, shall be
necessary for the issuance of a recommendation.
No CODI member shall participate in any proceeding where he or she is
either a complainant or a respondent, or is related by consanguinity or
affinity within the third civil degree to the complainant or the respondent.
In case the Chairperson is
disqualified or inhibits himself, the Assistant Clerk of Court in the Supreme
Court, the most senior Associate Justice in the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax Appeals, or the Vice
-Executive Judge in the lower courts shall serve as the Acting Chairperson of
the CODIs in their respective courts.
The members of the CODI shall
serve for a term of two years from their date of appointment. [Emphasis supplied.]
A.M. No. CTA-01-1,