In the recent case of OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. JUDGE ALBERTO L. LERMA, En Banc/Per Curiam, A.M. No. RTJ-07-2076, Oct. 12, 2010 (with companion cases), where the respondent judge was dismissed for various administrative cases, the Supreme Court ruled as follows:
“ x x x.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court RULES, as follows:
1) In A.M. No. RTJ-07-2076, Judge Alberto Lerma is found GUILTY of violating a Supreme Court directive, and we impose upon him a FINE in the total amount of FIFTEEN THOUSAND PESOS (P15,000.00);
2) In A.M. No. RTJ-07-2080, Judge Alberto Lerma is FINED in the total amount of FIFTEEN THOUSAND PESOS (P15,000.00) for violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars, and for making untruthful statements in his certificate of service;
3) In A.M. No. RTJ-07-2077, Judge Alberto Lerma is found GUILTY of gross misconduct and punished with the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service, with forfeiture of all benefits, except earned leave credits, with prejudice to reemployment in any government agency or instrumentality.
4) In A.M. No. RTJ-07-2078, we find Judge Alberto Lerma GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law, and impose upon him a FINE of FORTY THOUSAND PESOS (P40,000.00); and
5) In A.M. No. RTJ-07-2079, we find Judge Alberto Lerma GUILTY of grave abuse of authority and undue delay in rendering an order, and impose upon him a FINE of TWENTY–ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P21,000.00).
This Decision is final and immediately executory.”
The salient doctrinal pronouncements of the Court are as follows:
“x x x.
a.) A.M. No. RTJ-07-2076
x x x.
Under Section 9(4), Rule 140, Revised Rules of Court, failure to obey the Court’s resolution is a less serious offense that carries a penalty of suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) month or more than three (3) months, or a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.
The Investigating Justice recommends that a fine of P15,000.00 be imposed upon respondent, based on the following findings:
In criminal actions, it is a fundamental rule that venue is jurisdictional. The place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction. Thus, a court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a person charged with an offense committed outside the limited territory. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of a court over a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information.
The demurrer to evidence filed by the accused cited the accusatory portion of the information which charged him with unlawful possession of a caliber .30 U.S. carbine with two magazines and twenty-five (25) rounds of ammunition. The information clearly stated that the accused possessed the carbine, magazines, and ammunitions in Barangay Cabalaongan Sur, Municipality of Rosales, Province of Pangasinan. Had respondent judge exercised a moderate degree of caution before resolving the demurrer to evidence, a mere perusal of the records would have reminded him that his court was only authorized to arraign the accused, to receive the evidence in the said case, and to return the records of the case to the RTC, Branch 53, Rosales, Pangasinan for continuation of the proceedings. In every case, a judge shall endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts.
Respondent judge was found wanting in the diligence required of him. We agree with the Investigating Justice in finding respondent judge guilty of violating a Supreme Court directive, and impose upon him a fine of P15,000.00.
b.) A.M. No. RTJ-07-2080
x x x.
According to the OCA, its records in the Office of the Administrative Services show that respondent judge did not declare his absences on July 21, 2000, August 4, 2000, March 5, 2002, February 12, 2004, and February 28, 2005, during which he reportedly played golf at the Alabang Country Club. Further, in a certification dated September 5, 2007, Hermogena F. Bayani (Hermogena), Supreme Court Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Leave Division, OCA, stated that respondent judge did not file any application for a leave of absence on all the dates mentioned by Hirofumi in his letter dated September 3, 2007. These constituted violations of Supreme Court Memorandum Order dated November 19, 1973, Administrative Circular No. 3-99 dated January 15, 1999, and Administrative Circular No. 5 dated October 4, 1988.
The OCA asserted that on the days that respondent judge played golf, he was lost to the judiciary for half the working/session hours on those days, positing that this is not merely truancy but also dishonesty and falsification of certificates of service.
X x x.
The testimony of Aquino, along with the certification issued by Hermogena, that respondent judge did not file any leave of absence on the dates indicated in Hirofumi’s letter, indubitably established that respondent judge violated Supreme Court Memorandum Order dated November 19, 1973, Administrative Circular No. 3-99 dated January 15, 1999, and Administrative Circular No. 5 dated October 4, 1988.
Supreme Court Memorandum Order dated November 19, 1973 provides for the observance by judges, among other officials and employees in the judiciary, of a five-day forty-hour week schedule which shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and from 12:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. from Mondays to Fridays.
Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars, and making untruthful statements in the certificate of service are considered less serious charges under Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. Under Section 11(B) of Rule 140, these acts may be punished by suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) month or more than three (3) months, or a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.
On the basis of the foregoing findings, we adopt the recommendation of the Investigating Justice that, in this administrative case, a fine of P15,000.00 be imposed upon respondent judge.
c.) A.M. No. RTJ-07-2077
x x x.
We have repeatedly held that to warrant a finding of gross ignorance of the law, it must be shown that the error is “so gross and patent as to produce an inference of bad faith.” Gross negligence refers to negligence characterized by want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own property. In cases involving public officials, there is gross negligence when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable.
In the instant case, the issuance by respondent of divergent orders raises serious questions of impropriety that taint respondent judge’s credibility, probity, and integrity. Coupled with the clandestine issuance of the second order — where the Union Bank counsel and even the judge’s own staff were left completely in the dark — the action of respondent judge gives rise to an inference of bad faith. Indeed, we have ample reason to believe — as Atty. Ona posits — that the secretly-issued second order was really intended to give Atty. Perez the ammunition to oppose Union Bank’s Urgent Manifestation and Motion to Recall Writ of Execution/Garnishment which was to be heard by the RTC of Makati City. Under the circumstances, the breach committed by respondent can be characterized as flagrant and palpable.
This action of respondent judge violates Section 8 of Rule 140, and carries the penalty of dismissal from the service or suspension from office for more than three (3) months but not exceeding six (6) months, or a fine of P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.
For this violation, we impose upon respondent judge the penalty of dismissal from the service, with forfeiture of all benefits, except earned leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in the government service, including government-owned and controlled corporations.
d) A.M. No. RTJ-07-2078
x x x.
It is true that to constitute gross ignorance of the law, it is not enough that the subject decision, order, or actuation of the judge in the performance of his official duties is contrary to existing law and jurisprudence but, most importantly, he must be moved by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or corruption.
However, when the law is so elementary — and the matter of jurisdiction is an elementary principle that judges should be knowledgeable of — not to be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. Judges are expected to exhibit more than just cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules. They are expected to keep abreast of our laws and the changes therein as well as with the latest decisions of the Supreme Court. They owe it to the public to be legally knowledgeable, for ignorance of the law is the mainspring of injustice. Judicial competence requires no less. It is a truism that the life chosen by a judge as a dispenser of justice is demanding. By virtue of the delicate position which he occupies in society, he is duty bound to be the embodiment of competence and integrity.
On the matter of the order finding complainant guilty of indirect contempt, we also find the action of respondent judge sadly wanting. Section 4, Rule 71 of the same Rules provides:
Sec. 4. How proceedings commenced. – Proceedings for indirect contempt may be initiated motu proprio by the court against which the contempt was committed by an order or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt.
In all other cases, charges for indirect contempt shall be commenced by a verified petition with supporting particulars and certified true copies of documents or papers involved therein, and upon full compliance with the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings for civil actions in the court concerned. If the contempt charges arose out of or are related to a principal action pending in the court, the petition for contempt shall allege that fact but said petition shall be docketed, heard and
decided separately, unless the court in its discretion orders the consolidation of the contempt charge and the principal action for joint hearing and decision.
The Rules are unequivocal. Indirect contempt proceedings may be initiated only in two ways: (1) motu proprio by the court; or (2) through a verified petition and upon compliance with the requirements for initiatory pleadings. The procedural requirements are mandatory considering that contempt proceedings against a person are treated as criminal in nature. Conviction cannot be had merely on the basis of written pleadings.
The records do not indicate that complainant was afforded an opportunity to rebut the charges against him. Respondent judge should have conducted a hearing in order to provide complainant the opportunity to adduce before the court documentary or testimonial evidence in his behalf. The hearing also allows the court a more thorough evaluation of the circumstances surrounding the case, including the chance to observe the accused present his side in open court and subject his defense to interrogation from the complainants or from the court itself.
It must be remembered that the power to punish for contempt should be used sparingly with caution, restraint, judiciousness, deliberation, and due regard to the provisions of the law and the constitutional rights of the individual. In this respect, respondent judge failed to measure up to the standards demanded of member of the judiciary.
As already mentioned above, gross ignorance of the law or procedure is classified as a serious charge under Section 8(9), Rule 140, Revised Rules of Court, and a respondent found guilty of serious charge may be punished by: a) 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; b) suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) months but not exceeding six (6) months; or c) a fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.
In this case, we find respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of the law, and impose upon him a fine of P40,000.00.
e.) A.M. No. RTJ-07-2079
x x x.
This Court finds that respondent judge’s delay in the determination of probable cause clearly runs counter to the provisions of Section 6, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which provides:
Sec. 6. When warrant of arrest may issue. – (a) By the Regional Trial Court. Within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or information, the judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment order if the accused has already been arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by the judge who conducted the preliminary investigation or when the complaint or information was filed pursuant to Section 7 of this Rules. In case of doubt on the existence of probable cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five (5) days from notice and the issue must be resolved by the court within thirty (30) days from the filing of the complaint or information.
While respondent judge could not have ascertained the existence of probable cause for the issuance of an arrest warrant against Cuason within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or information – Criminal Case No. 06-179 having been re-raffled to his sala only on May 2, 2006 – prudence demanded that respondent judge should have determined the existence of probable cause within ten (10) days from July 17, 2006, the date he heard the respective arguments of the parties. This interpretation is in keeping with the provisions of Section 6, Rule 112.
By allowing forty-eight (48) days to lapse before issuing the two-page omnibus order dated September 4, 2006, respondent judge should be held liable for undue delay in rendering an order, which is classified as a less serious charge under Section 9(1), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, punishable by suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) month or more than three (3) months, or a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.
Furthermore, the Court agrees with the OCA that the respondent judge is guilty of abuse of judicial discretion and authority.
The information in Criminal Case No. 06-179 clearly accuses Cuason of falsely pretending that he can return the investment of complainant by paying cash and two (2) condominium units when in fact these units do not exist or have not yet been constructed. The issue therefore boils down to whether or not the condominium units exist, and the incontrovertible proof of this are the condominium units themselves. The logical thing to do would have been to order the conduct of an ocular inspection. Instead of an ocular inspection, respondent relied on the certificate of registration, the development permit, the license to sell, the building permit, and the Condominium Certificate of Title ― on the basis of which the judge ordered the dismissal of the case. It may be that an ocular inspection was premature at the time the respondent dismissed the case because at that time the case was not yet set for the presentation of evidence of the parties. Nevertheless, it now appears that the pieces of evidence relied upon by the respondent do not fully support his conclusion.
Section 4, Rule 128 of the Rules of Court provides that “evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence.” “Relevancy is, therefore, determinable by the rules of logic and human experience…Relevant evidence is any class of evidence which has ‘rational probative value’ to the issue in controversy.” Logic and human experience teach us that the documents relied upon by respondent do not constitute the best evidence to prove the existence or non-existence of the condominium units. To repeat, the best evidence would have been adduced by an ocular inspection of the units themselves.
Judge Lerma should also have exercised caution in determining the existence of probable cause. At the very least, he should have asked the prosecutor to present additional evidence, in accordance with Section 6, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure or, in the alternative, to show cause why the case should not be dismissed instead of precipitately ordering the dismissal of the case. The circumstances required the exercise of caution considering that the case involved estafa in the considerable amount of P20 Million for which the complainant paid P129,970.00 in docket fees before the Office of the City Prosecutor and later P167,114.60 as docket fee for the filing of the Information before the RTC.
For this particular violation, we find respondent judge guilty and impose upon him a fine of P21,000.00.
As an unflattering footnote to these administrative offenses, the OCA, upon the authority of the Chief Justice, conducted a judicial audit from August 21-30, 2007 of the RTC, Branch 256, Muntinlupa. The initial result of the audit revealed that Judge Lerma failed to decide 30 civil cases and 11 criminal cases within the 90-day reglementary period. It also appears that 101 civil cases and 137 criminal cases remained unacted despite the lapse of a considerable period.
Judge Lerma had previously been sanctioned by this Court. In a resolution dated September 13, 2003 in A.M. No. RTJ-03-1799, entitled Ma. Cristina Olondriz Pertierra v. Judge Alberto L. Lerma, this Court found him liable for conduct unbecoming a judge and imposed upon him the penalty of reprimand. In that case, Judge Lerma was found having lunch with a lawyer who has a pending case in his sala.
The totality of all these findings underscore the fact that respondent judge’s actions served to erode the people’s faith and confidence in the judiciary. He has been remiss in the fulfillment of the duty imposed on all members of the bench in order to avoid any impression of impropriety to protect the image and integrity of the judiciary.
To reiterate, officers of the court have the duty to see to it that justice is dispensed evenly and fairly. Not only must they be honest and impartial, but they must also appear to be honest and impartial in the dispensation of justice. Judges should make sure that their acts are circumspect and do not arouse suspicion in the minds of the public. When they fail to do so, such acts cast doubt upon their integrity and ultimately on the judiciary in general. “Courts will only succeed in their task and mission if the judges presiding over them are truly honorable men, competent and independent, honest and dedicated.”
Respondent judge failed to live up to the judiciary’s exacting standards, and this Court will not withhold penalty when called for to uphold the people’s faith in the Judiciary.
X x x.”
