October 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > October 2008 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. MTJ-03-1495 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 00-924-MTJ] : October 15, 2008] CELERINA Z. PEDRAJA V. JUDGE JOSE ARTURO R. NATIVIDAD :
[A.M. No. MTJ-03-1495 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 00-924-MTJ] : October 15, 2008]
CELERINA Z. PEDRAJA V. JUDGE JOSE ARTURO R. NATIVIDAD
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 15 October 2008:
A.M. No. MTJ-03-1495 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 00-924-MTJ] (Celerina Z. Pedraja v. Judge Jose Arturo R. Natividad)
Complainant Celerina Z. Pedraja was the respondent in a Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 case. She was charged with issuing 15 bouncing checks to Elizabeth F. Perez de Tagle, owner of Le Derma Care Center, Inc.
In her complaint dated October 4, 1999, Pedraja charged Judge Jose Arturo R. Natividad of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) in Cainta, Rizal with immorality and gross neglect of duly. She averred that Judge Natividad, after he left his legal family and while still married, had a live-in relationship with de Tagle, and also with a certain Stella May Ruiz with whom he has a son. Pedraja narrated that when (he case was still being heard, sometime in May 1999, she dropped by the house of de Tagle to try to settle her case, but the latter refused to talk to her. It was then she saw the L-300 Exceed van owned by Judge Natividad parked in de Tagle's house. She had long heard that Judge Natividad and de Tagle were live-in partners. Pedraja recalled that when she tried to see Judge Natividad in his house in Taguig. she learned then that he had moved out leaving behind his wife and four kids to live with Ruiz and their 12-year old son. Ruiz had since then returned to the United Stales and left behind the boy to Judge Natividad. To confirm her information, she said she went to de Tagle's house and while waiting for her. she swiped photos of de Tagle in compromising poses with the judge in a public gathering. She attached the photos in her complaint.[1] She said she suspects that the Judge was taking advantage of de Tagle's affluence, occasionally using her Mercedes Benz and getting stocks of soap from de Tagle's factory. She wrote in her complaint that the relationship of de Tagle and Judge Natividad was public knowledge in Cainta and was kept quiet only because Judge Natividad's clerk of court would threaten anyone who would tell on the relationship of de Tagle and the judge.
On January 14, 2000, then Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo directed Executive Judge Mauricio M. Rivera to investigate, report, and recommend action on Pedraja's complaint.
In his report, Judge Rivera stated that Atty. Ernesto O�asa, former live-in partner of de Tagle. confirmed that, indeed, de Tagle had an affair with Judge Natividad after he and de Tagle separated ways; that the relationship between de Tagle and Judge Natividad was public knowledge among the personnel of MTC in Cainta; and that Judge Natividad had a girlfriend from the US who occasionally conies to the Philippines.[2] Judge Rivera concluded that Judge Natividad may be administratively liable and recommended that the complaint of Pedraja be given due course.
On February 28, 2001, Judge Natividad filed his certificate of candidacy for representative in Taguig-Pateros and was considered separated from the service. Notwithstanding his separation from the service, the Court still had jurisdiction over him, and he could still be administratively sanctioned as a member of the Bar. Hence, after failing to comply with a Court Resolution requiring him to comment on the complaint. Judge Natividad was fined PhP 5,000 in a resolution dated December 4. 2005. Again, he did not comply; thus, he was required to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt of court.
On November 22, 2006, after nearly two years of failing to comply with the Resolution requiring him to comment to the complaint, Judge Natividad filed a Manifestation and Motion that he be given his day in court to establish that he did not have any administrative liability. He explained that he received the Memorandum of the Court Administrator informing him of the complaint of Pedraja only on November 21, 2006 since that notice was sent to the MTC in Cainta where he had served only till March 2001. His motion was granted.
On July 17, 2007, instead of filing his comment, Judge Natividad filed before the Office of the Court Administrator a Motion to Dismiss, stating that Pedraja had retracted her complaint after being bothered by her conscience; that Pedraja, came forward under oath, disowned and denied the allegations she made in her complaint; and that she claimed she never executed the complaint under oath. Judge Natividad asked that the complaint be dismissed and for other reliefs that may be just and equitable. He attached an original copy of Pedraja's Affidavit of Repudiation. In the Affidavit of Repudiation, Pedraja said that she was forced to file the complaint prepared by and on the instigation of her friend, de Tagle. She claimed she had no personal knowledge of any of the statements she made in the complaint and she signed it on de Tagle's promise that the latter would condone her indebtedness. She added that she had not appeared before any notarizing attorney to swear to the truthfulness of her allegations m the complaint". She executed her retraction both in English and Tagalog and swore to her Affidavit of Repudiation under oath before her counsel and Judge Danilo S. Cruz. Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 152 in Pasig City.
In a Resolution dated July 25, 2007, the Court required Pedraja to comment within 10 days on Judge Natividad's Motion to Dismiss. When the Resolution returned unserved, with a notation ''Moved Out," this Court in a Resolution dated February 13, 2008 deemed the Resolution of July 25, 2007 served.
We deny Judge Natividad's motion to dismiss.
After thoroughly reviewing !lie records of this case, we find strong evidence to believe that Judge Natividad is guilty of immorality and behavior unbecoming of a judge. The complaint of Pedraja was supported by photos of Judge Natividad and de Tagle in public that tended to show that the relationship between the two was more than casual, and that Judge Natividad had acted inappropriately. In addition, investigating Judge Rivera conferred with O�asa, de Tagle's former husband for seven years. O�asa confirmed that, indeed, de Tagle and Judge Natividad were live-in partners and the relationship was well known by employees of the MTC where Judge Natividad presided. With the photos, the confirmation of de Tagle's former husband, Pedraja's disappearance, and her failure to comment on the supposed Affidavit oi: Retraction attached to the motion to dismiss of the respondent judge, we are not, under these circumstances, inclined to give credence to the Affidavit of Repudiation of Pedraja.
Courts are looked upon by the people with high respect. The degree of morality required of every employee has been consistently high, and the rules are particularly strict when the respondent is a judge. In a string of cases,[3] we reminded that the judges1 appearance must be free from the appearance of impropriety, their behavior in the bench and in everyday life must be beyond reproach. We said, "There is no dichotomy of morality: a public official is also judged by his private morals. The Code dictates that a judge, in order to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, must behave with propriety at all times, x x x [A] judge's official life can not simply be detached or separated from his personal existence.[4] Judge Natividad should have set an example among his employees, his public and private conduct and moral character must be beyond reproach. Had Judge Natividad not been considered separated from the service by virtue of his filing a certificate of candidacy for an elective post, lie would have been found guilty o( immorality and grave misconduct for violation of Canons 1 and 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, as follows:
The penalty for maintaining an illicit relationship may either be suspension or disbarment, depending on the circumstances oi the case.[5] Had Judge Natividad not been considered separated from the service, he would have been meted the supreme penalty of dismissal from the service.
As it stands, we are now precluded from dismissing Judge Natividad from the service. Notwithstanding that Judge Natividad is considered resigned and could no longer be dismissed, he can still be subject to other sanctions. Even as early as the 1975 case of Perez v. Abiera[6] cited in Zarate v. Romanillos[7]. we said:
In Zarate, where we found respondent judge guilty of grave and serious misconduct which would have warranted his dismissal had respondent judge not resigned during the pendency of the case, we ordered forfeiture of all the benefits to which respondent judge would have been entitled, "x x x WITH PREJUDICE to reinstatement and/or reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of government, including government-owned or controlled agencies or corporations.
In Naval v. Panday, in addition to the dismissal of Judge Jose R. Panday for immorality and obstruction of justice, we imposed forfeiture of all benefits and accrued leaves, and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporation.[8]
WHEREFORE, in view of our aforestated finding that Judge Natividad is GUILTY of immorality which would have warranted his dismissal from the service had he not been considered separated from the service by virtue of his filing his candidacy for an elective position during the pendency of the administrative case against him. the Court, consistent with the penalties imposed in Zarate and Naval, hereby orders (1) the FORFEITURE of all his benefits except accrued leaves; and (2) the DISQUALIFICATION of Judge Jose Arturo R. Natividad from reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporation.[9]
SO ORDERED.
A.M. No. MTJ-03-1495 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 00-924-MTJ] (Celerina Z. Pedraja v. Judge Jose Arturo R. Natividad)
Complainant Celerina Z. Pedraja was the respondent in a Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 case. She was charged with issuing 15 bouncing checks to Elizabeth F. Perez de Tagle, owner of Le Derma Care Center, Inc.
In her complaint dated October 4, 1999, Pedraja charged Judge Jose Arturo R. Natividad of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) in Cainta, Rizal with immorality and gross neglect of duly. She averred that Judge Natividad, after he left his legal family and while still married, had a live-in relationship with de Tagle, and also with a certain Stella May Ruiz with whom he has a son. Pedraja narrated that when (he case was still being heard, sometime in May 1999, she dropped by the house of de Tagle to try to settle her case, but the latter refused to talk to her. It was then she saw the L-300 Exceed van owned by Judge Natividad parked in de Tagle's house. She had long heard that Judge Natividad and de Tagle were live-in partners. Pedraja recalled that when she tried to see Judge Natividad in his house in Taguig. she learned then that he had moved out leaving behind his wife and four kids to live with Ruiz and their 12-year old son. Ruiz had since then returned to the United Stales and left behind the boy to Judge Natividad. To confirm her information, she said she went to de Tagle's house and while waiting for her. she swiped photos of de Tagle in compromising poses with the judge in a public gathering. She attached the photos in her complaint.[1] She said she suspects that the Judge was taking advantage of de Tagle's affluence, occasionally using her Mercedes Benz and getting stocks of soap from de Tagle's factory. She wrote in her complaint that the relationship of de Tagle and Judge Natividad was public knowledge in Cainta and was kept quiet only because Judge Natividad's clerk of court would threaten anyone who would tell on the relationship of de Tagle and the judge.
On January 14, 2000, then Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo directed Executive Judge Mauricio M. Rivera to investigate, report, and recommend action on Pedraja's complaint.
In his report, Judge Rivera stated that Atty. Ernesto O�asa, former live-in partner of de Tagle. confirmed that, indeed, de Tagle had an affair with Judge Natividad after he and de Tagle separated ways; that the relationship between de Tagle and Judge Natividad was public knowledge among the personnel of MTC in Cainta; and that Judge Natividad had a girlfriend from the US who occasionally conies to the Philippines.[2] Judge Rivera concluded that Judge Natividad may be administratively liable and recommended that the complaint of Pedraja be given due course.
On February 28, 2001, Judge Natividad filed his certificate of candidacy for representative in Taguig-Pateros and was considered separated from the service. Notwithstanding his separation from the service, the Court still had jurisdiction over him, and he could still be administratively sanctioned as a member of the Bar. Hence, after failing to comply with a Court Resolution requiring him to comment on the complaint. Judge Natividad was fined PhP 5,000 in a resolution dated December 4. 2005. Again, he did not comply; thus, he was required to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt of court.
On November 22, 2006, after nearly two years of failing to comply with the Resolution requiring him to comment to the complaint, Judge Natividad filed a Manifestation and Motion that he be given his day in court to establish that he did not have any administrative liability. He explained that he received the Memorandum of the Court Administrator informing him of the complaint of Pedraja only on November 21, 2006 since that notice was sent to the MTC in Cainta where he had served only till March 2001. His motion was granted.
On July 17, 2007, instead of filing his comment, Judge Natividad filed before the Office of the Court Administrator a Motion to Dismiss, stating that Pedraja had retracted her complaint after being bothered by her conscience; that Pedraja, came forward under oath, disowned and denied the allegations she made in her complaint; and that she claimed she never executed the complaint under oath. Judge Natividad asked that the complaint be dismissed and for other reliefs that may be just and equitable. He attached an original copy of Pedraja's Affidavit of Repudiation. In the Affidavit of Repudiation, Pedraja said that she was forced to file the complaint prepared by and on the instigation of her friend, de Tagle. She claimed she had no personal knowledge of any of the statements she made in the complaint and she signed it on de Tagle's promise that the latter would condone her indebtedness. She added that she had not appeared before any notarizing attorney to swear to the truthfulness of her allegations m the complaint". She executed her retraction both in English and Tagalog and swore to her Affidavit of Repudiation under oath before her counsel and Judge Danilo S. Cruz. Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 152 in Pasig City.
In a Resolution dated July 25, 2007, the Court required Pedraja to comment within 10 days on Judge Natividad's Motion to Dismiss. When the Resolution returned unserved, with a notation ''Moved Out," this Court in a Resolution dated February 13, 2008 deemed the Resolution of July 25, 2007 served.
We deny Judge Natividad's motion to dismiss.
After thoroughly reviewing !lie records of this case, we find strong evidence to believe that Judge Natividad is guilty of immorality and behavior unbecoming of a judge. The complaint of Pedraja was supported by photos of Judge Natividad and de Tagle in public that tended to show that the relationship between the two was more than casual, and that Judge Natividad had acted inappropriately. In addition, investigating Judge Rivera conferred with O�asa, de Tagle's former husband for seven years. O�asa confirmed that, indeed, de Tagle and Judge Natividad were live-in partners and the relationship was well known by employees of the MTC where Judge Natividad presided. With the photos, the confirmation of de Tagle's former husband, Pedraja's disappearance, and her failure to comment on the supposed Affidavit oi: Retraction attached to the motion to dismiss of the respondent judge, we are not, under these circumstances, inclined to give credence to the Affidavit of Repudiation of Pedraja.
Courts are looked upon by the people with high respect. The degree of morality required of every employee has been consistently high, and the rules are particularly strict when the respondent is a judge. In a string of cases,[3] we reminded that the judges1 appearance must be free from the appearance of impropriety, their behavior in the bench and in everyday life must be beyond reproach. We said, "There is no dichotomy of morality: a public official is also judged by his private morals. The Code dictates that a judge, in order to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, must behave with propriety at all times, x x x [A] judge's official life can not simply be detached or separated from his personal existence.[4] Judge Natividad should have set an example among his employees, his public and private conduct and moral character must be beyond reproach. Had Judge Natividad not been considered separated from the service by virtue of his filing a certificate of candidacy for an elective post, lie would have been found guilty o( immorality and grave misconduct for violation of Canons 1 and 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, as follows:
Canon 1. Rule 1.01.- A judge should be [he embodiment of competence, integrity and independence.
Canon 2.- A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. (Emphasis ours.)
The penalty for maintaining an illicit relationship may either be suspension or disbarment, depending on the circumstances oi the case.[5] Had Judge Natividad not been considered separated from the service, he would have been meted the supreme penalty of dismissal from the service.
As it stands, we are now precluded from dismissing Judge Natividad from the service. Notwithstanding that Judge Natividad is considered resigned and could no longer be dismissed, he can still be subject to other sanctions. Even as early as the 1975 case of Perez v. Abiera[6] cited in Zarate v. Romanillos[7]. we said:
x x x [T]he jurisdiction that was Ours at (he time of the filing of the administrative complaint was not lost by the mere fact mat the respondent public official had ceased to be in office during she pendency of his case. 'The court retains it.s jurisdiction either to pronounce the official innocent of the charges or declare him guilty thereof. A contrary rule would be fraught with injustices and pregnant with dreadful and dangerous implications, x x x If innocent, respondent official merits vindication of his name and integrity as he leaves die government which he has served well and faithfully; if guilty, he deserves to receive the corresponding censure and a penalty proper and imposable under the situation.
In Zarate, where we found respondent judge guilty of grave and serious misconduct which would have warranted his dismissal had respondent judge not resigned during the pendency of the case, we ordered forfeiture of all the benefits to which respondent judge would have been entitled, "x x x WITH PREJUDICE to reinstatement and/or reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of government, including government-owned or controlled agencies or corporations.
In Naval v. Panday, in addition to the dismissal of Judge Jose R. Panday for immorality and obstruction of justice, we imposed forfeiture of all benefits and accrued leaves, and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporation.[8]
WHEREFORE, in view of our aforestated finding that Judge Natividad is GUILTY of immorality which would have warranted his dismissal from the service had he not been considered separated from the service by virtue of his filing his candidacy for an elective position during the pendency of the administrative case against him. the Court, consistent with the penalties imposed in Zarate and Naval, hereby orders (1) the FORFEITURE of all his benefits except accrued leaves; and (2) the DISQUALIFICATION of Judge Jose Arturo R. Natividad from reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporation.[9]
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo. p. 22.
[2] Id. at 25
[3] Gacayan v Pamintuan. A M. No. RTJ-99-1 183. September 17. 1999. 314 SCRA 682: Vela�a v. Valencia, A.M. No. RTJ-96-135 I. September 3. 1998. 295 SCRA I: Castillo v. Calanog. Jr. A.M. No. RTJ-90-447, July, 12. 1991 199 SCRA 75: cited in Naval v. Panday. A.M. No RTJ-95-1283. December 21, 1999. 321 SCRA 290. 304-305.
[4] Castillo, supra at 83.
[5] Ferancullo v. Ferancullo. A.C. No. 7214. November 30,1996, 509 SCRA I. 17.
[6] A.C. No. 223-J. June 11. 1975. 64 SCRA 302. 306-307.
[7] A.M. Nos. RTJ-94-1 140 & RTJ-94-1218. March 23. 1995. 242 SCRA 593. 605.
[8] id.
[9] AM.No RTJ-95-1283. July 21. 1997. 275 SCRA 654. 694.
