ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ A.M. RTJ-99-1453. September 13, 1999]

FR. SINNOTT, et al. vs. JUDGE BARTE

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 13 1999.

A.M. No. RTJ-99-1453 (Fr. Michael Sinnott, et al. vs. Judge Recaredo Barte.)

Before us is a letter-request by respondent Judge Recaredo Barte that the reception of evidence and investigation on his alleged immoral conduct be continued at the office of Associate Justice Buzon at the Court of Appeals, Manila.

A factual background of the case provides a backdrop of the situation now present.

A complaint for obvious partiality and bias was filed by Fr. Michael Sinnott against Judge Barte on May 29, 1995 in connection with the acquittal of accused Nenito Gadonan in a double murder case before the sala of Judge Barte. Fr. Sinnott alleged that the acquittal was adjudged because of Judge's Barte's illicit relationship with the daughter of the accused, Ging Ging Gadonan.

Aside from the alleged partiality and bias of the Judge, complainant also alleged that Judge Barte hired killers to liquidate complainant Fr. Sinnott and other human rights activist who filed the complaint against Judge Barte.

The complaint was assigned to the office of Deputy Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepa�o, who instructed the NBI to conduct a discreet investigation of the allegations of the complaint. On 24 March 1997, a report of the NBI was submitted to DCA Elepa�o with the finding that:

"In 1994 Judge Recaredo Barte, engaged himself into sexual relationship with Richel Gadonan, as a result of which she gave birth to a child in 1996. Prior to this Judge Barte after hearing the case decided in 1995 to acquit Nenito Gadunan, father of Richel Gadunan of Double Murder in Criminal Case No. 0474 and 0475."

DCA Elepa�o in her memorandum recommended that the case be assigned to an associate justice of the Court of Appeals and the same was assigned to Justice Buzon.

Justice Buzon requested that she be allowed to inhibit herself but the same was denied by this Court in a resolution dated 12 October 1998.

However, the Court allowed Justice Buzon to designate the executive Judge of RTC, Pagadian, to receive evidence for the complainant.

Respondent Judge Barte filed a motion to resume the investigation of his case at the Court of Appeals, Manila based on the following grounds:

1.He has no financial means to attend to the reception of evidence in Pagadian;

2.His health condition disables him for distant and hectic travel.

3. He has received death threats over the telephone and encountered attempts on his life, so he honestly feels that his presence in Pagadian poses grave danger to his life.

4. That since the only witness for the complainant is the NBI agent the investigation should be here in Manila.

Complainant Fr. Sinnott is at the moment in Ireland undergoing a heart bypass but in his letter he alleged that it is not only the NBI agent who will be presented as witness but also Vicente Garbise and Fr. Sinnott. The alleged inability of Judge Barte to travel is not supported by sufficient evidence.

After careful consideration, we find the letter-request of Judge Barte to be without merit. All the records of the case are with the RTC of Pagadian and to have it transferred to Manila will cause delay and the records might be lost in transit.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, we hereby order the RTC of Pagadian to proceed with the schedule investigation of the case and direct the same to finish the investigation with utmost dispatch in order to prevent undue expense on the part of both parties.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE