Some trial judges in the Philippine either proudly and misguidedly live beyond their means or are so poor (in spirit and in the wallet caused by pompous lifestyle, vices, or bad social habits) that they use their influence to borrow money from trial lawyers and litigants who have pending cases before their salas. For such “borrower” judges, the penalty is dismissal, according to the Philippine Supreme Court.
In the recent case of Concerned Lawyers of Bulacan v. Judge Villalon-Pornillos, AM No. RTJ-09-2183, July 7, 2009, the Supreme Court found Judge Victoria Villalon-Pornillos of Malolos City Regional Trial Court, Branch 10 “guilty of violating paragraph 7, section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court (borrowing money from a lawyer in a case pending before her court) which also constitutes a gross misconduct for violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, aggravated by, inter alia, undue delay in rendering decisions or orders and violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars.”
In imposing the maximum penalty of dismissal, the Court (which, by the way, is composed of Justices with huge salaries, allowances, and other fringe benefits and who enjoy the use of government cars and drivers), noted that it was the third time that Judge Pornillos had been administratively charged. The Court also stated (some would say, with a holier-than-thou attitude), thus: “Those who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity have no place in the Judiciary. The various violations of respondent reflect a totality of transgressions of one who no longer deserves a seat in the bench. This Court will not withhold penalty when called for to uphold the people’s faith in the Judiciary.”
Please read below a news item which appeared in the official website of the Philippine Supreme Court on the same subject matter for legal research purposes.
SC Dismisses “Borrower” Judge
Posted: July 8, 2009
By Jay B. Rempillo
A judge shalt not borrow cash or property from a subordinate nor from lawyers or litigants in one’s sala or face the severe penalty of dismissal from service.
The Supreme Court yesterday dismissed a Regional Trial Court judge for borrowing P5, 000 from a lawyer who had at least two cases pending before her sala. It was also found that the said judge had also obtained loans from court personnel.
In a 22-page per curiam decision, the Court found Judge Victoria Villalon-Pornillos of Malolos City Regional Trial Court, Branch 10 guilty of violating paragraph 7, section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court (borrowing money from a lawyer in a case pending before her court) which also constitutes a gross misconduct for violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, aggravated by, inter alia, undue delay in rendering decisions or orders and violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars.
The High Court also ordered the forfeiture of all her retirement benefits except accrued leave credits and her perpetual disqualification from re-employment in the government.
“That the loans had already been paid or waived by the creditors do not detract from the fact that certain prohibitions were violated….There is a standing legal proscription on ‘borrowing money by superior officers from subordinate,’ a violation of which is punishable, under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service….More severely prohibited is the serious charge of ‘borrowing money or property from lawyers and litigants in a case pending before the court,” the Court said.
In imposing the maximum penalty of dismissal, the Court noted that it was the third time that Judge Pornillos has been administratively charged. “Considering that [Judge Pornillos] is not a first-time offender and taking into account respondent’s less serious violations as aggravating circumstance, the Court imposes the penalty of dismissal for service…Those who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity have no place in the Judiciary. The various violations of respondent reflect a totality of transgressions of one who no longer deserves a seat in the bench. This Court will not withhold penalty when called for to uphold the people’s faith in the Judiciary,” the Court ruled.
The case stemmed from the administrative complaint filed in August 2005 by the Concerned Lawyers of Bulacan who had accused respondent judge of graft and corruption by “fixing” cases and “selling” decisions or orders and alleged illicit relationships with her driver and bodyguards.
After investigating the matter, the Office of the Court Administrator found that the allegations of corruption and extortion, or even the illicit amorous relationships were hearsay. However, the OCA confirmed that Judge Pornillos had indeed obtained loans from court personnel and lawyers.
The High Court subsequently ordered an investigation by a judicial audit team which in turn found that Judge Pornillos, among others, had not been promptly acting on several cases.
However, it dismissed OCA’s earlier conclusion that Judge Pornillos has no longer any administrative liability for the loans she had obtained from court personnel and lawyers. The Court held that she had violated certain prohibitions and it does not matter whether the loans had been paid or waived.
The High Court found that respondent judge also failed to fulfill the duties to “dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the required periods,” to “diligently discharge administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence in court management, and facilitate the performance of the administrative functions of other judges and court personnel,” and to “organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business, and require at all times the observance of high standards of public service and fidelity.”(Concerned Lawyers of Bulacan v. Judge Villalon-Pornillos, AM No. RTJ-09-2183, July 7, 2009).
See:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/news/courtnews%20flash/2009/07/07080901.php
