ChanRobles Virtual law Library

A.M. No. 05-12-757-RTC. March 7, 2006]

RE: SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMMITED BY JUDGE REXEL M. PACURIBOT, RTC, BR. 27, GINGOOG CITY

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court dated MAR. 7, 2006

A.M. No. 05-12-757-RTC (Re: Sexual Harassment Committed by Judge Rexel M. Pacuribot, Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Gingoog City)

This refers to the Memorandum of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) dated 14 December 2005, to wit:

Two (2) women filed separate complaints for sexual harassment against Judge Rexel M. Pacuribot. The first is Sherlita O. Tan, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Gingoog City and the other is Johanna M. Villafranca, Clerk II, Gingoog City Parole and Probation Office. Both are married.

Ms. Tan's ordeal started in August 2004 when she refused an invitation from Judge Pacuribot to have dinner. On October 4, 2004, Judge Pacuribot sent her a text message saying that his blood pressure went up because she refused to go out with him.

On October 20, 2004, Ms. Tan was attending a wedding at Pryce Plaza Hotel in Cagayan de Oro when Judge Pacuribot called her on the mobile phone asking when she will be back in Gingoog City. She said that she will leave immediately after the wedding and she will just take a taxicab to the Agora Terminal. Judge Pacuribot said that she would fetch Ms. Tan from the hotel. Ms. Tan declined the offer but Judge Pacuribot angrily insisted on the ground that he was already waiting outside the hotel. Ms. Tan, who was now scared, went out and got in the car. However, instead of bringing Ms. Tan to the terminal, Judge Pacuribot brought her to a motel. When she protested (sic) Judge Pacuribot harshly told her to -"Shut up! As if you are a virgin!" x x x.

Judge Pacuribot and Ms. Tan left the motel but instead of going to the terminal, he brought her to the Discovery Hotel saying that it would be better for Ms. Tan to sleep there instead of traveling alone. Judge Pacuribot left Ms. Tan alone in the room because he had to attend a Masonic Conference. She however could not leave because she did not have enough money to pay the balance of the hotel bill. At around 7 a.m. of the following morning, Judge Pacuribot arrived. Ms. Tan's ordeal started all over again.

x x x x

Back in the office, the harassment continued. Whenever Ms. Tan would go inside Judge Pacuribot's chamber, the latter would grab her blouse, mash her breast, kiss her, touch the crutch (sic) of her pants, pull the string of her panty and kiss her neck while saying that she smelt so sweet. Judge Pacuribot got angry when Ms. Tan refused to answer his text messages and insinuated that this will have an adverse effect on her performance rating.

Ms. Johanna M. Villafranca, on the other hand, was initially the recipient of amorous text messages from Judge Pacuribot with invitations for dinner. Ms. Villafranca was wary of these invitations because both of them are married. She refused all of these invitations but Judge Pacuribot was persistent forcing her to request for a transfer, which was however denied. In the last week of February 2005, she got a call from Judge Pacuribot who was furious. According to him, he was an honorable person and yet Ms. Villafranca refused his invitations. Consumed by fear, she finally relented and accepted a dinner invitation on February 22, 2005.

While inside his car, Judge Pacuribot displayed his firearm, which was allegedly for security purposes. It nevertheless intensified Ms. Villafranca's fear. Instead of going to a restaurant, Judge Pacuribot drove to a drive-in motel x x x.

x x x x

From that day, Judge Pacuribot constantly demanded that Ms. Villafranca send him text messages and letters expressing sweet nonsense to feed his ego and any failure or refusal would be met by a threat to divulge the incident in the motel.

x x x x

Then Judge Pacuribot started demanding food from Ms. Villafranca, which the latter was supposed to bring to his boarding house. If she refused, Judge Pacuribot would threaten to tell damaging stories to her mother-in-law with whom she had a strained relation and to show the picture he took on the cell phone. Because of these threats, Ms. Villafranca was forced to bring some food to Judge Pacuribot. x x x.

When Judge Pacuribot sensed that she was not going to file an annulment case, he drafted a document wherein it was stated that Ms. Villafranca and her husband supposedly agreed that they may freely co-habit with a third person. Judge Pacuribot, using threats of physical and social harm, forced Ms. Villafranca and her husband to sign the document.

When Ms. Villafranca still did not file the annulment case, Judge Pacuribot slapped her and hit her head with a clenched fist. Again he placed a kiss mark on her neck and when her husband saw it, he beat her up. When Judge Pacuribot knew of the beating, he forced Ms. Villafranca to file a rape case but she refused.

x x x x

The complainants filed their complaints personally before the Office of Deputy Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock. Although Ms. Tan and Ms. Villafranca knew each other professionally, their meeting at the said office was purely coincidental and they had no idea that the other was likewise the victim of Judge Pacuribot. Ms. Tan and Ms. Villafranca tearfully related to Deputy Court Administrator Christopher Lock their harrowing experience at the hands of Judge Pacuribot.

The investigation of Ms. Tan's complaint falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Decorum and Investigation of the Regional Trial Court of Gingoog City while that of Ms. Villafranca falls within the jurisdiction of this Office since she is not an employee of the judiciary. In either case, the seriousness of the offense calls for a full blown investigation and for this purpose it is necessary to suspend Judge Pacuribot. His suspension from office will serve not only to protect the principal witnesses against harassment but will also prevent him from committing further acts of sexual harassment. The fact that two (2) women filed these complaints independent of each other and that the allegations therein show a consistent pattern of sexual deviancy, present a prima facie case against Judge Pacuribot whose immediate suspension is demanded by the circumstances.

In the same Memorandum, the OCA recommended that:

1. The complaint of Ms. Sherlita Tan be referred to the Committee on Decorum and Investigation of the regional Trial court (sic) of Gingoog City for investigation;

2. The complaint of Ms. Johanna M. Villafranca be docketed as a regular administrative matter;

3. Judge Pacuribot be required to comment on the complaint of Ms. Villafranca; and

4. Judge Pacuribot be suspended immediately until further orders from this Court.

After painstaking consideration of the facts and existing laws, this Court finds the foregoing recommendations not to be wholly in consonance with, as in fact it contravenes, Section 3 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, ^[1] cralaw providing for the manner by which complaints against Judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals ^[2] cralaw are investigated, in relation to the Supreme Court's constitutionally guaranteed power of administrative supervision ^[3] cralaw over all courts and the personnel thereof.

Section 3 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended, categorically provides that:

Sec. 3. By whom complaint investigated. - Upon the filing of the respondent's comment, or upon the expiration of the time for filing the same and unless other pleadings or documents are required, the Court shall refer the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report, and recommendation or assign the case for investigation, report, and recommendation to a retired member of the Supreme Court, if the respondent is a Justice of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, or to a Justice of the Court of Appeals, if the respondent is a Judge of a Regional Trial Court or of a special court of equivalent rank, or to a Judge of the Regional Trial Court if the respondent is a Judge of an inferior court.

By virtue of the aforequoted provision, Section 8 of Administrative Circular No. 03-03-1 3-SC ^[4] cralaw , the Rule on Administrative Procedure in Sexual Harassment Cases and Guidelines on Proper Work Decorum in the Judiciary, which provides for the referral of work related sexual harassment complaints committed by officials and employees of the Judiciary, necessarily including Judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals, but excluding the members of this Court and the Judicial and Bar Council, to committees on decorum and investigation ^[5] cralaw (CODIs ), appears to furtively dilute the exclusivity of this Court's constitutionally guaranteed power of administrative supervision which necessarily includes the authority to discipline Judges and Justices.

Section 8 of the Rule on Administrative Procedure in Sexual Harassment Cases and Guidelines on Proper Work Decorum in the Judiciary states that:

Sec, 8. Jurisdiction, powers and responsibilities of the CODIs . - The CODIs shall have jurisdiction over all complaints for sexual harassment committed by officials and employees of the Judiciary . They shall:

(a) Receive the complaint, investigate its allegations, and submit a report and recommendation to the proper court or authority, as provided for in Section 18 of this Rule;

x x x x. [Emphasis supplied.]

The composition ^[6] cralaw of a particular CODI, to all intents and purposes, partly grants rank and file employees of courts the competence to recommend administrative sanctions over Judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals thereby potentially diminishing the authority of this Court over the position, the person and the courts over which they preside. Appropriately, this Court deems it prudent to exclude said Judges and Justices from the ambit of the jurisdiction of CODIs as provided under Section 8 of A.M. No. 03-03-13-SC.

Moreover, upon their assumption to office, Judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals cease to be ordinary citizens. They become the visible representation of the law, and more importantly, of justice. The public look up to them as the epitome of integrity and justice. For this reason, as this Court has stated in the case of Aquino v. Acosta ^[7] cralaw , "[a]dministrative complaints against members of the judiciary are viewed by this Court with utmost care, for proceedings of this nature affect not only the reputation of the respondents concerned, but the integrity of the entire judiciary as well." Thus, ever mindful of such propensity, investigations of sexual harassment complaints involving Judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals must be kept in strictest confidentiality - quite relatively unrealistic in proceedings vis-a-vis referral of a sexual harassment complaint to a group or panel as laid down by the subject rule.

In fine, the referral of Ms. Sherlita Tan's sexual harassment complaint against Judge Rexel Pacuribot to the CODI of the RTC of Gingoog City for investigation, report and recommendation, contravenes Section 3 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court and limits, nay, weakens this Court's constitutionally mandated disciplining authority over Judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals, besides exposing the courts to ridicule and derision.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as it is hereby Resolved, that in accordance with Section 6, Article VIII of the Constitution vesting this Court with the power of administrative supervision over all courts and personnel thereof, inclusive of which is the authority to discipline Judges and Justices, complaints of sexual harassment against Judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals should be excluded from the jurisdiction of the CODIs. Accordingly, Section 8 of A.M. No. 03-03-13-SC, the Rule on Administrative Procedure in Sexual Harassment Cases and Guidelines on Proper Work Decorum in the Judiciary is hereby amended to read as follows:

Sec. 8. Jurisdiction, powers and responsibilities of the CODIs . - The CODIs shall have jurisdiction over all complaints for sexual harassment committed by officials and employees of the Judiciary, except those against Judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals, which shall fundamentally adhere to the proceeding laid down in Section 3 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended .

CODIs shall:

(a) Receive the complaint, investigate its allegations, and submit a report and recommendation to the proper court or authority, as provided for in Section 18 of this Rule;

x x x x. [Emphasis supplied.]

With respect to all the other recommendations of the OCA, finding them to be in accord with existing laws, the same are hereby APPROVED. In particular, Judge Rexel Pacuribot is immediately SUSPENDED until further notice from this Court. He is likewise DIRECTED to comment on the complaints of Mesdames Tan and Villafranca within ten days. The complaint, however, of Ms. Sherlita Tan should be docketed as a regular administrative matter to be consolidated with that of Ms. Johanna M. Villafranca's for proper disposition in line with the foregoing discussion.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw Re: Proposed Amendment to Rule 140 of the Rules of Court Re Discipline of Justices and Judges.

[2] cralaw Judges of the Court of Tax Appeals have ceased to be referred to as Judges of special courts by virtue of Section 1 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9282, entitled AN ACT EXPANDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS (CTA), ELEVATING ITS RANK TO THE LEVEL OF A COLLEGIATE COURT WITH SPECIAL JURISDICTION AND ENLARGING ITS MEMBERSHIP, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE CERTAIN SECTIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT 1125, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE LAW CREATING THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Said R.A. amended Section 1 of Republic Act No. 1125, THE LAW CREATING THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS, by elevating the rank of the Court of Tax Appeals to the same level as the Court of Appeals, possessing all the inherent powers of a Court of Justice. Moreover, the incumbent Presiding Judge and Associate Judges shall bear the new titles of Presiding Justice and Associate Justices.

^[3] cralaw Section 6 of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution emphatically provides that:

Sec. 6. The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.

^[4] cralaw Promulgated by this Court on 14 December 2004, but which took effect on 03 January 2005.

^[5] cralaw SEC. 6. Creation of the Committee on Decorum and investigation (CODI) - The Chief Justice shall appoint the members of the Supreme Court Committee on Decorum and Investigation (SC-CODI), while the Presiding Justices of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan and the court of Tax Appeals shall appoint the members of their respective CODIs. In the Court of Appeals Divisions in Cebu City and Cagayan de Oro City, the Executive Justices shall appoint the members of their respective CODIs. In the lower courts, the Executive Judges shall appoint the members of their CODIs.

^[6] cralaw SEC. 7. Committee on Decorum and Investigation - Composition, Voting and Term of Office. - The SC-CODI shall be composed of the Clerk of Court as Chairperson; a representative from the Office of the Court Administrator as Vice - Chairperson; and a representative each from the Office of the Chief Attorney , the Office of Administrative Services , the Medical and Dental Services , the Supreme Court Assembly of Lawyer - Employees, Inc. (SCALE) , and the Supreme Court Employees Association (SCEA) . The representative of the SCALE and the SCEA shall be designated by their respective governing boards from among officials or members in good standing.

The CODIs of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals shall be composed of the Presiding Justice as Chairperson; the Clerk of Court as Vice - Chairperson; and one representative each from the employees' associations duly accredited by the Office of the Court Administrator.

The CODIs of the Court of Appeals Division in Cebu City and Cagayan de Oro City shall be composed of the Executive Justice as Chairperson; the Clerk of Court as Vice - Chairperson; and one representative each from the employees ' associations duly accredited by the Office of the Court Administrator.

^[7] cralaw In multi - sala lower courts, the CODIs shall be composed of the Executive Judge as Chairperson; the Clerk of Court as Vice - Chairperson; and one representative each from the employees' associations duly accredited by the Office of the Court Administrator. In the case of single sala lower courts, the Office of the Court Administrator shall cluster them for the purpose of forming their respective CODIs.

A majority of the members of the CODI shall constitute a quorum. A vote of a majority of the CODI members present, there being a quorum, shall be necessary for the issuance of a recommendation. No CODI member shall participate in any proceeding where he or she is either a complainant or a respondent, or is related by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree to the complainant or the respondent.

In case the Chairperson is disqualified or inhibits himself, the Assistant Clerk of Court in the Supreme Court, the most senior Associate Justice in the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax Appeals, or the Vice -Executive Judge in the lower courts shall serve as the Acting Chairperson of the CODIs in their respective courts.

The members of the CODI shall serve for a term of two years from their date of appointment. [Emphasis supplied.]

A.M. No. CTA-01-1, April 2, 2002 .

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011