ChanRobles Virtual law Library
OCA-IPI No. 05-2378-RTJ. July 3, 2006]
MAXY S. ABAD & MA. AMELITA C. VILLAROSA v. JUDGE ALBERTO L. LERMA, RTC BRANCH
256,
Third Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JULY 3, 2006 .
OCA-IPI No. 05-2378-RTJ (Maxy
S. Abad & Ma. Amelita C. Villarosa v. Judge Alberto L. Lerma, RTC Branch
256,
For consideration is the Report dated 17 March 2006 on the administrative matter submitted by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
In a Verified Letter-Complaint dated 17 October 2005, complainants Maxy S. Abad and Ma. Amelita C. Villarosa, representing Springsun Management System Corporation (SMS Corp.), charge Judge Alberto L. Lerma with Gross Misconduct and Impropriety relative to Civil Case No. 95-020 entitled "Oscar Camerino, et al. v. Springsun Management System Corporation, et al."
Based on the affidavits of three (3) of the five (5) prevailing-plaintiffs in said civil case, the complaint alleges that sometime in the Christmas season of 2003, respondent Judge Lerma together with Atty. Arturo Santos, counsel of prevailing plaintiffs, and a certain Mr. Mariano Nocom met with the affiants at the Heritage Hotel in Pasay City. From said hotel, the group proceeded to a bank in Makati where affiants allegedly were paid certain amounts of money. SMS thus lost faith in respondent Judge's impartiality and through its counsel, moved for the latter to inhibit himself from presiding over the civil case. Complainants likewise filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a similar complaint against respondent Judge, Atty. Santos and Mr. Nocom which was subsequently dismissed and referred to the OCA for appropriate action.
In his Comment dated 12 December 2005, respondent Judge vehemently denies having met with the affiants, their counsel and Mr. Nocom at the hotel at any time before Christmas of 2003. He submits as proof the Affidavit of Mr. Nocom corroborated by former Barangay Chairman Eufracio Hermosilla and photocopies of pictures taken during said occasion.
Respondent Judge maintains that he decided the civil case on 25 January 2002, and the appeal thereon was promulgated on 23 September 2003. There was no reason he would meet with said personalities in Christmas 2003. He further asserts that the affidavits which were made the bases of the instant complaint were made at the prodding of SMS which gave the affiants the amount of P300,000.00 each.
In fine, respondent Judge avers that the instant administrative complaint was filed to prevent him from enforcing the judgment in the civil case which was affirmed with finality by the Court on 19 January 2005 and became final and executory on 4 May 2005.
The OCA, in its Report dated 17 March 2006, recommended the dismissal of the instant administrative complaint for lack of merit. It held that the allegations of the complaint are unsubstantiated by evidence. Notably on the other hand, records reveal the efforts employed by SMS to delay the execution of the final judgment in the civil case. SMS had filed various motions to suspend proceedings, to hold execution in abeyance on the ground of supervening event, to quash the writ of execution, all in order to frustrate the execution of the judgment.
The OCA likewise observed it irregular that it was only in September 2005, after affiants had each received P300,000 from SMS, when the affidavits attesting to respondent Judge's presence at the meeting were accomplished.
Thus, the OCA concluded that the instant administrative complaint was a mere afterthought, contrived to harass and disparage respondent Judge.
We agree with the recommendation. Since the charge against respondent Judge connotes a misconduct so grave that if proven would entail dismissal from the bench, the quantum of proof required should be more than substantial. Administrative charges against judges that come before the Court are viewed with utmost care because proceedings of this character are in their nature highly penal and are to be governed by the rules of law applicable to criminal cases. The charges, must, therefore be proved beyond reasonable doubt. [1] cralaw
Finding the recommendation to be in accord with the law and the
facts of the case on record, the same is APPROVED. The administrative complaint against Judge
Alberto L. Lerma, Branch 256 of the
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Ong v. Rosete, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1538, 22 October 2004, 441 SCRA 158-159.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
