ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2157-RTJ. February 7, 2005]

RENIEDO vs. GUTIERREZ

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 7 2005 .

A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2157-RTJ (Catherine S. Reniedo vs. Hon. Ernesto R. Gutierrez, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 14, Zamboanga City.)

Considering the Report dated December 21, 2004 submitted by Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., to wit:

SWORN LETTER-COMPLAINT dated 06 October 2004 of Ms. Catherine S. Reniedo charging respondent Judge Ernesto R. Gutierrez, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 14, Zamboanga City with Immorality and Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge.

At the outset, herein complainant admits that instant complaint is an offshoot and a countercharge to respondent's allegations against her as contained in the latter's indorsement dated 18 May 2004 addressed to the OIC-OAS, this Office, Attn: Mr. Renante L. Loyola, RTC Personnel Division, OAS, OCA. In said indorsement, respondent aired his comment stating that during the detail of complainant in his sala for more than a year, the former did not get along well with the other members of the court's staff and that her attendance was poor. Respondent concluded that complainant is not fit for the Utility Worker position in the RTC and is overqualified to be such, being a college graduate.

Being considered a liability to the court, respondent judge justifies his request for the recall of complainant to her mother station (as Interpreter at the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Siasi, Sulu). Said indorsement of respondent was concurred in by Executive Judge Jesus C. Carbon, Jr. of RTC, Zamboanga City.

To defend herself and to controvert the accusations hurled by respondent, complainant attached a Certification dated 06 October 2004 executed by eight (8) of her officemates, all saying that during the detail of complainant to their court for more than two (2) years, they find her to be a jolly and helpful person who is easy to get along with. They all contradict the comment of respondent judge that complainant was a problem to their office.

Proceeding thereon, complainant avers that she is not "sour grapping" (sic) for not being appointed as Utility Worker I at respondent's sala. In fact, she hails the appointment of Mr. Renie B. Haradji to the said position since the latter is really deserving of the same.

Complainant further questions the statement of respondent regarding her alleged poor attendance since he himself had continuously given her a "very satisfactory" performance rating. As to being overqualified for the job of a utility worker for being a college graduate, complainant begs to disagree. According to her the justification of respondent is not consistent because he favorably endorsed one Jocelyn Jeda for the said position despite the fact that the latter is also a college graduate.

Complainant asserts that respondent's negative attitude towards her started when she caught him and his clerk, Ma. Eustelle Elegado (who is a married woman), kissing inside his chamber.

There was another occasion (on 10 March 2002 to be exact) at around 8:20 in the morning when only complainant and the legal researcher Oscar T. Luelo were around. She went inside the chamber of respondent to ask permission to go out when she accidentally caught the latter kissing Elegado. The same incident was personally witnessed by Atty. Lorena M. Jangas (Branch Clerk of Court); Oscar T. Luelo (Legal Researcher) and other members of the staff namely, Emilia T. Lacastesantos, Rosemary Dajao, Ma. Luz C. Hagie, Lorna I. Masildi and Cristina Selma. Even some of the employees of the Janitorial Service of the Maintenance Section likewise had the same experience.

The alleged affair of respondent and his mistress/clerk started around May of 2002. The two became open and indiscreet about their affair in the office for they usually take their lunch together at Eustelle's table, drink on the same mug and hold hands. Also on 11 March 2003 at about 11:55 noon (sic), complainant, co-employee Ma. Luz C. Hagie and Ms. Thayba Janani ( a sister of their court interpreter Sulaiman A. Janani) saw through the glass partition of respondent's chamber, the two embracing and kissing each other.

In conclusion, complainant implores the Court to conduct an investigation on the matter since the employees of Branch 14 are reportedly willing to cooperate and testify in order for the truth to come out.

OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION : Respondent has compulsory retired from the service effective 24 November 2004. Verification from the Docket and Clearance Division, Legal Office (OCA) reveals that respondent has no pending administrative complaint filed against him.

EVALUATION : After going over the uncorroborated allegations of complainant, we opine that the dismissal of the complaint is judicious and appropriate. The retirement of a judge may or may not render the administrative complaint moot and academic for each case will be determined according to its surrounding circumstances and the charge against him established by convincing and substantial evidence. In the instant case we find the same absent. A special consideration must be given to the fact that the alleged acts of immorality against respondent started way back in 2002, yet it is only now or barely fifty (50) more days to go before respondent retires, that complainant chose to come out into the open and file a complaint against respondent for the said acts. As admitted by complainant herself, the instant complaint is an offshoot of respondent's denouncement against her. Hence, her vacillation and delay in making the present allegations were dependent on the positive or negative evaluation of respondent of complainant's performance. It may be safe to conclude then that complainant's testimony and herein narration may not be entirely free from any untruthfulness and fabrication on her part to vindicate herself. Such circumstance, has is our view, undermined her credibility and laudable motive if any, and deserves not to be given full faith and credence.

For in the case of Re: Cases left Undecided by Judge Sergio D. Mabunay, RTC, Branch 24, Manila (292 SCRA 694) the Court emphatically stressed that:

We should not be too hasty in condemning our judges, much less in imposing on them unreasonable, if not unwarranted sanctions. They merit the respect and concern of the Court, especially those who are retiring from the bench after having creditably served for a good number of years. Like any Member of this Court, they too deserve a peaceful and happy retirement from the service without misgivings or any taint of dishonor or disgrace. This much we owe them as they leave the rough and tumble of the judicial profession hoping to cross the threshold of a new life of comfort and ease, which they deserve, unless by their own misdeeds they relinquish this great privilege. Hence, we must thoroughly scrutinize the charges as well as the evidence before we ever condemn.

Lastly, in A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC dated 14 October 2003, the Court prescribed measures to protect members of the judiciary, especially those nearing their retirement, from unfounded or malicious administrative cases for purposes of harassing them.

(2) If the complaint is (a) filed within six months before the compulsory retirement of a Justice or Judge; (b) for an alleged cause of action that occurred at least a year before such filing; and (c) shown prima facie that it is intended to harass the respondent, it must forthwith be recommended for dismissal. If such is not the case, the Office of the Court Administrator must require the respondent to file a comment within ten (10) days from receipt of the complaint, and submit to the Court a report and recommendation not later than thirty (30) days from receipt of the comment. The Court shall act on the recommendation before the date of compulsory retirement of the respondent, or, if it is not possible to do so, within six (6) months from such date without prejudice to the release of the retirement benefits less such amount as the Court may order to be withheld, taking into account the gravity of the cause of action alleged in the complaint.

Based on the foregoing resolution and the fact that no corroborating testimonies were provided by complainant despite her claim that many have witnessed the alleged kissing incidents and scandalous affair of respondent and his clerk, we deem it proper to give instant complaint scant consideration.

RECOMMENDATION : Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court is our recommendation that the instant complaint be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

and finding the evaluation and recommendation thereon to be in accord with law and the facts of the case, the Court hereby approves and adopts the same.

ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Judge Ernesto R. Gutierrez is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE