SISON-BARIAS VS RUBIA

Facts:

Complainant Emilie Sison-Barias is involved in three cases

pending before the sala of respondent Judge Marino Rubia.

The rst case is an intestate proceeding. Complainant led a petition for

letters of administration over the intestate estate of her late husband,
Ramon A. Barias. This was opposed by her mother-in-law, Romelias
Almeda-Barias.

The second case is a guardianship proceeding over Romelias Almeda-

Barias. Evelyn Tanael, the guardian appointed by the court, submitted a
property inventory report that included not only the properties of
Romelias Almeda-Barias but also properties forming part of the estate
of complainant's late husband.

The third case is a civil action for annulment of contracts and

reconveyance of real properties led by Romelias Almeda-Barias,
represented by Evelyn Tanael, against complainant, among others.
Complainant alleged that there was delay in the publication of the notice
in the petition for issuance of letters of administration led. She was
then informed by her brother, Enrique "Ike" Sison, that respondent
Eileen Pecan a, the daughter of his good friend, was a data encoder in the
Oce of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Bin an, Laguna.

Complainant, together with her two brothers, Enrique and Perlito "Jun"
Sison, Jr., met with respondent Pecan a on February 20, 2010. During this
meeting, complainant informed respondent Pecan a of the delay in the
publication of the notice in the petition for issuance of letters of
administration. She then asked respondent Pecan a to check the status of
the publication of the notice. Respondent Pecan a asked for
complainant's number so that she could inform her as soon as any
development takes place in the case. Enrique and Perlito executed
adavits to corroborate these allegations.

Respondent Pecan a asked complainant to meet her again at her house in

Bin an, Laguna. Complainant went there with Enrique. Respondent
Pecan a then informed complainant that she could no longer assist her
since respondent Judge Rubia had already given administration of the
properties to Evelyn Tanael. Complainant stated that she was not
interested in the grant of administration to Tanael because these
concerned the properties of her mother-in-law, Romelias Almeda-
Barias. She was only concerned with the administration of the
properties of her late husband, to which respondent Pecan a replied, "Ah
ganunba? Iba pala yung kaso mo." Complainant called respondent
Pecan a who informed her that respondent Judge Rubia wanted to talk to
her. Complainant agreed to meet with respondent Judge Rubia over
dinner, on the condition that respondent Pecan a would be present as
well.

On March 3, 2010 23 at around 7:00 p.m., complainant picked up

respondent Pecan a at 6750 Ayala Avenue in Makati City. They proceeded
to Cafe Juanita in The Fort, Bonifacio Global City. Respondent Pecan a
said that respondent Judge Rubia would arrive late as he would be
coming from a Rotary Club meeting held at the Mandarin Hotel.

Respondent Judge Rubia arrived at Cafe Juanita around 8:30 p.m. During
the dinner meeting, respondents allegedly asked complainant
inappropriate questions. Respondent Judge Rubia allegedly asked
whether she was still connected with Philippine Airlines, which she still
was at that time. Complainant was then informed that respondent Judge
Rubia knew of this fact through Atty. Noe Zarate, counsel of Romelias
Almeda-Barias. This disclosure surprised complainant, as she was under
the impression that opposing counsel and respondent Judge Rubia had
no business discussing matters that were not relevant to their pending
cases.

Respondent Judge Rubia also allegedly asked her questions about her
supposed involvement with another man and other accusations made by
Romelias Almeda-Barias.

These details, according to complainant, were never discussed in the

pleadings or in the course of the trial. Thus, she inferred that
respondent Judge Rubia had been talking to the opposing counsel
regarding these matters outside of the court proceedings. The
impression of complainant was that respondent Judge Rubia was
actively taking a position in favor of Atty. Zarate.

To conrm her suspicion, respondents then allegedly "told complainant

to just talk to Atty. Zarate, counsel for the oppositor, claiming that he is a
nice person. Complainant was appalled by such suggestion and replied
Why will I talk to him? Judge di ko yata kaya gawin yun." Complainant
alleged that respondent Judge Rubia acted in a manner that showed
manifest partiality in favor of the opposing parties, namely, Romelias
Almeda-Barias and Evelyn Tanael, as represented by their counsel, Atty.
Noe Zarate. She alleged that respondent Judge Rubia failed to require a
timely ling of the pre-trial brief on the part of Evelyn Tanael and
Romelias Almeda-Barias, and despite their non-compliance on four (4)
separate pre-trials that were postponed, Tanael and Almeda-Barias
were not declared in default. She also alleged that respondent Judge
Rubia stated that the burden to prove ownership of the property was on
complainant, when in fact it was the oppositor, or Tanael and Almeda-
Barias, who had the burden of proof to show that the land was
fraudulently transferred to her late husband. Complainant moved for
respondent Judge Rubia's inhibition. This was denied on October 6,
2010. Complainant then led a motion for reconsideration denied in an
order dated November 15, 2010. On November 11, 2010, complainant
led a complaint adavit before the Oce of the Court Administrator
charging respondent Pecan a for gross misconduct and respondent Judge
Rubia for conduct unbecoming of a judge, partiality, gross ignorance of
the law or procedure, incompetence, and gross misconduct.

ISSUE: Whether respondents Judge Rubia and Pecan a should be held

administratively liable.

HELD:

Yes. This court must set aside the ndings of fact and reject the
report of Justice Samuel Gaerlan. Respondents Judge Rubia and Pecan a
should be held administratively liable for their actions.

Pecan a took place on March 10, 2010 on the side street of Burgos Circle
in Bonifacio Global City, after the Rotary Club of Makati, Southwest
Chapter meeting and dinner at Numa Restaurant, on their way to the
parking lot. This means that the testimony of and the evidence
presented by Rodel do not disprove the occurrence of the dinner
meeting as alleged by complainant, since the meeting of the Rotary Club
and the dinner meeting alleged by complainant took place on dierent
dates.

Assuming that the alleged chance meeting between complainant and

respondent Judge Rubia took place on March 10, 2010 as alleged by
respondents, this does not discount the veracity of complainant's
allegations. Both the Rotary Club of Makati, Southwest Chapter dinner
and the dinner meeting alleged by complainant took place in the vicinity
of Bonifacio Global City. This could have allowed respondent Judge
Rubia ample time to travel to the dinner meeting after the meeting of
the Rotary Club of Makati.

The investigation report stated that the attendance sheet and the
program of meeting that Rodel submitted corroborated his testimony.
The date indicated on the attendance sheet and on the program of
meeting was March 10, 2010, not March 3, 2010. However, there was
nothing to indicate the time of arrival or departure of the attendees.
Neither was there an indication of the time when the meeting began or
ended. The attendance sheet and the program of meeting, by themselves
or taken as corroborative evidence of Rodel's testimony, do not discount
the distinct and tangible possibility that the dinner meeting as narrated
by complainant took place.

On the other hand, we nd the allegation that the dinner meeting took
place on March 3, 2010 more credible.
Complainant presented a document containing a list of calls she made
from January to March 2010. She identied her cellular phone number
as well as respondent Pecan a's. Respondent Pecan a admitted that the
number identied by complainant was her number. On March 2 and 3,
2010, calls were made to respondent Pecan a's number. Respondent
Pecan a admitted that she had received a call from complainant before
the latter picked her up at 6750 Makati City. However, no calls to
respondent Pecan a were recorded on March 10, 2010 in the document
presented. On the other hand, the calls made to respondent Pecan a as
shown in the document coincided with complainant's allegations.

The totality of these circumstances places doubt on the alibi of

respondent Judge Rubia and Rodel's narration of events. The strongest
corroborative evidence to support complainant's allegations was the
exchange of text messages between complainant and respondent Pecan a
regarding the dinner meeting. These text messages were admitted by
respondent Pecan a. However, Justice Gaerlan failed to give any weight to
the exchange of text messages. This fact was not included in his
investigation report.

The content of the text messages of respondent Pecan a belied

respondents' claim that the alleged dinner meeting in Burgos Circle was
only a chance encounter.

AILEEN PECAN A [sic]

Bktxagalitkngmkpgktakasminwidout his knowledge. I cnt fathom y wil it

end up ling an admin case. (August 8, 2010, 4:29 p.m.)

AILEEN PECAN A [sic]

Pls Emily do something 2 pacify ur lawyer, jujrubia will denitely get

mad wid us. (August 8, 2010, 4:30 p.m.) 130 (Emphasis supplied)

Respondent Pecan a used the phrase, "mkpgkta," which may be

translated to "have a meeting." "Mkpgkta" can in no way mean a chance
encounter.

Further, respondent Pecan a's text messages sent to complainant belied

her claim of an innocent chance encounter. She said that respondent
Judge Rubia would get angry after complainant had informed her that
her lawyer might le an administrative case against them. Respondent
Judge Rubia would not have had a reason to get upset because of the
possibility of administrative liability if an innocent and coincidental
encounter happened and not a dinner meeting. However, if the meeting
took place as alleged by complainant, this would have logically led to a
hostile reaction from respondents, particularly respondent Judge Rubia.

There was clearly no reason for respondent Pecan a to go out of her way
to greet respondent Judge Rubia. In fact, after allegedly being repeatedly
reminded that court employees should not have any dealings with
litigants, respondent Pecan a should not have gone out to greet
respondent Judge Rubia since she was dining with a litigant.

Respondent Judge Rubia committed gross violations of the New Code of

Judicial Conduct

By meeting a litigant and advising her to talk to opposing counsel,

respondent Judge Rubia violated several canons of the New Code of
Judicial Conduct.

Respondent Judge Rubia failed to act in a manner that upholds the

dignity mandated by his oce. He was already made aware of the
impropriety of respondent Pecan a's actions by virtue of her admissions
in her comment. At the time of the referral of the complaint to the Oce
of the Court Administrator, respondent Judge Rubia was already the
Executive Judge of Branch 24 of the Regional Trial Court of Bin an,
Laguna. As a judge, he had the authority to ensure that all court
employees, whether or not they were under his direct supervision, act in
accordance with the esteem of their oce.

Respondent Pecan a even alleged that respondent Judge Rubia made

several warnings to all court employees not to intercede in any case
pending before any court under his jurisdiction as Executive Judge.
However, nothing in the record shows that respondent Judge Rubia took
action after being informed of respondent Pecan a's interactions with a
litigant, such as ascertaining her actions, conducting an inquiry to
admonish or discipline her, or at least reporting her actions to the Oce
of the Court Administrator.

For this failure alone, respondent Judge Rubia should be held

administratively liable.

Furthermore, the evidence on record supports the allegations that a

meeting with complainant, a litigant with several cases pending before
his sala, took place. Respondent Judge Rubia's mere presence in the
dinner meeting provides a ground for administrative liability.