IMELDA R. MARCOS v JUDGE FERNANDO VIL PAMINTUAN A.M. No.

RTJ-07-2062, January 18, 2011 Facts: Imelda Marcos filed an administrative case against Judge Pamintuan of Branch 3, RTC, Baguio City with Gross Ignorance of the Law for reversing motu propio the final and executory order of then Judge Reyes dated May 30, 1996 (and modified in the September 2, 1996 order), in Civil Case No. 3383-R, entitled Albert D. Umali, in his capacity as the exclusive administrator and as President of the Treasure Hunters Association of the Philippines v. Jose D. Roxas, et al. The order of Judge Reyes in the said case did not not rule on the authenticity of the Golden Buddha because it was not made as an issue while the questioned order of Judge Pamintuan, 10 years after, has ruled that said Buddha, which is under the custody the court, was fake and a mere replica. This case is not Judge Pamintuans first and solely administrative case. He has been charged in three other cases with gross ignorance of the law, conduct unbecoming of an officer of the judiciary, conduct prejudicial to the best interest in the service and for not disposing court business promptly. He was reprimanded and was fined with a stern warning that repetition of the similar acts would be dealt with severly. Issue: Whether or not Judge Pamintuan was liable for gross ignorance of the law. Held: Judge Pamintuan was liable. It is axiomatic that when a judgment is final and executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any respect either by the court which rendered it or even by this Court. The doctrine of immutability and inalterability of a final judgment has a two-fold purpose, to wit: (1) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus, procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of judicial business; and (2) to put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors, which is precisely why courts exist. Controversies cannot drag on indefinitely. It is inexcusable for Judge Pamintuan to have overlooked such basic legal principle no matter how noble his objectives were at that time. Judges owe it to the public to be well-informed, thus, they are expected to be familiar with the statutes and procedural rules at all times. When the law is so elementary, not to know it or to act as if one does not know it, constitutes gross ignorance of the law. The judiciary cannot keep those who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity. This being so, in the performance of the functions of their office, judges must endeavor to act in a manner that puts them and their conduct above reproach and beyond

suspicion. They must act with extreme care for their office indeed is burdened with a heavy load of responsibility.

ATTY. FRANKLIN G. GACAL vs JUDGE JAIME I. INFANTE, RTC, BRANCH 38, IN ALABEL, SARANGANI A.M. No. RTJ- 04-1845, October 5, 2011 Facts: An information for murder was filed and raffled in the sala of Judge Infante. Said information contained a recommendation for bail in the amount of P400,000. Based on the said information, without the accused filing a petition for bail and without hearing, Judge Infante issued twin orders, one granting bail to the accused and another releasing the accused from custody. Atty. Gacal, private prosecutor, upon learning the orders, made a very urgent motion to cancel the bailbond and to enforce or re-issue a new warrant of arrest but the same was denied by Judge Infante on the ground that it was a pro forma, without conformity coming from the public prosecutor, and that he was not authorized to act as such under Section of 5 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court. He further directed that the bail issue be held in abeyance awaiting the comment of the public prosecutor. The public prosecutor, in his comment, stated that the bail and the releasing of the accused was proper based on his recommendation and that such recommendation was in effect a waiver of the public prosecutors right to bail hearing. Atty. Gacal then filed an administrative complaint against Judge Infante, that the granting of bail without a petition for bail being filed by the accused or a hearing being held for that purpose constituted gross ignorance of the law and the rules. Issue: Whether or not Judge Infante is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and the rules. Held: Judge Infante is guilty of gross ignorance of the law. Judge Infante disregarded basic but well-known rules and guidelines on the matter of bail: (1) in case no application for bail is filed, bail hearing was not dispensable; and (2) public prosecutors failure to oppose application for bail or to adduce evidence did not dispense with hearing. Every judge should be faithful to the law and should maintain professional competence. His role in the administration of justice requires a continuous study of the law and jurisprudence, lest public confidence in the Judiciary be eroded by incompetence and irresponsible conduct. In that light, the failure of Judge Infante to conduct a hearing prior to the grant of bail in capital offenses was inexcusable and reflected gross ignorance of the law and the rules as well as a

cavalier disregard of its requirement. He well knew that the determination of whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong was a matter of judicial discretion, and that the discretion lay not in the determination of whether or not a hearing should be held, but in the appreciation and evaluation of the weight of the Prosecutions evidence of guilt against the accused. His fault was made worse by his granting bail despite the absence of a petition for bail from the accused. Consequently, any order he issued in the absence of the requisite evidence was not a product of sound judicial discretion but of whim and caprice and outright arbitrariness.

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs JUDGE UYAG P. USMAN,Presiding Judge, Sharia Circuit Court, Pagadian City A.M. No. SCC-08-12, October 19, 2011 Facts: A letter-complaint was filed before the Ombudsman requesting a lifestyle check on Judge Usman in connection with his acquisition of a brand new SUV, Kia Sorento EX, in the amount of P1.5M and allegedly paying in cash a down payment of P344,200 and the remaining balance payable in 48 months with a monthly amortization of P34,844. The complaint further averred that respondent judge was just recently appointed as a judge and since assuming his post, he seldom reported for work and could not be found in the premises. His financial capacity was also questioned that he is the sole bread winner in the family, with 7 children and 2 of whom are college students enrolled in a private school. Respondent judge was able to answer all the allegations in the complaint complete with substantiation requirements and OCAd found it meritorious. However, OCAd held the respondent judge liable for violation of Section 8 of RA 6713, Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees and of Section 7 of R.A. No. 3019, known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, for failing to file his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) for the years 2004-2008. Issue: Whether or not Judge Usman is guilty for violation of Section 8 of RA 6713 and Section 7 of RA 3019. Held: The court found Judge Usman guilty for such violation. It is imperative that every public official or government employee must make and submit a complete disclosure of his assets, liabilities and net worth in order to suppress any questionable accumulation of wealth. This serves as the basis of the government and the people in monitoring the income and lifestyle of public officials and employees in compliance with the constitutional policy to eradicate corruption, to promote transparency in government, and to ensure that all government employees and officials lead just and modest lives, with the end in view of curtailing and minimizing the opportunities for official corruption and maintaining a standard of honesty in the public service. In the present case, respondent clearly violated the above-quoted laws when he failed to file his SALN for the years 2004-2008. He gave no explanation either why he failed to file his SALN for five (5) consecutive years. While every office in the government service is a public trust, no position exacts a greater demand on moral righteousness and uprightness of an individual than a seat in the Judiciary. Hence, judges are strictly mandated to abide with the law, the Code of Judicial Conduct and with existing administrative policies in order to maintain the faith of our people in the administration of justice.