January 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[A.M. No. RTJ-11-2274 : January 18, 2012]
LAARNI FABELLA TAGNONG v. JUDGE RUTH D. CRUZ-SANTOS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 72, ANTIPOLO CITY
A.M. No. RTJ-11-2274 (Laarni Fabella Tagnong v. Judge Ruth D. Cruz-Santos, Regional Trial Court, Branch 72, Antipolo City).
RESOLUTION
Complainant Laarni Fabella Tagnong (Laarni) filed three separate actions against her husband Rainy G. Tagnong (Ramy): a petition for annulment of marriage, a petition for issuance of a permanent protection order, and a complaint for violation of Republic Act 9262, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City, where they were raffled to Branch 72, presided over by respondent Judge Ruth D. Cruz-Santos.
Judge Santos issued a temporary protection older (TPO) in Laarni's favor, which directed her husband Ramy to pay her a monthly support of P70,000.00. According to Laarni, on January 12, 2009 she filed a motion to cite Ramy in contempt for violation of the TPO. A couple of days later, she went to see Judge Santos to tell her of Ramy�s further violation of the TPO. But Judge Santos shouted at her in front of her children and accused her of brainwashing them.
Further, Laarni alleged that during the hearing of her motion to cite Ramy in contempt, Judge Santos surprisingly first called Ramy and their children into her chambers. Only after an hour did Judge Santos call Laarni in and, in a high tone, accused her again of brainwashing her children. During the hearing, Judge Santos sent out a text message, giving her children the impression that she was insensitive and unsympathetic to their plight. Then on March 30, 2009 Judge Santos issued an Order, dismissing Laarni's motion for failure to comply with Section 4, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.
Laarni alleged that on September 11, 2009 Judge Santos set the issue of support for hearing. But Laarni thought this unnecessary since the parties filed no motion regarding it. On September 16 Judge Santos went to see Laarni at the Provincial Prosecutor's Office of Rizal, where she worked as Assistant City Prosecutor. Judge Santos told her in a raised voice before other prosecutors that it was her fault that her lawyer husband, Ramy, did not want to give support to his family.
On September 23, 2009 Judge Santos heard the issue of support but, rather than resolve it, she referred the matter to mediation. This prompted Laarni to file the present complaint against Judge Santos for bias, partiality, and delay in the administration of justice. The Court referred the case to the Court of Appeals (CA) for investigation and recommendation.
During the scheduled hearing on July 1, 2011, however, Laarni told the CA through counsel that she was no longer pursuing her complaint and submitted a sworn statement to this effect.[1] The CA pointed out that this would not prevent it from taking cognizance of the case because atonement in administrative cases merely obliterates the claim for personal injury but does not erase the offense when it affects public service. After evaluation of the evidence presented in the case, however, the CA recommended the dismissal of the complaint against Judge Santos for lack of substantial evidence.
The Court finds no reason to disregard the CA's recommendation. Apparently, Laarni herself caused the delay in the resolution of her petition for a permanent protection order when she filed numerous pleadings that Judge Santos needed to set for hearing. Further, Judge Santos had to give priority to the question of spousal support that was before her court as well. Precisely, Laarni wanted her husband cited in contempt of court for failing to pay full spousal support on time.
As for the correctness of Judge Santos' actions in the case, the rule is that the acts of a judge pertaining to judicial functions are not subject to disciplinary action, unless tainted with fraud, dishonesty, corruption, or bad faith.[2] Here, Laarni failed to prove any of these exceptional circumstances. In fact, she declined to proceed with her complaint and said in a sworn statement that she filed it out of a misapprehension of facts.cralaw
WHEREFORE, the Court DISMISSES this administrative complaint against respondent Judge Ruth D. Cruz-Santos for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Exhibit "B."
[2] Mariano v. Garfin, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2024, October 17, 2006, 504 SCRA 605, 614.