3a.

epublit of tbe ~bilippines

$Upreme Qtourt
;Jmlanila
EN BANC
PRESIDING JUDGES TOMAS A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559
EDUARDO B. MADDELA III [formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3810-RTJ]
and MERINNISA 0. LIGAYA,
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN
CITIES, BRANCHES 5 and 1,
RESPECTIVELY, OLONGAPO
CITY, ZAMBALES,
Complainants,
- versus -
PRESIDING JUDGE NORMAN V.
PAMINTUAN, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 73,
OLONGAPO CITY, ZAMBALES,
Respondent.
X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- X

OFFICE OF THE COURT A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561

[formerly A.M. No. 15-02-49-RTC]
ADMINISTRATOR,
Complainant, Present:
BERSAMIN, CJ,
CARPIO,
PERALTA,
PERLAS-BERNABE,
LEONEN,
- versus - JARDELEZA
CAGUIOA,
REYES, A.B., JR.,
GESMUNDO,
REYES, J.C., JR.,
HERNANDO,
CARANDANG,
PRESIDING JUDGE NORMAN V. LAZARO-JAVIER,
PAMINTUAN, REGIONAL INTING, * and
ZALAMEDA, JJ.
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 73,
OLONGAPO CITY, ZAMBALES,
Promulgated:
Respondent.
August 14, 2019
X -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -

* No part.
 DECISION 2 A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559
& A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561

DECISION

PERCURIAM:

Antecedents

A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559

[formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3810-RTJJ

This administrative case stemmed from a Letter-Complaint I dated

October 4, 2011 filed by Hon. Tomas Eduardo B. Maddela III (Judge
Maddela) and Hon. Merinnisa 0. Ligaya (Judge Ligaya), Presiding Judges
of Branches 5 and 1, respectively, of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities
(MTCC), Olongapo City, Zambales, addressed to Hon. Richard A. Paradeza
(Exec. Judge Paradeza), Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Olongapo City. The subject of the complaint is the alleged failure and
neglect of Judge Norman V. Pamintuan (respondent), Presiding Judge of
Branch 73, Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City, Zambales, to perform the
solemnization of marriage of applicants after their requests had been raffled
to him, pursuant to Office of the Court Administrator ( OCA) Circular No.
87-2008 Re: Guidelines on the Solemnization of Marriage by the Members
of the Judiciary. 2

In their joint letter-complaint, Judge Maddela and Judge Ligaya

alleged that the Office of the Clerk of Court-RTC referred and endorsed the
requests for solemnization of marriage to other judges because respondent
was, on the scheduled dates, either absent or unavailable due to either high
blood pressure, flu, loose bowel movement, or fever. They further averred
that, being among the judges to whom said requests were consequently
referred, they were confronted with verbal complaints from the couples
intending to get married and from their parents and relatives who found
themselves being ushered out of the courtroom after being told that
respondent was absent. 3

Judge Maddela and Judge Ligaya contended that respondent's alleged

failure to solemnize the marriages raffled to him constitutes "shirking from
judicial duty." 4 This is pursuant to OCA Circular No. 87-2008, which
mandates the strict observance by judges in multiple sala courts of the
~affling of requests for solemnization of marriage due to numerous !
Rollo (A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559), p. 4.
2
Rollo (A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561), p. 110.
3
Id.
4
Id. at 111.
 DECISION 3 A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559
& A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561

anomalies discovered during various judicial audits in the lower courts. The
circular provides in paragraph (c) that "[u]nless for valid reasons, the refusal
of a judge to participate in the raffle of request for solemnization of marriage
shall be construed as shirking from judicial duty." 5

In his Letter-Comment6 dated February 8, 2012, respondent denied

that his failure to solemnize various marriages raffled to his sala was part of
a "vicious pattern of neglect." 7 He insisted that unavoidable circumstances
happened; his sickness was beyond his control and never intentional. He
declared that despite his then pending surgery for his multinoduled-thyroid
and hypertension, stage II, he returned to work on November 15, 2011. He
also submitted that all absences due to his ailment were covered by the
necessary applications for leave of absence with attached medical
certificates. These applications were all duly approved by the then
incumbent Executive Judge of the RTC of Olongapo City. 8

In its October 13, 2014 Resolution,9 the Court reminded respondent of

his duty to dispose of the court's business promptly and to be mindful of his
absences. It also directed the OCA to immediately conduct a judicial audit of
the RTC of Olongapo City, Zambales, Branch 73, presided by respondent,
starting August 2011 onwards and to submit a report thereon within sixty
(60) days from completion thereof. 10

A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561

iformerly A.M. No. 15-02-49-RTCJ

In the course of the judicial audit conducted from January 26 to

January 30, 2015, with Atty. Rullyn S. Garcia (Atty. Garcia) presiding, the
other judges of the first and second level courts in Olongapo City, as well as
the Clerk of Court of the RTC, Olongapo City, ventilated their complaints
against respondent. 11

Exec. Judge Paradeza, Presiding Judge of the RTC of Olongapo City,

Zambales, Branch 72, executed an Affidavit-Complaint 12 against respondent
in which he narrated the circumstances of the latter's attempt to bribe him in
exchange for a verdict against the accused in a criminal case. He also stated !
5
Id.
6
Rollo (A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559), pp. 24-25.
7
Id. at 24.
8
Id.
9
Id. at 61-62.
10
Id. at 62.
11
Rollo (A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561), p. 111.
12
Id. at 16-20.
 DECISION 4 A.M. No. RT J-19-2559
& A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561

that he intends to file an administrative case for grave misconduct against

respondent. 13

In support of Exec. Judge Paradeza's accusation of bribery against

respondent, Atty. John V. Aquino (Atty. Aquino), Clerk of Court of the R TC
of Olongapo City, Mr. Leo C. Dalit (Mr. Dalit), Officer-in-Charge/Legal
Researcher II of the RTC of Olongapo City, Branch 72, and Judge Jose L.
Bautista, Jr. (Judge Bautista), Assisting Presiding Judge of the RTC of
Olongapo City, Branch 73, executed their respective Affidavits. 14

In addition to the allegation of bribery, the other judges present at the

meeting divulged that respondent engaged in other activities which
presented a conflict-of-interest situation on his part, such as:

( 1) following up on a case involving his Korean friend Park Tae

Min, entitled "People of the Philippines v. Evangeline Kim, "
which is pending before the MTCC of Olongapo City, Branch
4·
'
(2) establishing a surety company, "SURETY BOND
INSURANCE SERVICES," its primary purpose to transact
business with the lower courts, particularly in Olongapo City,
with Ms. Glenda H. Tulio (Ms. Tulia), then Sheriff IV of
Branch 4;

(3) organizing the concert of Freddie Aguilar in December 2013 for

which respondent solicited donations from business
establishments; and

(4) holding the 60th birthday party of his wife on January 29, 2014
at the Arizona Beach Resort Hotel in Olongapo City, reportedly
owned by someone who is known to have a pending trafficking
case in the RTC of Olongapo City. 15

In support of these charges, Judge Esmeralda B. David (Judge David),

then Presiding Judge of the MTCC Olongapo City, Branch 4, executed an;
Affidavit 16 to attest to the foregoing facts. I7

"Id. at 112.
14
Id. at 49-50, 51-52, 53.
15
Supra note 13.
16
Id. at 57-60.
17
Supra note 13.
 DECISION 5 A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559
& A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561

The judges present at the meeting on January 26, 2015 also claimed
that respondent solicited, through Ms. Tulio, monetary donations from
lawyers in Olongapo City, for the "1st JUDGE PAMINTUAN SHOOTFEST
CUP" held in December 2014. In another meeting held on January 27, 2015,
Atty. Manuel R. Rosapapan, Jr. (Atty. Rosapapan) and Atty. Leonardo W.
Bernabe (Atty. Bernabe), Chapter President and Chapter Secretary,
respectively, of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), informed Atty.
Garcia that they and other members of their IBP Chapter received the
solicitation letter from Ms. Tulio. Atty. Bernabe also stated that respondent
would deny motions for reduction of bail so that the accused would be
compelled to post a surety bond for their temporary liberty. Both Atty.
Rosapapan and Atty. Bernabe, however, declined to execute sworn
statements to attest to the fact of their allegations. 18

Lastly, the judicial audit of the RTC of Olongapo City, Zambales,

Branch 73, revealed that of the eight hundred thirty-one (831) cases whose
records were presented to and examined by the audit team, only sixty-two
(62) cases, or 7.46%, were being handled by respondent, while the rest,
consisting of seven hundred sixty-nine (769) cases or 92.54%, were being
handled by Judge Bautista. Of the sixty-two (62) cases handled by
respondent, eighteen ( 18) had been submitted for decision. Dismally, sixteen
(16) of these cases, or 88%, had been awaiting decision beyond the
mandated 90-day period. 19

In its March 9, 2015 Resolution, 20 the Court preventively suspended

respondent from the service, effective immediately, until further orders. It
also ordered respondent, within fifteen ( 15) days from notice, (1) to
comment on the January 28, 2015 Affidavit-Complaint 21 of Exec. Judge
Paradeza, (2) show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against
him for the conflict-of-interest activities charged against him, and (3) to
explain his failure to decide the sixteen ( 16) cases within the mandated
period despite his very minimal caseload. 22 It also consolidated A.M. No.
RTJ-19-2561 [formerly A.M. No. 15-02-49-RTC] with A.M. No. RTJ-19-;
2559 [formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3810-RTJ]. 23

18
ld. at 112-113.
19
ld. at 113.
20
Id. at 66-69.
21
Supra note 12.
22
Id. at 67-68.
23
Id. at 69.
 DECISION 6 A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559
& A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561

On March 31, 2015, respondent filed an "Urgent Partial Motion for

Reconsideration on my Preventive Suspension." 24 Therein, he urged the
Court to immediately recall the order for his preventive suspension and to be
detailed to the OCA, particularly under the supervision of Court
Administrator Jose Midas Marquez, pending investigation of the charges
against him. He also prayed that he be allowed to continue receiving his
monthly salary and emoluments pending resolution of his case. 25

On April 16, 2015, respondent filed his Comment 26 in compliance

with the Court's March 9, 2015 Resolution. He argued, as summarized by
Investigating CA Justice Henri Jean Paul B. lnting27 (Investigating Justice
Inting), the following:

xxx [R]espondent Judge Pamintuan denies the accusation of

attempted bribery in its entirety and alleges that the sworn statements
submitted by [Exec.] Judge Paradeza, Judge Bautista, Atty. Aquino, and Mr.
Dalit are incredible and unsupported by evidence.

Respondent Judge Pamintuan insists that he did not commit bribery,

much less an attempt thereof, and thus cannot be held liable for the offense.
He argues that even if the allegations against him were true, they do not
amount to bribery as defined and penalized under the Revised Penal Code.

Furthermore, respondent Judge Pamintuan denies having offered the

sum of Pl 00,000.00 to [Exec.] Judge Paradeza in his office to coax the latter
to render a judgment of conviction in a criminal case. He also denies that he
subsequently returned to the latter's office on a number of occasions to
inquire about the case. He theorizes that given the volume of people who
frequent [Exec.] Judge Paradeza's court, it is possible that [Exec.] Judge
Paradeza mistook him as the one who went to his office on the alleged
occasions. He further speculates: "[in] all likelihood, the person who passed
by and went back to the office of Paradeza was [Judge] Bautista who he
mistakenly thought was me. This conclusion is not far-fetched considerin:;.;
that Bautista is likewise a Presiding Judge of a Regional Trial Court of
Olongapo City who assists me in the management of Branch 73. Furthermore.
this is also probable since [JudgeJ Bautista is related by affinity to the
children of the private complainant in said case and was aware of their
intentions to influence the outcome of the same with money."

Alleging that [Exec.] Judge Paradeza's allegations against him are

preposterous, respondent Judge Pamintuan reasons the following: 1) he would
not have offered money to [Exec.] Judge Paradeza, explained the reasons
therefor, and vigorously insisted that the latter accept it in a venue where there
was high risk that said activity would be discovered; 2) he would not have
gone to the office of [Exec.] Judge Paradeza with Pl 00,000.00 in his pocket

24
considering that the amount is of considerable value, which would be quite
thick in cash regardless of the denominations of the bills involved, and thus
would have been easily detected and would have aroused the suspicion of any

Id. at 70-72.
!
25
Id. at 71-72.
26
Id. at 73-99.
27
Now a Member of this Court.
DECISION 7 A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559
& A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561

reasonable observer; 3) he would not have waited for almost an hour outside
the office of [Exec.] Judge Paradeza in the presence of Mr. Dalit given the
sensitive nature of the activities and discussion that were to take place in the
office of [Exec.] Judge Paradeza, but would have instead called [Exec.] Judge
Paradeza through his cellular phone if it was his intention to cajole him to
accept his supposed offer; 4) he would not have returned to the office of
[Exec.] Judge Paradeza on a number of occasions after a lapse of only a few
days from their first encounter considering that [Exec.] Judge Paradeza
already exhibited displeasure towards him and even threatened to inform
others of what he had done; and 5) he would not have done the acts alleged in
light of his career and record in the judiciary. Respondent Judge Pamintuan
avers that he would not have engaged in activities such as those alleged given
that they would potentially jeopardize his record and career in the judiciary,
which is his main source of livelihood.

Respondent Judge Pamintuan further denies having received the

amount of P400,000.00 from the children of [the] private complainant and
thereafter failed to return it following a judgment of acquittal by [Exec.]
Judge Paradeza. He likewise denies having subsequently returned to them the
amount using his own funds. His reasons are the following: 1) he would not
have accepted the amount of P400,000.00 from the children of private
complainant in the criminal case knowing that it was intended to be given to
[Exec.] Judge Paradeza to cause him to render a judgment of conviction in the
said case and subsequently failed to return it in the event that an adverse
decision is rendered; 2) and assuming that he indeed received the P400,000.00,
he would not have returned it using his own money as he is in no position to
part ways with such a huge amount of money considering his meager salary as
a judge. He adds that the prudent course of action he would have done was to
simply retrieve the P300,000.00 and PI00,000.00 purportedly given to [Exec.]
Judge Paradeza and Judge Bautista, respectively, and make whole the children
of private complainant with these amounts.

Moreover, respondent Judge Pamintuan denies having deposited

PI00,000.00 in the bank account of Judge Bautista on December 8, 2014 for
the following reasons: 1) he would not have deposited any amount in the bank
account of Judge Bautista given that the latter was not the judge who would
render the decision in the criminal case and had absolutely nothing to do with
his purported objective of securing a guilty verdict in the case on behalf of the
children of private complainant; and 2) he would not have delivered any sum
to Judge Bautista since [Exec.] Judge Paradeza had already rendered a
judgment of acquittal in said case several months before. He also avers that it
is impossible for him to have actually deposited the amount in Judge
Bautista's account as he did not have the details of the judge's bank accounts.

Based on the foregoing, respondent Judge Pamintuan contends that

[Exec.] Judge Paradeza is not a credible witness.

With respect to Atty. Aquino and Mr. Dalit, respondent Judge

Pamintuan avers that they are also incredible witnesses in view of their
professional connection and bias towards [Exec.] Judge Paradeza.
Additionally, he points out that the sworn statements of Atty. Aquino and Mr.
Dalit merely mimic the story of [Exec.] Judge Paradeza; and that the few
additional details therein have little importance.

Respondent Judge Pamintuan also contends that the credibility of

Judge Bautista as a witness is likewise doubtful in view of his relationship to !
DECISION 8 A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559
& A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561

[Exec.] Judge Paradeza and Atty. Aquino as well as the contents of his sworn
statement. He avers that Judge Bautista merely adopted and confirmed the
sworn statements of the two as his own. Alleging that it is Judge Bautista who
had personal knowledge of the revelations and actuations of the children of
private complainant, respondent Judge Pamintuan argues that it is perplexing
why Judge Bautista did not elaborate and provide details concerning their
attempts at influencing the outcome of the criminal case. In addition, he avers
that despite the confirmation of Judge Bautista that he purportedly received
Pl 00,000.00 from him, Judge Bautista did not renounce the receipt of the
amount or return it, but instead kept the money.

Respondent Judge Pamintuan likewise denies that he followed up on

the case of a friend pending in another court and that he established a surety
bonding company, alleging that these accusations are absurd and
unsubstantiated by proof. He also denies having engaged in activities that
presented a conflict-of-interest on his part and avers that the alleged activities
plainly did not constitute one. He avers that he is wholly unaware of the case
entitled "People v. Evangeline Kim" which was pending before Judge David's
court and does not know any of the parties to the case, especially private
complainant. He also points out that the accusation of Judge David regarding
his purported outings to her court is not entitled to belief as it is unsupported
by competent proof and not based on personal knowledge.

On the allegations that he founded, operated and publicized a surety

bonding company by the name of Travellers Insurance & Surety Corporation,
respondent Judge Pamintuan avers that it is impossible for him to have
undertaken these acts for the following reasons: 1) he does not have
knowledge or capabilities to establish or operate this type of business; and 2)
he would not have chosen the frontage of the Hall of Justice of Olongapo City
as the principal place of business of Travellers Insurance and Surety
Corporation or passed around flyers and calling cards pertaining thereto, for if
he did so, he would have easily made known and provided evidence for his
wrongful and improper acts. He adds that the documentary evidence
submitted to substantiate the allegations pertaining to his connection with
Travellers Insurance & Surety Corporation does not support the accusation
against him. Specifically, there is no indication that he participated in or had
any responsibility with respect to the generation of flyers and calling cards
pertaining to Travellers Insurance & Surety Corporation. The documents also
reveal that it is Ms. Tulio who is actually connected with Travellers Insurance
& Surety Corporation and is responsible for its operations.

Respondent Judge Pamintuan also denies the allegations that the

following activities presented a conflict-of-interest on his part: I) the
organization of the Freddie Aguilar concert and solicitation of donations
therefor; 2) the celebration of the 60 th birthday of his wife in a venue owned
by a person who apparently has a pending case for trafficking in the RTC of
Olongapo City; and [3)] the organization of a shooting event in his name and
request of donations therefor. He argues that these activities have absolutely
nothing to do with his judicial functions, duties and responsibilities.

Respondent Judge Pamintuan futiher denies the accusation of

inefficiency in the disposition of cases and argues that there is valid
justification for those that remained undecided beyond the mandated period
notwithstanding his light caseload. He alleges that the stenographer involved
in the sixteen ( 16) cases that remained undecided namely, Corazon Balilu,
abruptly resigned and left the country. Corazon Balilu allegedly did not
complete and submit the relevant transcripts of the cases, thus ultimately /
 DECISION 9 A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559
& A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561

preventing him from fully studying the records thereof prior to rendering the
appropriate decisions in accordance with due process.

On the basis of all the foregoing, he thereby prays for the dismissal of
the complaint against him. 28

In its April 19, 2016 Resolution, 29 the Court denied the urgent motion
of respondent for recall of his preventive suspension and his request to be
detailed at the OCA under Court Administrator Marquez for lack of merit. It
referred the consolidated administrative cases to the Court of Appeals (CA)
for raffle among its members. The investigating CA justice was directed to
evaluate the cases and make a report and recommendation thereon within
ninety (90) days from notice. 30

Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Justice

The instant administrative cases were raffled to CA Associate Justice

Inting. He submitted his Report31 on October 26, 2016.

In his Report, Investigating Justice Inting stated that the parties

manifested, during the hearing held on September 8, 2016, that they were
adopting all the pleadings filed before the OCA as their pleadings in the
present administrative case and that they were submitting the case based
solely on the documentary exhibits and without oral examination. 32

Investigating Justice Inting made the following findings:

First, Investigating Justice Inting held that respondent is guilty of

undue delay in rendering decisions. He found respondent's failure to decide
the sixteen (16) cases within the mandated period unjustifiable. He stated
that, considering respondent's light caseload, it is highly unreasonable that
88% of the cases submitted for decision remained undisposed of despite the
lapse of the reglementary period. He did not accept the excuse proffered by
respondent about the delay being caused by the unexpected resignation of
the stenographer and her failure to complete and submit the relevant
transcripts of the cases. For him, respondent should have requested an
extension of time before the expiration of the reglementary period. 33
Considering that the undue delay involved not just one but numerous 1
28
Rollo (A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561), pp. 121-125.
29
Id. at 104-105.
30
Id. at 104.
31
Id. at 109-133.
32
Id. at 114.
33
Id. at 125-128.
 DECISION 10 A.M. No. RT.J-19-2559
& A.M. No. RT.J-19-2561

decisions, he found that the charge amounts to a serious one. Hence, he

recommended that respondent be imposed the maximum penalty for the
charge, which is suspension from office without salary and other benefits for
six (6) months. 34

Second, with respect to respondent's absences, Investigating Justice

lnting found that, despite being frequent, they cannot be said to be
unjustified since corresponding applications for leave of absences were filed
and were approved by the Executive Judge. Thus, he did not find
respondent's failure to solemnize the marriages raffled to him, on the dates
specified, as tantamount to "shirking from judicial duty" under paragraph (c)
of OCA Circular 87-2008. 35

Third, the Investigating Justice found that the charge of bribery

against respondent was not proved. He observed that the evidence to support
this charge consists of pure allegations by Exec. Judge Paradeza, Atty.
Aquino, Mr. Dalit, and Judge Bautista. No other evidence was presented to
corroborate and substantiate the charge. Further, he noted that many of the
allegations in the sworn statements of the witnesses were not based on
personal knowledge. 36 He, thus, recommended the dismissal of the
complaint for bribery against respondent.

Fourth, on the alleged conflict-of-interest, the Investigating Justice

found unsupported by competent proof the allegations that respondent ( 1)
personally followed up on the case of a friend which was pending before the
court of Judge David; and (2) established, ran, and promoted a surety
bonding company with the assistance of Ms. Tulio. 37

Nevertheless, since respondent admitted that he ( 1) organized the

Freddie Aguilar concert and solicited donations therefor, (2) celebrated the
60th birthday of his wife at a venue owned by a person who apparently has a
pending case for trafficking with the RTC of Olongapo City, and (3)
organized a shooting event in his name and requested donations therefor, the
Investigating Justice found that respondent violated the New Code of!

34
Id. at 128-129.
35
Id. at 128.
36
Id. at 129-130.
37
Id. at 13 l.
 DECISION 11 A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559
& A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561

Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, specifically Section 4 38 of

Canon 1 39 in relation to Section 10 40 of Canon 4. 41 Thus, Investigating
Justice Inting recommended that respondent be fined the amount of
Pl 0,000.00, with a warning that any similar violation in the future shall be
dealt with more severely. 42

Accordingly, Investigating Justice Inting made the following

recommendations to the Court:

A. In [A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559 formerly] OCA IPI No. 11-3810-RTJ

1. DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION

OF OCA CIRCULAR 87-2008 for lack of sufficient basis
that respondent Judge Pamintuan's failure to solemnize the
marriages raffled to him on the dates specified is
tantamount to "shirking from judicial duty" under
paragraph (c) of the circular.

B. In [A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561 formerly] A.M. No. 15-02-49-RTC

1. DISMISSAL OF THE CHARGE OF BRIBERY for

insufficiency of evidence;

2. SUSPENSION OF RESPONDENT JUDGE

PAMINTUAN FROM OFFICE WITHOUT SALARY
AND OTHER BENEFITS FOR SIX (6) MONTHS for
inefficiency and undue delay in rendering decisions
assigned to him; and

3. IMPOSITION UPON RESPONDENT JUDGE

PAMINTUAN OF A FINE IN THE AMOUNT OF
Pl0,000.00 for violation of Section 4 of Canon 1 and
Section 1 of Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct
for the Philippine Judiciary, WITH A WARNING THAT
!
38
SECTION 4. Judges shall not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or
judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the private interests of others,
nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the
judge. (New Code ofJudicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC, April 27, 2004)
39
Entitled "Independence."
40
SECTION 10. Subject to the proper performance of judicial duties, judges may:
(a) Write, lecture, teach and participate in activities concerning the law, the legal system, the
administration of justice or related matters;
(b) Appear at a public hearing before an official body concerned with matters relating to the law,
the legal system, the administration of justice or related matters;
( c) Engage in other activities if such activities do not detract from the dignity of the judicial office
or otherwise interfere with the performance of judicial duties.
41
Entitled "Propriety."
42
Rollo (A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561), p. 132.
 DECISION 12 A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559
& A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561

ANY SIMILAR VIOLATION IN THE FUTURE SHALL

BE DEALT WITH MORE SEVERELY. 43

Report and Recommendation of the OCA

In its November 23, 2016 Resolution, 44 the Court resolved to refer the
administrative matters to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommend-
dation.45

In its June 6, 2017 Memorandum, 46 the OCA recommended that

respondent "be ADJUDGED GUILTY of gross misconduct constituting
violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, undue delay in rendering
decisions, and violation of Supreme Court rules, directives and circulars, and
be METED the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service, with forfeiture of
his retirement benefits, except his accrued leave credits, and with prejudice
to reinstatement in any branch of the government, including government-
owned and controlled corporations." 47

First, as to respondent's failure to solemnize marriages raffled to his

sala, the OCA held that his failure is hardly justified and may, in fact, be
construed as "shirking from judicial duty." It noted that fourteen ( 14)
requests for solemnization of marriage raffled to respondent were re-raffled
to other judges. These 14 marriages were scheduled for solemnization before
respondent on nine (9) separate days from June to October 2011: three (3)
days in June, i.e., on the 15th, 16th and 21st; one (1) day in July, on the 20th;
two (2) days in August, i.e., on the 10th and 20th; two (2) days in September,
i.e., on the 8th and 22nd; and one (1) day in October, on the 20th.

The OCA concluded that, contrary to respondent's claim that all his
absences resulting in his failure to solemnize the marriages assigned to him
were "due to his ailment, " the records of the Employees' Leave Division,
OCA, Office of Administrative Services show that out of the nine (9) days
that respondent was absent, he was on sick leave for four (4) days only, i.e.,
on August 10, 2011, September 8 and 22, 2011, and October 20, 2011; and
on forfeitable leave for three (3) days, i.e., June 15, 16, and 21, 2011. There
is no showing that he filed his applications for leave of absence for July 20,
2011 and August 20, 2011. The OCA concluded that his failure to solemnize 1
4
' Id. at 132- I 33.
44
Rollo (A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559), p. 214.
4s Id.
46
Rollo (A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561), pp. 134-161.
47
Id. at 161.
 DECISION 13 A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559
& A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561

the marriages on those dates cannot be justified and can be construed as

"shirkingfromjudicial duty." 48

Second, on the alleged bribery attempt, the OCA noted that Exec.
Judge Paradeza's testimony was based on his personal knowledge. However,
his testimony that respondent came to his office was corroborated by Mr.
Dalit. The OCA declared that while there is no direct evidence that will
corroborate Exec. Judge Paradeza's allegations that respondent attempted to
bribe him, said allegations deserve full faith and credit. Further, it found that
the respective statements of Mr. Dalit and Atty. Aquino that Exec. Judge
Paradeza told them immediately after respondent had left that the latter
attempted to bribe him constituted independently relevant statements and are,
thus, admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. Also, the OCA observed
that respondent failed to impute, much less prove, any evil motive on the
part of Exec. Judge Paradeza for implicating him on the bribery charge. It
concluded that there exists substantial evidence to hold respondent
responsible for the misconduct complained of and that his acts constitute
gross misconduct. 49

Third, on the alleged conflict of interest, the OCA declared that

respondent may be held liable for violating Section 8, 5 Canon 4 51 of the °
New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. This is on the
basis of the acts that respondent admitted doing - the organization of the
Freddie Aguilar concert and the solicitation of donations therefor, the
celebration of the 60th birthday of his wife at a venue owned by a person
with a pending case before the RTC of Olongapo City, and the organization
of a shooting event in his name and the solicitation of donations therefor.
Similarly with Investigating Justice Inting, the OCA did not give weight to
the allegations concerning respondent following up on the case of his
Korean friend and his establishing a surety company with Ms. Tulio. This is
because these allegations were not supported by any competent proof. 52

Fourth, the OCA stated that respondent's gross inefficiency is evident

in his failure to decide within the mandated period sixteen ( 16) cases, or
25 .8%, of his minimal caseload of sixty-two ( 62). It declared that respondent
cannot use the unexpected resignation of his stenographer and her failure to J

48
Id. at 150-151.
49
Rollo (A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561 ), pp. 152-156.
50
SECTION 8. Judges shall not use or lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance their private
interests, or those of a member of their family or of anyone else, nor shall they convey or permit others to
convey the impression that anyone is in a special position improperly to influence them in the performance
of judicial duties.
51
Entitled "Propriety."
52
Rollo (A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561), pp. 156-157.
 DECISION 14 A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559
& A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561

complete and submit the transcript of stenographic notes as excuse for his
delay. 53

In conclusion, the OCA found that respondent may be held

accountable for: (a) gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of
Judicial Conduct, (b) undue delay in rendering decisions, and (c) violation of
Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars. Pursuant to Section 17, 54
Rule XIV 55 of the "Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292
and other Pertinent Civil Service Laws," 56 when the respondent is guilty of
two or more charges, the penalty for the most serious charge shall be
imposed and the other charges may be considered as aggravating
circumstances. Hence, the OCA recommended the imposition of the penalty
of dismissal upon respondent. 57

THE RULING OF THE COURT

The Court finds the OCA's recommendation to be well-taken.

Respondent is charged with the following acts: (1) shirking from his
judicial duty to solemnize marriages raffled to him, (2) attempting to bribe
Exec. Judge Paradeza to influence the outcome of a pending case in the
latter's sala, (3) engaging in conflict-of-interest activities, and (4) failing to
decide cases within the mandated period.

There is substantial evidence to hold respondent administratively

liable for these charges.

Respondent shirked from his

judicial duty by failing to solemnize
marriages raffled to him.

OCA Circular No. 87-2008 58 provides that the Court, in its August 12,
2008 Resolution in A.M. No. 08-7-429-RTC, resolved, among others, to
"DIRECT the Judges of multiple sala courts to strictly observe the raffling
of requests for solemnization of marriage because of numerous anomalies
discovered in the solemnization of marriage during various judicial audits in J
53
Id. at 157-159.
54
SECTION 17. If the respondent is found guilty of two or more charges or counts, the penalty imposed
should be that corresponding to the most serious charge or count and the rest may be considered as
aggravating circumstances.
55
Entitled "Discipline."
56
CSC Resolution No. 91-1631, December 27, 1991.
57
Rollo(A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561), pp. 159-161.
58
Guidelines on the Solemnization of Marriar;e by the Members of the Judiciary, September 8, 2008.
 DECISION 15 A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559
& A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561

the lower court. Unless for valid reasons, the refusal of a judge to participate
in the raffle of request for solemnization of marriage shall be construed as
shirking from judicial duty."

The OCA reported that the following fourteen (14) requests for
solemnization of marriage raffled to respondent were re-raffled to other
Judges: 59

Request No. Schedule of Cause of Re-Raffle Judge to Whom

Marriage Request was Re-Raffled
1. M-78-2011 15 June 2011 "(U)navailability" of Judge Tomas Eduardo B.
respondent Judge Maddela III, Br. 5,
MTCC, Olongapo City
2. M-113-2011 21 June 2011 "(U)navailability" of Judge Jacinto C.
respondent Judge Gonzales, Br. 2, MTCC,
Olongapo City
3. M-116-2011 16 June 2011 "(U)navailability" of Acting Presiding Judge
respondent Judge Josefina D. Parrales, Br.
74, RTC, Olongapo City
4. M-117-2011 16 June 2011 (Not indicated) Judge Parrales
5. M-136-2011 20 Aug. 2011 "(U)navailability" of Judge Richard A.
respondent Judge Paradeza, Br. 72, RTC,
Olongapo City
6. M-139-2011 20 July 2011 "(I)n view of the Judge Maddela III
written request of Ms.
Susafe F. Lodivero "
(apparently, a relative
of the bride, Jenny
Faye Fontanares
Lodivero)
7. M-142-2011 20 July 2011 (Not indicated) Judge Maddela III
8. M-143-2011 20 Oct. 2011 Respondent Judge "is Judge Raymond C. Viray,
presently indisposed Br. 75, RTC, Olongapo
and to equalize the City
advances of other
Court"
9. M-150-2011 8 Sept. 2011 Respondent Judge "is Judge Merinnisa 0.
suffering from High Ligaya, Br. 1, MTCC,
Blood Pressure " Olongapo City
10. M-154-2011 20 Oct. 2011 Respondent Judge "is Acting Presiding Judge
presently indisposed" Parrales
11. M-158-2011 10 Aug. 2011 (Not indicated) Judge Maddela III
12. M-165-2011 22 Sept. 2011 (Not indicated) Acting Presiding Judge
Parrales
13. M-166-2011 22 Sept. 2011 Respondent Judge "is Acting Presiding Judge
su[feringfrom LBM" Parrales
14. M-169-2011 8 Sept. 2011 Respondent Judge "is Judge Gonzales
suffering from High

!
Blood Pressure "

59
Rollo(A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561), pp. 150-151.
 DECISION 16 A.M. No. RT.J-19-2559
& A.M. No. RT.J-19-2561

As may be observed, the fourteen ( 14) requests that were eventually

re-raffled to other Judges were scheduled for solemnization before
respondent on nine (9) separate days from June to October 2011. 60

Respondent claims that all his absences resulting in his failure to

solemnize the marriages raffled to him were due to his ailments and that he
filed the necessary applications for leave for said absences with attached
medical certificates. 61

However, it appears that respondent has not been forthright with the
Court. The OCA reported that out of the nine (9) days respondent was absent,
he was on sick leave for only four (4) days: August 10, 2011; September 8
and 22, 2011; and October 20, 2011 and was on forfeitable leave for three (3)
days: June 15, 16, and 21, 2011. For his absences on July 20, 2011 and
August 20, 2011, respondent did not file applications for leave. 62

As a result of his unexcused absences, three (3) requests for

solemnization of marriage had to be re-raffled to other Judges: two (2)
marriages on July 20, 2011, and one (1) marriage on August 20, 2011.

The Court is clear in its directive that "[ u]nless for valid reasons, the
refusal of a judge to participate in the raffle of request for solemnization of
marriage shall be construed as shirking from judicial duty." 63 Considering
that his absences on July 20, 2011 and August 20, 2011 were not covered by
any applications for leave, there is no valid reason for his failure to
solemnize the three (3) marriages raffled to him on the said dates. His failure
to solemnize the three (3) marriages for no valid reason is tantamount to a
refusal to participate in the raffle. Respondent shirked from his judicial duty
of participating in the raffle for requests of solemnization of marriage. In /
doing so, he violated Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars.

60
Id. at 151.
61
Rollo (A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559), p. 24.
62
Rollo (A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561), p. 151.
63
Supra note 58.
 DECISION 17 A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559
& A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561

Respondent is administratively liable

for gross misconduct for attempting
to bribe Exec. Judge Paradeza to
issue a guilty verdict in the case of
People v. Terrie.

Preliminarily, it must be emphasized that "in administrative

proceedings, only substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence
that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, is
required. The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when there is
reasonable ground to believe that respondent is responsible for the
misconduct complained of, even if such evidence might not be
overwhelming or even preponderant. " 64

The Court finds in the instant case that there is substantial evidence to
hold respondent administratively liable for gross misconduct. Exec. Judge
Paradeza's account, verified on its material points by the affidavits of Atty.
Aquino and Mr. Dalit, establishes that sometime in June 2014, respondent
attempted to bribe him in order to influence the outcome of Criminal Case
No. 670-2002, entitled People v. Terrie, then pending before his sala.

Exec. Judge Paradeza's account, particularly on the bribery attempt

itself (paragraphs 2-7 of his Affidavit-Complaint), 65 rests solely on his
personal knowledge of the matter. He attested that sometime in June 2014, at
around 1:00 p.m., he opened the door of his chambers and saw respondent
sitting on the chair next to the door. Mr. Dalit then informed him that
respondent had been waiting for almost one ( 1) hour. He invited respondent
to his chambers to discuss his reason for visiting. It was then that respondent
spoke about the case of People v. Terrie. 66

Respondent relayed to him that the children of private complainant

Leticia M. Cui co (deceased) were his best friends. Exec. Judge Paradeza
attested that respondent "told" him to convict the accused in the said case.
When Exec. Judge Paradeza responded that he could not do that and that he
would decide the case on the basis of the evidence adduced, respondent
extended his hand to show him an envelope containing money. Respondent
then told him that the envelope contained One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(Pl 00,000.00) intended for him. Exec. Judge Paradeza declined the money
and asked respondent to leave the room. When respondent insisted, Exec.
Judge Paradeza threatened to call all his employees and tell them that t
64
Re: A/legations Made Under Oath at the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee Hearing Held on September 26,
2013 Against Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong, Sandiganbayan, 743 Phil. 622, 668 (2014 ).
65
Rollo(A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561), pp. 16-18.
66
Id. at 16.
 DECISION 18 A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559
& A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561

respondent was bribing him. He also threatened he would distribute the

money among his employees and still charge respondent with bribery. This
was when respondent placed the money back inside his pocket and then left
Exec. Judge Paradeza's room. 67

After respondent had left Exec. Judge Paradeza's room, the latter
immediately called Mr. Dalit to his chambers and told him about
respondent's attempt to bribe him relative to the case of People v. Terrie. He
also called Atty. Aquino to his chambers and told him of the act of
respondent. After talking to both Mr. Dalit and Atty. Aquino, Exec. Judge
Paradeza came out of his chambers and told his staff about the incident. 68

The Court recognizes that "[ a]n accusation of bribery is easy to

concoct and difficult to disprove." 69 This is owing to the fact that in cases of
this nature, no witness can be called to testify on the attempt at bribery. No
third party is ordinarily involved to witness the incident. The only ones
present in such a case is the one offering the bribe and the one to whom the
bribe is offered. This is the reality of a charge of gross misconduct on the
basis of bribery.

Based on the foregoing, only two persons have personal knowledge of

the actual bribery attempt: Exec. Judge Paradeza and respondent. However,
the incidents immediately prior to and after the bribery attempt could be
corroborated by Mr. Dalit and Atty. Aquino, which they did in their
respective affidavits.

In his January 28, 2015 Affidavit, 70 Mr. Dalit attested that sometime
in June 2014, respondent went to their office at around 12:00 noon and
requested to speak with Exec. Judge Paradeza. Since the door to the latter's
chambers was locked, Mr. Dalit asked respondent to just return later.
However, respondent chose to stay and sat near the doors of the chamber.
When Exec. Judge Paradeza opened the door of his chambers almost an hour
later, he saw respondent and invited him to enter. Mr. Dalit further attested
that after respondent had left the office, Exec. Judge Paradeza immediately
called him and relayed to him respondent's bribery attempt relating to the
case of People v. Terrie. Further, he attested that Exec. Judge Paradeza
called Atty. Aquino to his office and also informed him of respondent's
attempt to bribe him. 71
!
67
Id. at 16-17.
68
Id. at 17.
69
Supra note 64 at 669.
70
Rollo (A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561 ), pp. 51-52.
71 Id.
 DECISION 19 A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559
& A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561

On his part, Atty. Aquino attested in his January 28, 2015 Affidavit72
that sometime in June 2014, Exec. Judge Paradeza called him to his
chambers and relayed to him the bribery attempt of respondent. 73

The statements of Mr. Dalit and Atty. Aquino on these material points
corroborate the statement of Exec. Judge Paradeza. Mr. Dalit's statement
establishes that, indeed, sometime in June 2014, respondent (not any other
person) visited Exec. Judge Paradeza in his chambers. This is based on Mr.
Dalit's personal knowledge of the events that day. Further, Mr. Dalit and
Atty. Aquino's accounts establish that Exec. Judge Paradeza had relayed to
them the bribery attempt of respondent immediately after it occurred. Their
statements on this point are admissible on the basis of the doctrine of
independently relevant statements.

The Court stated in Gubaton v. Amador74 that "[ u]nder the doctrine of
independently relevant statements, only the fact that such statements were
made is relevant, and the truth or falsity thereof is immaterial. The doctrine
on independently relevant statements holds that conversations
communicated to a witness by a third person may be admitted as proof that,
regardless of their truth or falsity, they were actually made. Evidence as to
the making of such statements is not secondary but primary, for in itself it (a)
constitutes a fact in issue or (b) is circumstantially relevant to the existence
of such fact. Accordingly, the hearsay rule does not apply and, hence, the
statements are admissible as evidence. "

Again, both Mr. Dalit and Atty. Aquino stated that Exec. Judge
Paradeza relayed to them the bribery attempt of respondent immediately
after it occurred. Clearly, the making of such statements is circumstantially
relevant to this case and, therefore, may be considered in evidence against
respondent. 75 While their statements do not attest to the occurrence of the
actual bribery attempt, it lends credence to the narration of events by Exec.
Judge Paradeza and, overall, on his account of the bribery attempt.

In the face of Exec. Judge Paradeza's straightforward account of the

incident, corroborated circumstantially by Mr. Dalit and Atty. Aquino,
respondent's bare denial deserves scant consideration. "Suffice it to say that
'denial is an intrinsically weak defense. To merit credibility, it must be
buttressed by strong evidence of non-culpability. If unsubstantiated by clear
and convincing evidence [as in this case], it is negative and self-serving,
deserving no greater value than the testimony of credible witnesses who /

72
Id. at 49-50.
73
Id. at 49.
74
A.C. No. 8962, July 9, 2018.
7s Id.
 DECISION 20 A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559
& A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561

testify on affirmative matters. "' 76 Besides, Exec. Judge Paradeza had no ill
motive to accuse respondent of such a serious charge. Further, respondent's
attempt to cast doubt on the testimonies of Mr. Dalit and Atty. Aquino due
to their professional relationship with Exec. Judge Paradeza does not
persuade the Court.

Taken together, their affidavits convince the Court that, indeed,

respondent attempted to bribe Exec. Judge Paradeza with the sum of One
Hundred Thousand Pesos (Pl 00,000.00) to secure the conviction of the
accused in the case of People v. Terrie.

Respondent's attempt to bribe Exec. Judge Paradeza constitutes gross

misconduct.

"Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule

of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the
public officer. To warrant dismissal from service, the misconduct must be
grave, serious, important, weighty, momentous, and not trifling. The
misconduct must imply wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment
and must also have a direct relation to and be connected with the
performance of the public officer's official duties amounting either to
maladministration or willful, intentional neglect, or failure to discharge the
duties of the office. In order to differentiate gross misconduct from simple
misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or
flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest in the former." 77
Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, consists in the act of an
official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station
or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person,
contrary to duty and the rights of others. 78

Further, respondent's act is violative of the New Code of Judicial

Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, 79 specifically, Canons 1, 2, and 4,
which read:
j

76 Id.
77
Office of the Ombudsman v. De Zosa, et al., 751 Phil. 293, 299-300 (2015).
78
Judge Buenaventura v. Maha/at, 716 Phil. 476,494 (2013).
79
A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC, April 27, 2004.
 DECISION 21 A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559
& A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561

CANON 1
Independence

xxxx

SECTION 3. Judges shall refrain from influencing in any

manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another
court or administrative agency.

xxxx

CANON2
Integrity

SECTION 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct

above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a
reasonable observer.

SECTION 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm

the people's faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not
merely be done but must also be seen to be done.

xxxx

CANON4
Propriety

SECTION 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance

of impropriety in all of their activities.

xxxx

Respondent's attempt to bribe Exec. Judge Paradeza with

Pl00,000.00 to influence the outcome of the case of People v. Terrie, to the
benefit of his best friends, the children of therein private complainant, is
plainly unlawful behavior. It is motivated by a corrupt intent to wrongfully
use his station to procure some benefit for the children of private
complainant, contrary to duty and the rights of others. For this reason,
respondent is administratively liable for gross misconduct.

Respondent violated the New Code

of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary by engaging
in conflict-of-interest activities.

The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary

mandates that "[p ]ropriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to
the performance of all the activities of a judge." Further, Section I of Canon I
 DECISION 22 A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559
& A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561

4 80 provides that "[j]udges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of

impropriety in all of their activities."

Meanwhile, Section 4 of Canon 1 81 states that "[j]udges shall not

allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or
judgment. The presti2e of iudicial office shall not be used or lent to
advance the private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to
convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the
judge."

Respondent admitted that he engaged in the following activities: (1)

the organization of the Freddie Aguilar concert and solicitation of donations
therefor; (2) the celebration of the 60th birthday of his wife in a venue
owned by a person who apparently has a pending case for trafficking in the
RTC of Olongapo City; and (3) the organization of a shooting event in his
name and request of donations therefor.

The Court finds that his participation in the above activities, while not
directly related to his judicial functions, duties, and responsibilities,
nonetheless constitutes a violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for
the Philippine Judiciary. As previously stated, judges are mandated to avoid
the appearance of impropriety in their activities. Further, judges shall not
allow others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to
influence him. By engaging in such activities that impart a sense of
impropriety, respondent violated provisions of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. It also conveys the impression that he
may be influenced by certain people involved in the said activities.

With regard to the following imputations: (1) that respondent

personally followed up on the case of a friend pending before the court of
Judge David; and (2) that he established, ran, and promoted a surety bonding
company with the assistance of Ms. Tulio, the Court finds that these deserve
scant consideration. The imputations are unsupported by any competent
proof.

The allegation that he followed up on a case pending before Judge

David's court is a bare assertion. Judge David merely stated in her January
28, 2015 Affidavit 82 that she received reports from her staff that respondent
came to her office to follow up on the case of People of the Philippines v.
Evangeline Kim, in which Park Tae Min is the private complainant. She
further stated that she learned from her clerk of court and interpreter that (

80
I
Entitled "Propriety."
81
Entitled "Independence." (emphasis supplied)
82
Supra note 16.
 DECISION 23 A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559
& A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561

Park Tae Min is respondent's friend who accompanied him to Korea.

Clearly, these statements are mere hearsay and cannot be given any weight.

As to the allegation that respondent established, ran, and promoted a

surety bonding company with the assistance of Ms. Tulio, the Court rules
that the evidence on record does not support such a finding. As observed by
Investigating Justice Inting, "the documents submitted to substantiate
respondent Judge Pamintuan's alleged involvement in a surety bonding
company, i.e., calling card, flyer and Certification of Accreditation and
Authority, provide no clear indication that he is connected to and responsible
for the company's operations." 83

On the activities he admitted participating in, respondent is held

administratively liable for violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for
the Philippine Judiciary.

Respondent is guilty of gross

inefficiency and undue delay in
rendering decisions assigned to him.

"The 1987 Constitution mandates that all cases or matters be decided

or resolved by the lower courts within three months from date of submission.
Judges are expected to perform all judicial duties, including the rendition of
decisions, efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable promptness." 84 In this
regard, the Court has previously proclaimed that "[j]udges have the sworn
duty to administer justice and decide cases promptly and expeditiously
because justice delayed is justice denied." 85

Despite having a minimal caseload of sixty-two (62) cases, respondent

failed to decide sixteen (16) cases, or 25.8%, within the mandated period of
ninety (90) days. 86

He argues, however, that he should not be faulted for the delay in the
resolution of these cases because it was caused by the unexpected
resignation of his stenographer who failed to complete and submit the TSNs
for the 16 cases.

The Court cannot exonerate respondent from administrative liability /

based on his flimsy reason.

83
Rollo (A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561), p. 131.
84
Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Lopez, et al., 723 Phil. 256, 267-268 (2013).
85
Id. at 267.
86
Rollo(A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561), p. 157.
 DECISION 24 A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559
& A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561

In Office of the Court Administrator v. Lopez, et al., 87 the Court

reminded "judges to decide cases with dispatch" 88 and "that the failure of a
judge to decide a case within the required period is not excusable and
constitutes gross inefficiency, and non-observance of this rule is a ground
for administrative sanction against the defaulting judge. Upon proper
application and in meritorious cases, however, the Court has granted judges
of lower courts additional time to decide cases beyond the 90-day
reglementary period." 89

In the instant case, respondent could have applied for additional time
to decide the 16 cases beyond the mandated reglementary period. He did not
do so. His failure to apply for additional time is fatal to his defense.
Respondent's failure to decide the 16 cases within the mandated period
constitutes gross inefficiency and undue delay in rendering decisions
assigned to him.

The proper penalty to be imposed on

respondent is dismissal from service
and a fine of Pl2,000.00 each/or his
two counts of violation of Supreme
Court rules, directives, and circulars
and for his undue delay in rendering
decisions assigned to him.

To recapitulate, the Court declares that:

I. Respondent shirked from his judicial duty in failing to

solemnize marriages raffled to him on account of his unexcused
absences. This constitutes violation of Supreme Court rules,
directives, and circulars.

2. Respondent is administratively liable for gross misconduct.

There is substantial evidence that he attempted to bribe Exec.
Judge Paradeza to influence the outcome of the case of People
v. Terrie.

3. Respondent violated the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the

Phi_li~~ine Judiciary by engaging in conflict-of-interest/
activ1ties.

87
Supra note 84.
88
Id. at 268.
89 Id.
 DECISION 25 A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559
& A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561

4. Respondent is guilty of gross inefficiency and undue delay in

rendering decisions assigned to him.

In sum, respondent is adjudged administratively liable for gross

misconduct, undue delay in rendering decisions, and violation of Supreme
Court rules, directives, and circulars.

In previous administrative cases, the Court imposed the penalty

corresponding to the most serious charge and considered the rest as
aggravating circumstances in accordance with Section 50, Rule 10 of the
Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRA CCS).
However, it is more proper to impose upon respondent separate penalties for
each offense he is adjudged administratively liable. This is pursuant to the
Court's ruling in Boston Finance and Investment Corp. v. Judge Gonzalez, 90
which set forth the following guidelines in the imposition of penalties in
administrative matters involving members of the Bench or court personnel:

(a) Rule 140 of the Rules of Court shall exclusively govern

administrative cases involving judges or justices of the lower
courts. If the respondent judge or justice of the lower court is
found guilty of multiple offenses under Rule 140 of the Rules of
Court, the Court shall impose separate penalties for each violation;
and

(b) The administrative liability of court personnel (who are not judges
or justices of the lower courts) shall be governed by the Code of
Conduct for Court Personnel, which incorporates, among others,
the civil service laws and rules. If the respondent court personnel is
found guilty of multiple administrative offenses, the Court shall
impose the penalty corresponding to the most serious charge, and
the rest shall be considered as aggravating circumstances. 91
(boldface omitted)

While the Court has not had the occasion to apply Boston Finance and
Investment Corp. v. Gonzalez92 in the discipline of judges or justices of the
lower courts, the instant matter presenting the first opportunity to do so, the
Court applied the said case in Re: Complaint Against Mr. Ramdel Rey M De
Leon93 and Office of the Court Administrator v. Laranjo. 94 Specifically, the
Court applied its ruling on the discipline of court personnel by imposing the
penalty for the most serious charge in the said cases and considering the
other charges as aggravating circumstances.
1
90
A. M. No. RTJ-18-2520, October 9, 2018.
91 Id.
92 Id.
93
A.M. No. 2014-16-SC, January 15, 2019.
94
A.M. No. P-18-3859, June 4, 2019.
 DECISION 26 A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559
& A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561

Considering the foregoing, the Court shall impose upon respondent

separate penalties for each count of administrative offense.

Gross misconduct is classified as a serious charge under Section 8,

Rule 140 95 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC.
Section 11 (A) thereof provides that "[i]f the respondent is guilty of a serious
charge, any of the following sanctions may be imposed:

1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits

as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement
or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or
controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of
benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits;

2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more
than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months[;] or

3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00." 96

On the other hand, under Section 9, Rule 14097 of the Rules of Court,
as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, the offenses "undue delay in
rendering decisions" and "violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and
circulars" are classified as less serious charges. Thus, respondent may be
imposed with any of the following sanctions for each of the said less serious
charges:

l. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not
less than one ( 1) nor more than three (3) months; or

2. A fine of more than PI0,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00. 98

For his gross misconduct in attempting to bribe Exec. Judge Paradeza

to enter a guilty verdict in the case of People v. Terrie, the Court imposes
upon respondent the penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of all
retirement benefits, except his accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to
re-employment in the government, including government-owned or 0
controlled corporations. /

95
Entitled "Discipline of Judges of Regular and Special Courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the
Sandiganbayan."
96
RULES OF COURT, Rule 140, Sec. 11 (A), as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC.
97
Supra note 95.
98
RULES OF COURT, Rule 140, Sec. 11 (B), as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC.
 DECISION 27 A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559
& A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561

Considering that the Court has already dismissed respondent, the

penalty of suspension from office without salary and other benefits is no
longer possible. Hence, the penalty of fine is more appropriate in the case of
his three less serious charges. 99 The Court, thus, imposes on respondent a
fine of Twelve Thousand Pesos (P12,000.00) each for (1) undue delay in
rendering a decision in the cases assigned to him, (2) violation of the
Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars due to his act of shirking from
judicial duty, and (3) violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary by engaging in conflict-of-interest activities.

On a last note, the Court takes this opportunity to remind all members
of the Bench to conduct themselves in a manner beyond reproach.
Appointment to the Bench is a privilege, which requires, among other
virtues, moral uprightness, integrity, independence, and impartiality. Judges
are behooved to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with these ideals,
lest public confidence in the judiciary as an institution erodes. The Court
will not hesitate to discipline members of the Bench upon their failure to
meet these exacting standards, as it does in the instant case.

WHEREFORE, respondent JUDGE NORMAN V. PAMINTUAN,

Presiding Judge of Branch 73, Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City,
Zambales, is hereby found GUILTY of gross misconduct, undue delay in
rendering decisions, and violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and
circulars.

He is DISMISSED from the service effective immediately, with

forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with
prejudice to re-employment in any branch or agency of the government,
including government-owned or controlled corporations, for his gross
misconduct.

Respondent is FINED P12,000.00 for his act of shirking from judicial

duty by failing to solemnize marriages raffled to him on account of his
unexcused absences. He is further FINED another P12,000.00 for his
violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.
Both acts are considered as violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and
circulars. Lastly, he is FINED P12,000.00 for his undue delay in rendering a
decision.

SO ORDERED.
I
99
See National Power Corp. v. Judge Adiong, 670 Phil. 21, 35 (2011 ).
 DECISION 28 A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559
& A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice

ESTELA M~~RNABE
Associate Justice

Associate Justice

ANDREskf.trvES, JR.
Asso~~;/[J ustice

~- ~/
SE C. RE.XE~JR. ~~·
RAM6iiiiL.HERNANDO
Associate Justice Associate Justice

~~·· 1JL-
Associate Justice
AM~ t'7,AZARO-JA VIER
Associate Justice

(No part)
HENRI JEAN PAUL B. INTING
Associate Justice