Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1987 > September 1987 Decisions > A.M. No. R-249-RTJ September 17, 1987 - CEFERINO INCIONG v. LETICIA S. MARIANO DE GUIA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[A.M. No. R-249-RTJ. September 17, 1987.]

CEFERINO INCIONG, Petitioner, v. HONORABLE LETICIA S. MARIANO DE GUIA, Respondent.


R E S O L U T I O N


FELICIANO, J.:


Complainant Attorney Ceferino Inciong brought a charge against the respondent Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Balayan Batangas, of "Inducing Court Employees to Falsify Court Record." chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

The Office of the Court Administrator found that there was a prima facie case against respondent Judge which warranted an investigation. 1

By a Resolution dated 9 December 1986, the Court referred petitioner’s complaint to Associate Justice Manuel C. Herrera of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation.

On 10 March 1987, Justice Manuel C. Herrera submitted a "Report and Recommendation" on this matter stating that, at the hearing called by the Investigator, the complainant Ceferino Inciong orally withdrew his complaint. On that basis, and because respondent Judge "had been re-appointed as Judge of the Regional Trial Court, with station at Balanga, Bataan," the Investigator recommended the dismissal of the complaint filed against respondent Judge.

In a Resolution dated 9 April 1987, the Court," [c]onsidering that the unexplained withdrawal of the complaint was made without any reference to the substance of the complaint or the evidence in support thereof, and considering further that the reappointment of the respondent as Judge of the Regional Trial Court has no bearing on the merit or lack of merit on the complaint filed in this Administrative Case," resolved to refer the complaint to Associate Justice Justo P. Torres, Jr. of the Court of Appeals "for investigation de novo, report and recommendation."cralaw virtua1aw library

The details of the charge set out in the complaint are found in an attached Joint Affidavit dated 29 November 1984, executed by Mr. Nemesio G. Dalisay and Ms. Rufina A. Pinili, Deputy Sheriff, Branch 9 and Staff Assistant, Branch 10, respectively, Regional Trial Court, Balayan, Batangas. The affiants stated that sometime in the last week of November 1984, they were urgently called to the chambers of respondent Judge. There, respondent Judge requested them to affix their initials on the information filed in a criminal case entitled "People of the Philippines v. Ruben Rodriguez, Et. Al.", with the explanation that they (the affiants) had failed to sign the same as one of the criminal cases raffled to respondent Judge’s sala. Believing that an oversight on their part had occurred, affiants stated, they complied with respondent Judge’s request and affixed their signatures on the information in said criminal case. Upon return to their respective branches, affiants consulted the list of cases raffled on 22 November 1984 and found that the Ruben Rodriguez case was not among the criminal cases raffled on said date. Affiants further referred to respondent Judge as stating that "she is interested in personally handling the Murder Case involving Ruben Rodriguez as she allegedly had an understanding with [the] Executive Judge." 2

The findings of the Second Investigator, Justice Torres are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The undersigned, set, conducted, heard and received testimonial and documentary evidence as stated above on June 5, 8 and 9, 1987. Subsequent hearings were conducted on June 22 and 29, 1987. The last hearing was on July 2, 1987.

x       x       x


Although as stated earlier in this report, petitioner filed on June 29, 1987, a ‘Motion to Withdraw Administrative Complaint and Evidence Already Adduced’ against respondent, the same was denied by the undersigned in an Order dated July 1, 1987 being aware of the case of Vasquez v. Malvar (85 SCRA, 10) and the fact that in an investigation of this nature what is involved is not only the personal interest of the complaining party but more importantly, public interest and the integrity of the judicial office. 3

x       x       x


"Evidence is overwhelming to the effect that no raffle was conducted on November 22, 1984 in reference to Criminal Case No. 2589 entitled: People of the Philippines v. Ruben Rodriguez.

All the witnesses presented by petitioner-complainant testified that no such raffle was conducted. . . .

Then Executive Judge Alberto Reyes of the Regional Trial Court of Balayan, Branch X, testified under oath that Criminal Case No. 2589 ‘was never included in the raffle of cases’ on November 22, 1984. On July 2, 1987, the Investigating Justice summoned by way of subpoena duces tecum Attorney Arturo G. Matibag; OIC, Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC, 4th Judicial District, Balayan, Batangas. He testified under oath that he was not aware that Criminal Case No. 2589 was raffled and more he averred that ‘in no instance can a case be assigned to the judges without raffle.’

On June 9, 1987, respondent Honorable Judge Leticia S. Mariano de Guia presented her only witness in the person of Atty. Edemaco Magpantay, a private prosecutor in Criminal Case No. 2589. Witness Magpantay presented a sworn statement marked as Exhibit 3 (for respondent) describing how the respondent conducted the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 2589. When witness Magpantay was asked by the Investigating Justice ‘whether or not the raffle of this case was actually conducted by the rules’, he answered ‘No, your Honor.’ On cross-examination by Atty. Ceferino Inciong, witness Magpantay was asked — do you know that P175,000.00 was paid by the accused and only P100,000.00 went to the aggrieved party P75,000.00 was pocketed by the Respondent. To which line of questioning respondent Judge de Guia objected stating among others that is a libelous statement. I object to that your Honor.

x       x       x


The undersigned Investigating Justice had ample opportunity to observe and weigh at close range the behavior and conduct of the parties and the witnesses presented during this administrative investigation de novo. It is the opinion of the Investigating Justice — that the evidence presented by the petitioner, both testimonial and documentary, are in substance credibly adequate to establish the charge of ‘INDUCING COURT EMPLOYEES TO FALSIFY COURT RECORD.’ The evidence presented by respondent was also carefully examined and analyzed in accordance with established rules and jurisprudence on the matter but the same was found inadequate to off-set the justiceable and credible evidence for Petitioner.

Although Investigating Justice is aware that this is an administrative proceeding nevertheless, it appears that respondent would be responsible for causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate.

Respondent Judge de Guia stated in her ‘Rejoinder to Supplementary Reply and Motion to dismiss filed before this Honorable Supreme Court, that assignment of cases is very common in Balayan, without the benefit of raffle; the record however, does not reveal who assigned Criminal Case No. 2589 to Respondent. Be it as it may, Investigating Justice shares the findings of then Deputy Senior Judicial Administrator Arturo Buena that: ‘On the contrary, suspicion arises that there may indeed be irregularities in the raffling of cases in the Regional Trial Court of Balayan, in view of respondent’s admission that assignment of cases without the benefit of raffle is very common in said court, a procedure which violates Circular No. 7 of the Supreme Court dated September 23, 1974 as amended by Circular No. 3 dated April 24, 1975 as further amended by Circular No. 20 dated October 4, 1979, which provides as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Rule 1 — Raffling of Cases — All cases filed with the Court in stations or groupings where there are two or more branches shall be assigned or distributed to the different branches by raffle. No case may be assigned to any branch without being raffled. The raffle of cases should be regularly conducted at the hour and on the day or days to be fixed by the Executive Judge. . . ..’

Even on the assumption, as respondent admitted, that assignment of cases is ‘very common’ in the Regional Trial Courts where she was assigned, she should have borne in mind that practice is not the law. The law is very explicit on this as expressed by Article 7 of the New Civil Code which provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse, or customs or practice to the contrary.’

Respondent could not go against Circular No. 20 of the Honorable Supreme Court in the exercise of its rule-making power until it is repealed or otherwise modified. 4

x       x       x


(Emphasis supplied)

After a careful review of the report and of the transcript of the hearings held by Justice Torres, the Court agrees with the findings of Justice Torres. The Court is satisfied that respondent Judge induced the two court employees to make it appear that the Ruben Rodriguez case had been raffled to her sala when it had not in fact been so raffled. The Court is further satisfied that a violation of Circular No. 7 dated 23 September 1974, as amended, has been committed by respondent Judge who has been unable to account for the Ruben Rodriguez case winding up in her sala.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

The behaviour of respondent Judge complained of and proven in this case is of such a character as to create a substantial suspicion that respondent Judge may have been moved by corrupt motives in taking over the criminal case against Ruben Rodriguez, Et. Al. and acquitting the accused in view of the inability of the fiscal to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt because his witnesses had turned hostile. While, fortunately for respondent Judge, that suspicion remains a suspicion only, it behooves respondent Judge constantly to bear in mind that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . The judge is the visible representation of the law and, more importantly, of justice. From him, the people draw their will and awareness to obey the law. They see in him an intermediary of justice between two conflicting interests, specially in the station of municipal judges, like respondent Judge, who have that close and direct contact with the people before anybody else in the judiciary. Thus, for the judge to return that regard, he must be the first to abide by the law and weave an example for the others to follow. He should be studiously careful to avoid even the slightest infraction of the law. . . . 5

The Court adopts the recommendation of the investigating Justice and hereby finds respondent Judge Leticia S. Mariano de Guia guilty of misconduct in office and accordingly, imposes a FINE upon respondent Judge equivalent to her three (3) months pay, with a stern WARNING that repetition of the same offense or commission of a similar offense will be dealt with more severely.chanrobles.com:cralaw:red

The Court Administrator is hereby instructed immediately to investigate and determine whether Circular No. 7 of 23 September 1974, as amended, is being faithfully adhered to in the Regional Trial Court of Balayan, Batangas, and forthwith to report to the Court.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee (C.J.), Yap, Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Paras, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento and Cortes, JJ., concur.

Cruz, J., I did not participate in the deliberation of this case.

Gancayco, J., is on leave.

Endnotes:



1. Rollo, pp. 113-117.

2. Rollo, p. 3.

3. Rollo, p. 188.

4. Rollo, pp. 189-193.

5. De la Paz v. Inutan, 64 SCRA 540 at 548-549 [1975].




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1987 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-28683 September 4, 1987 - BUDGET INVESTMENT AND FINANCING, INC. v. GLICERIO MANGOMA

  • G.R. No. L-67825 September 4, 1987 - ELIAS C. GARCIA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 73441 September 4, 1987 - NAESS SHIPPING PHILIPPINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-46644 September 11, 1987 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ISLAND GARMENT MANUFACTURING CORP.

  • G.R. No. L-47018 September 11, 1987 - MUTUAL SECURITY INSURANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-57461 September 11, 1987 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-59880 September 11, 1987 - GEORGE ARGUELLES v. ROMEO A. YOUNG

  • G.R. No. L-48834 September 14, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABELARDO M. MARQUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-49539 September 14, 1987 - BENJAMIN DIHIANSAN v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-57926 September 14, 1987 - ROGELIO ZUÑIGA v. ALFIN S. VICENCIO

  • G.R. Nos. L-61700-03 September 14, 1987 - PRINCESITA SANTERO v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAVITE

  • G.R. No. 74433 September 14, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO ABARCA

  • G.R. No. L-30670 September 15, 1987 - PASTOR TANCHOCO, ET AL. v. FLORENDO P. AQUINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40858 September 15, 1987 - FEDERICO SERFINO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69619 September 15, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71535 September 15, 1987 - HELENA Z.T. BENITEZ v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-75501 September 15, 1987 - ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. R-190-P September 15, 1987 - JAMES B. PAJARES v. ELIZER ALIPANTE

  • A.M. No. P-2486 September 15, 1987 - COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. SANCHO G. GAPASIN

  • G.R. No. 71537 September 17, 1987 - EMILIO DE LA PAZ, JR., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75860 September 17, 1987 - ANG PING, ET AL. v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BR. 40, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78529 September 17, 1987 - BF HOMES, INCORPORATED, ET AL. v. NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. R-249-RTJ September 17, 1987 - CEFERINO INCIONG v. LETICIA S. MARIANO DE GUIA

  • A.M. No. R-494-P September 17, 1987 - VICENTE P. SIBULO v. ERNESTO RAMIREZ

  • A.M. No. R-592-RTJ September 17, 1987 - JUANITO L. HAW TAY v. EDUARDO SINGAYAO

  • G.R. No. L-51592 September 18, 1987 - PACIFIC PRODUCTS/FORTUNA EMPLOYEES & WORKERS ASSO., ET AL. v. PACIFIC PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61094 September 18, 1987 - MARIA LUISA VDA. DE DONATO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49761 September 21, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ESPERIDION ALEGARBES, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-55076 September 21, 1987 - MATILDE S. PALICTE v. JOSE O. RAMOLETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61311 September 21, 1987 - FELICIDAD VILLANUEVA, ET AL. v. MARIANO CASTAÑEDA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62577 September 21, 1987 - ESTELITA ROSALES, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LANAO DEL NORTE, BR. III, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 75217-18 September 21, 1987 - VICTOR QUE v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76721 September 21, 1987 - LYDIA SANTOS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36528 September 24, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CITY COURT OF MANILA, BR. VI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48777 September 24, 1987 - JUSTO M. ONGKIKO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-52007 September 24, 1987 - JOVENCIO LAGUNZAD v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-61418 September 24, 1987 - KOREAN AIRLINES CO., LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-65894 September 24, 1987 - MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF CORON, PALAWAN v. JOSE CARIÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-65917 September 24, 1987 - MANUEL ALBA, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO A. PEREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70660 September 24, 1987 - EULALIO GALANIDA v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71228 September 24, 1987 - ERLINDA P. MERAM v. FILIPINA V. EDRALIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-71313 September 24, 1987 - RODERICO M. DEANG v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73884 September 24, 1987 - ROMEO LIPANA, ET AL. v. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF RIZAL

  • G.R. No. L-74240 September 24, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID B. SUNGA

  • G.R. No. 75884 September 24, 1987 - JULITA GO ONG, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-50310 September 25, 1987 - RICARDO ROXAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-62300 September 25, 1987 - ANGELITA TANEDO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38972 September 28, 1987 - PAZ GARCIA VDA. DE MAPA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40575 September 28, 1987 - FELIMON C. MARQUEZ, ET AL. v. GAVINO R. ALEJO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46953 September 28, 1987 - JOSE N. MAYUGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-67451 September 28, 1987 - REALTY SALES ENTERPRISE, INC., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-67451 September 28, 1987 - REALTY SALES ENTERPRISE, INC., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37928-29 September 29, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGACIANO TADUYO

  • G.R. No. 73558 September 29, 1987 - MUNICIPALITY OF OBANDO, BULACAN, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76989 September 29, 1987 - MANILA MANDARIN EMPLOYEES UNION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28353 September 30, 1987 - SOLANO LAGANAPAN v. ELPIDIO ASEDILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30212 September 30, 1987 - BIENVENIDO GELISAN v. BENITO ALDAY

  • G.R. No. L-33261 September 30, 1987 - LIWALUG AMEROL, ET AL. v. MOLOK BAGUMBARAN

  • G.R. No. L-39300 September 30, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNIDO DETUYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44222 September 30, 1987 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45663 September 30, 1987 - ALFONSO BUISER, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48276 September 30, 1987 - PEDRO A. DANAO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48685 September 30, 1987 - LORENZO SUMULONG, ET AL. v. BUENAVENTURA GUERRERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-56984 September 30, 1987 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-57844 September 30, 1987 - STELLA ZABLAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-69253 September 30, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSALIA B. FRANCIA

  • G.R. No. L-69997 September 30, 1987 - UNGAY MALOBAGO MINES, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-71092 September 30, 1987 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANACLETO Q. OLVIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73889 September 30, 1987 - FLORENCIO BALATERO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75209 September 30, 1987 - NESTLE PHILIPPINES, INC. v. AUGUSTO S. SANCHEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 75238 September 30, 1987 - MALAYAN INTEGRATED INDUSTRIES CORP. v. RAFAEL T. MENDOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76647 September 30, 1987 - CECILIO J. AMORSOLO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 77679 September 30, 1987 - VICENTE VERGARA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. R-368-MTJ September 30, 1987 - BENJAMIN C. UY v. RENATO S. MERCADO

  • A.M. No. R-375-MTJ September 30, 1987 - COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. ANTONIO P. PAREDES, ET AL.