ChanRobles Virtual law Library

Third Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB. 20, 2006

A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-2066-RTJ (Spouses Joselito and Eusebia Villarubia v. Judge Ildefonso B. Suerte, Regional Trial Court, Branch 60, Barili, Cebu )

In a verified complaint dated 6 August 2004 , Spouses Joselito and Eusebia Villarubia charged Judge Ildefonso B. Suerte with rendering an unjust judgment and conduct unbecoming a judge. The complaint stemmed from Criminal Case Nos. CEB-BL-509 to 511, decided by respondent judge in 2002, in which herein complainants were among the private complainants. The said cases involved three (3) counts of frustrated homicide filed against Police Superintendent Cecil Ezra Sandalo, arising from a shooting incident that left both complainants wounded by gunfire.

Complainants claim that despite the strong evidence they presented, respondent judge unjustly acquitted the accused. They assert that the bias of respondent judge against them began from the start of the proceedings when he denied the motion for his inhibition as well as the motion to reconsider the same. Complainants noted that respondent judge and the accused in the criminal cases were townmates and related to each other. Complainants also adduced as proof of bias the allegation that respondent judge persuaded complainants to accept the P100,000.00 being offered by the accused as settlement. Respondent judge purportedly even arranged the meetings between the accused and private complainants on three (3) occasions for this purpose.

Respondent judge denied the charges against him, asserting that he heard and decided the subject cases properly, regularly and in accordance with law. He claimed that it was the lawyer for the accused who made the offer of money to complainants to settle the civil aspect of the case. Respondent judge also moved for the dismissal of the complaint, invoking A.M. No. 03-10-01 dated 14 October 2003 , which prescribes measures to protect members of the Judiciary from baseless and unfounded administrative complaints.

In its Memorandum dated 11 January 2006 , the Office of the Court Administrator recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of merit. The OCA noted that the complaint was filed more than two (2) years after the occurrence of the cause of action against respondent judge, and less than six (6) months before he was to have compulsorily retired. The OCA noted that A.M. No. 03-10-01 calls for the outright dismissal of unfounded complaints against retiring judges if these complaints are (1) filed within six months before the compulsory retirement of a justice or judge; (2) for an alleged cause of action that occurred at least a year before such filing; and (3) shown prima facie to be intended to harass the respondent. The OCA concluded that these elements are present in this case.

The OCA also noted, parenthetically, that respondent judge had since been dismissed from the service by this Court in its Resolution dated 17 December 2004 in Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Branch 60, Barili, Cebu . ^[1] cralaw The Court therein found respondent judge guilty of gross misconduct in office, gross ignorance of the law, and incompetence, relative to his actuations and rulings in several cases before his sala. Accordingly, respondent judge was dismissed from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and privileges, and with prejudice to reinstatement in any branch of government service. This fact alone does not render the present complaint mooted, since respondent judge could still be ordered by way of penalty to pay a fine had he been presently found guilty.

Still, the Court finds no reason to counteract the recommendation of the OCA. A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC was enacted by this Court to protect against the proliferation of unfounded or malicious administrative or criminal cases against members of the judiciary for purposes of harassment. ^[2] cralaw It is indubitable that the instant complaint was filed within six (6) months before respondent judge was to have compulsorily retired, and more than two (2) years after the alleged cause of action against him had occurred. As to whether it has been shown prima facie that the complaint was intended to harass respondent, we defer to the determination of the OCA, the primary evaluator of facts in this case, that such intent was sufficiently shown. Indeed, the length of time between the acquittal of Sandalo and the filing of the present complaint and the fact that it was filed shortly before respondent judge was to have retired, do not bear well on the presumptive intentions of the complainants in filing the present case.

WHEREFORE, as RECOMMENDED in the Memorandum of the OCA dated 11 January 2006 , the complaint is DISMISSED.

Very truly yours,

LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court