ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. No. 00-4-05-SC.February 5, 2001]
RE: COMPLAINT OF SENATOR L. CAYETANO vs. JUDGE ROSABELLA M. TORMIS
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 5 2001.
A.M. No. 00-4-05-SC(Re: Complaint of Senator Renato L. Cayetano against Judge Rosabella M. Tormis, Presiding Judge, Branch 4, MTCC of Cebu City.)
This refers to the letter/complaint dated April 3, 2000 filed by Senator Renato L. Cayetano against Judge Rosabella M. Tormis for grave abuse, misconduct, partiality and conduct unbecoming of a judge.
According to the said letter/complaint, respondent judge was tasked to preside over the case of three (3) United States Military servicemen who allegedly refused to pay the agreed fare and mauled Filipino taxicab driver, Mr. Marcelo Batestil, last March 12, 2000. Said U.S. military servicemen were in Cebu City after taking part in the military exercise conducted by the joint armed forces of the Philippines and the United States under the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA).
On March 14, 2000, Batestil filed a case of estafa against the American servicemen. They were subsequently charged with Less Serious Physical Injuries.
On March 17, 2000, the Senate press corps requested complainant, in his capacity as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights to comment on the handling of the Batestil case by the respondent judge. Complainant then issued a press statement which was released to various newspaper publications. The press statement reads:
PRESS STATEMENT
(March 17, 2000)
JUDGE ERRED IN THE RELEASE OF
3 US SERVICEMEN WITHOUT TRIAL
Senator Rene L. Compa�ero Cayetano, chairman of the Senate Committee on Justice and Human Rights, has chided a city judge of Cebu City for not conducting a continuous trial and instead allowed three US servicemen accused of mauling a cabbie to leave the country.
"I am dismayed that the judge did not immediately conduct a marathon trial since the sole witness of the case, the complainant himself, was already at the court when the three were arraigned on Tuesday. It was a simple case of estafa which the judge could have immediately tried the case by conducting marathon hearings before allowing the three to leave the country," Cayetano said, referring to the case of three crew members of the USS Blue Ridge.
He lamented that to make matters worse, Municipal Trial Court Judge Rosalinda Tormis of Cebu City did not impose any bail on the on the commanding [sic] three servicemen. She merely relied upon the undertaking of the commanding Officer of Petty Officer of Petty Officers Michael Keyes. Johnny Earl Lowery Jr. and Shannon Towers to deliver them in court during the trial set in April.
"Bailing them out of jail and releasing them to their superiors are two different things. This is a crucial case because it puts the provision of the VFA on territorial jurisdiction of cases involving crimes committed by US military servicemen while in the country to the test. It should be remembered that all three were off duty when they mauled the taxi driver and refused to pay the P900 fare previously agreed upon," Cayetano explained.
Cayetano voted for the VFA upon the written assurance of the Executive Department thru Sec. Domingo Siazon that the Philippines will not waive jurisdiction over US military servicemen involved in crimes against Filipinos. The judge's decision smacks of waiving jurisdiction, Cayetano added.
Complainant claimed that if the respondent judge felt offended by the former's press statement, she should have properly issued an order for him to explain the same, as required under the Rules of Court. Instead, she immediately and peremptorily reacted by allegedly issuing statements to the Cebu media attacking his person, integrity and position as a Senator. According to the complainant, he was accused by the respondent judge of having lobbied for the passage of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). He claimed that the said accusation is false, malicious and a betrayal of her utmost sincerity and partiality against him. Complainant claims that respondent judge's act of initiating press conferences and/or entertaining press interviews constituted grave abuse, misconduct and manifest partiality against complainant, all of which are grossly unbecoming of a judge in blatant violation of the pertinent canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, viz:
Rule 2.01. - A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
Rule 2.02. - A judge should not seek publicity for personal vainglory.
Rule 3.07. - A judge should abstain from making public comments on any pending or impending case and should require similar restraint on the part of court personnel.
According to the complainant, by reason of the respondent judge's acts of issuing press statements, which she did even before issuing her show cause order, she has improperly and unjustly pre-judged the contempt charge against him and has in fact already convicted him of the same before the public. In consonance with the complaint, Senator Cayetano is now asking for the removal of respondent Judge Rosabella M. Tormis from the judiciary, as she has definitely shown that she is no longer fit and competent to remain as a member of the Bench.
On the other hand, respondent judge stated in her comment that "sensitivity to and vigilance for the independence of the judiciary against intrusions by member of the Legislative Branch of the government is not a conduct highly unbecoming of a judge."
According to her narration of facts, Prosecutor II Oscar Capacio of Cebu City filed on March 14, 2000 Criminal Case No. 104883-R for Estafa against PO3 Michael Keyes, PO3 Shanon Towers and PO Johnny Earl Lowery. The information did not recommend any bail. On the same day, Prosecutor Capacio again filed Criminal Case No. 67228, this time for Slight Physical Injuries against the same three (3) accused. The information did not recommend any bail as the offense was punishable by arresto menor. When the case was raffled to MTCC, Branch 4, Cebu City presided by the respondent judge, the cases were immediately set for arraignment and pre-trial on March 14, 2000.
When the criminal case for Slight Physical Injuries was called for arraignment, Atty. Gerardo Carillo, counsel for Private Complainant Batistel, moved for the deferment of the arraignment and pre-trial on the ground that they are going to amend and upgrade the Information to Serious Physical Injuries since Batestil was still recuperating at the hospital. In view of the motion, the arraignment and pre-trial was deferred until such time that the amended information is filed in court.
When the criminal case for Estafa was called for arraignment, the three (3) accused pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. After the arraignment, pre-trial was immediately conducted and terminated. However, since Batestil was still in the hospital, the prosecution could not commence the presentation of evidence and upon consultation of the calendar of the court and counsel, trial was set to a later date.
Respondent judge argued that since no bail was required for both criminal cases, there was no basis for the detention of the three (3) accused. Moreover, in open court, the Commanding Officer of the accused undertook to present the accused in court during trial. And assuming that bail was required, respondent judge stressed that bail may come in the form of corporate surety, property bond, cash deposit or recognizance. Under the circumstances, it was entirely within the discretion of respondent judge to rely on an undertaking of the Commanding Officer of the three (3) accused to deliver them in court during the trial set on April. Incidentally, the decision of respondent judge to rely on the undertaking was eventually vindicated when the three (3) accused appeared on March 30, 2000 when required by the court.
According to the respondent judge, the press statement issued by the complainant, coming from a member of the Senate, clearly constituted an infringement of the independence of the courts and contumacious violation of the rule on sub judice; and that such public pronouncements placed the court in public contempt and tended to undermine the faith of the public in the judiciary.
Acting on the letter-complaint filed by Senator Cayetano, the Second Division of the Supreme Court issued a Resolution last August 7, 2000 referring this case to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report and recommendation.
The issue presented before us is simple: Whether or not the statements and actions made by the respondent judge constitute grave abuse, misconduct, manifest partiality, conduct unbecoming of a judge and a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
We agree with the report and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator in their finding that this case against the respondent judge should be dismissed for lack of merit.
Advocacy for the protection of the independence of the judiciary does not necessarily connote partiality and bias. Sensitivity to and vigilance for the independence of the judiciary against the alleged intrusions by a member of the legislative branch of government is not a conduct highly unbecoming of a judge. The respondent judge felt it was her duty to protect the court from public contempt and ridicule in order to preserve the public's faith in the judiciary.
The use of media is not a monopoly and exclusive domain of any person. Respondent judge felt it was her duty to correct the mistaken notions of the complainant in his press statements. She was only forced to defend her honor and integrity as a judge. And the only way is through the medium which the complainant used.
Anent the alleged violation of Rule 3.07 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which states that "a judge should abstain from making public comments on any pending and impending case x x x," we find that no violation was committed by the respondent judge. The press statements of the respondent judge focused on the independence of the judiciary and in defense against an alleged interference of a member of the Senate. Respondent judge did not discuss the merits of the criminal case pending before her sala. Although judges are prohibited from making public statements regarding pending cases, the complainant who is also a lawyer should bear in mind that the prohibition also applies to him since he is also an officer of the court. He should not make public statements in the media regarding a pending case tending to arouse public opinion for or against a party. 1 Rule 13.02. Code of Professional Responsibility.
As regards the alleged violation of Rule 2.02 of the same Code, which states that "a judge should not seek publicity for personal vainglory," we also find that no violation was committed by respondent judge. When the press statement was released to the media, it was not the purpose of respondent judge to promote personal glory or fame, but rather to correct the inaccuracies in the statement issued by the complainant. Respondent judge merely acted to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
Complainant assails the correctness of the order of the respondent judge in releasing the three (3) accused. He said that the respondent judge erred in applying the Rule on Summary Procedure. This issue involving a judge's alleged incorrect application of the Rule on Summary Procedure is judicial in nature and not an appropriate subject of an administrative proceeding. 2 Enriquez vs. Camarista, 280 SCRA 1, 6(1997). The acts of a judge which pertain to his judicial functions are not subject to disciplinary power unless they are committed with fraud, dishonesty, corruption or bad faith. 3 Fule vs. Court of Appeals, 286 SCRA 698, 712, (1998).
Accordingly, the administrative complaint against Judge Rosabella M. Tormis is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
