Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 7 views

    Complainant Respondent: Special First Division

    Uploaded by

    Ming Yao

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Complainant Respondent: Special First Division

    Uploaded by

    Ming Yao
    7 views4 pages

    Original Title

    1 Lachica_v._Tormis20210424-12-1w7nu58

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    7 views4 pages

    Complainant Respondent: Special First Division

    Uploaded by

    Ming Yao

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 4

    SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION

    [A.M. No. MTJ-05-1609. February 28, 2006.]

    TRINIDAD O. LACHICA, complainant, vs. JUDGE ROSABELLA M.


    TORMIS, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 4, Cebu City,
    respondent.

    RESOLUTION

    YNARES-SANTIAGO, J : p

    This resolves the Memorandum/Supplement to the Manifestation of


    respondent Judge Rosabella M. Tormis seeking for a reinvestigation of the
    administrative case filed against her and to be allowed to present additional
    evidence thereto.
    In the Court's Decision dated September 20, 2005, respondent judge
    was found guilty of gross misconduct, suspended from office for six months
    without salary and other benefits and sternly warned that a repetition of the
    same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
    The record shows that the case was initially referred to Executive Judge
    Simeon P. Dumdum, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City for
    investigation, report and recommendation in a Resolution dated August 02,
    2004. 1
    In compliance with the foregoing directive, the Investigating Judge
    submitted the Report dated November 18, 2004 2 with the recommendation
    that respondent judge be fined P20,000.00 or suspended for three months. 3
    The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) concurred with the findings
    of the Investigating Judge but recommended that respondent judge be
    suspended for three months. 4
    Thereafter, the Court issued a Resolution dated August 3, 2005
    requiring the parties to manifest within five days from notice if they were
    willing to submit the case for resolution based on the pleadings filed. 5
    Subsequently, the Court issued a Resolution dated September 14, 2005
    6 where it resolved to re-docket the case as a regular administrative case;
    and dispense with the manifestations of both parties submitting the case for
    resolution based on the pleadings filed.
    On September 20, 2005, the Court promulgated its Decision 7 finding
    respondent judge guilty of gross misconduct and suspending her from office
    for six months. TaSEHC

    It appears from the record 8 that even before her receipt of a copy of
    the above-mentioned judgment, the same had been downloaded from the
    web site of the Court and disseminated to the local media. Indeed,
    CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
    respondent judge was apprised by her staff that her six-month suspension
    was bannered by the Freeman, a local newspaper, in its September 23, 2005
    issue. 9 The Banat News, a sister publication of the Freeman published in the
    local dialect likewise made reference to the decision and called for
    respondent's ouster from the judiciary in its September 24, 2005 issue. 10
    These publications compelled respondent to send a letter addressed to the
    Clerk of Court of the First Division requesting for a certified true copy of the
    judgment. 11
    In the afternoon of September 28, 2005, respondent judge received a
    copy of the Resolution dated August 3, 2005 12 requiring the parties to
    manifest whether they were willing to submit the case for resolution based
    on the pleadings filed. This led respondent judge to conclude that the case
    had not yet been resolved and the judgment promulgated, thus, she filed a
    Manifestation on the same date 13 praying for a reinvestigation and to be
    allowed to adduce evidence thereat. 14
    On October 7, 2005, 15 the Court received a copy of respondent's
    Memorandum/Supplement to the Manifestation 16 dated October 3, 2005
    explaining in detail her reasons for seeking a reinvestigation.
    It must be stressed that the essence of due process in administrative
    proceedings is the opportunity to explain one's side or seek a
    reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. 17 Owing to the
    foregoing confluence of events aggravated by the delay in our postal
    system, the Court is inclined to grant the request of respondent judge.
    In an administrative case, if the respondent judge must be disciplined
    for grave misconduct or any grave offense, the evidence against the
    miscreant magistrate should be competent and should be derived from
    direct knowledge. 18 The Judiciary to which the respondent belongs demands
    no less. Before any of its members could be faulted, it should only be after
    due investigation and after presentation of the required quantum of
    evidence especially because the charge is punitive by nature. 19
    Any administrative complaint leveled against a judge must be
    examined with a discriminating eye for its consequential effects are by
    nature penal in character, such that the respondent judge stands to face the
    sanction of dismissal, disbarment, or suspension. As champion — at other
    times tormentor — of trial and appellate judges, this Court must be
    unrelenting in weeding the judiciary of unscrupulous magistrates, but it must
    also be quick in dismissing administrative complaints which serve no other
    purpose than to harass them. 20
    It has been said "[t]he wheels of justice would run smoothly not only if
    the judiciary is purged of the debilitating presence of recreant judges, but
    also importantly, if the members who perform their functions conscientiously
    are not hampered by groundless and vexatious charges. In its attempt to
    cleanse the Aegean stables, so to speak, this Court must tread on with
    utmost circumspection and prudence to make sure that only the guilty is
    denounced and the innocent absolved." 21 It must be stressed in this regard
    that in cases where the charges involved are misconduct in office, willful
    CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
    neglect, corruption or incompetency, the general rules as to admissibility of
    evidence in criminal trials apply and the culpability of the respondent should
    be established beyond reasonable doubt. 22
    Thus, as in criminal cases where the dictates of due process is
    observed with utmost stringence, the respondent judge in this administrative
    complaint should likewise be given full opportunity upon reasonable notice
    23 to defend herself and to adduce evidence in support thereof for the Court
    will not allow itself to be an instrument that would destroy the reputation of
    any member of the bench by pronouncing guilt on the basis of incomplete
    evidence or mere speculation. 24
    WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the motion of respondent
    Judge Rosabella M. Tormis, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 4, Cebu
    City for a reinvestigation of the above-captioned case is GRANTED. The
    records of the case are ordered REMANDED to the Office of the Executive
    Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City for further proceedings. cADTSH

    SO ORDERED.
    Quisumbing, Carpio and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

    Footnotes

    1. Rollo , p. 52.

    2. Id. at 57-62.

    3. Id. at 62.
    4. Id. at 100.

    5. Id. at 101.

    6. Id. at 102.
    7. Id. at 106-115.
    8. Id. at 116, 118, 124.

    9. Id. at 116, 124.


    10. Id.

    11. Id. at 116.


    12. Id. at 118.

    13. Id.
    14. Id.
    15. Id. at 123.

    16. Id. at 124-131.


    17. Cojuangco, Jr. v. Palma, A.C. No. 2474, June 30, 2005, 462 SCRA 310, 319.

    CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com


    18. Suarez-De Leon v. Estrella , A.M. No. RTJ-05-1935, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 37,
    44.

    19. Araos v. Luna-Pison, 428 Phil. 290, 295-296 (2002).


    20. Diomampo v. Alpajora, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1880, October 19, 2004, 440 SCRA 534,
    538-539.
    21. Cea v. Paguio , 445 Phil. 533, 537 (2003).

    22. Araos v. Luna-Pison, supra at 296.


    23. See Bustamante-Alejandro v. Alejandro , A.C. No. 4256, February 13, 2004, 422
    SCRA 527, 533.

    24. Ong v. Rosete, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1538, October 22, 2004, 441 SCRA 150, 161.

    CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

    You might also like