||| (Spelmans v. Ocampo, A.M. No.

MTJ-07-1663, [March 26, 2010], 630 PHIL and 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. 7 Since, under
533-539)
Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended, a violation of Supreme Court
rules, directives, and circulars constitutes a less serious charge, punishable either with
This is a case about the improper conduct of an MTC judge who kept properties suspension or fine, the OCA recommended the imposition of a fine of P5,000.00 on
owned by the complainant while conducting a preliminary investigation.
Judge Ocampo with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be
dealt with more severely. 8 TaCDcE
The Facts and the Case
On April 8, 2006 complainant Roland Ernest Marie Jose Spelmans (Spelmans), a The Issue
Belgian, filed before the Office of the Ombudsman, Mindanao, a complaint for The issue in this case is whether or not Judge Ocampo's taking and keeping of the
theft and graft and corruption against respondent Municipal Trial Court (MTC) personal items belonging to Spelmans but supposedly given to him by the latter's wife
Judge Gaydifredo Ocampo (Judge Ocampo) of Polomolok, South Cotabato. 1
for safekeeping constitutes a violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.
Spelmans alleged in his affidavit that in 2002 his wife, Annalyn Villan (Villan), filed
a complaint for theft against Joelito Rencio (Rencio) and his wife from whom
Spelmans rented a house in Polomolok, South Cotabato. Spelmans claimed,
however, that this complaint was but his wife's scheme for taking out his personal
properties from that house. In the course of the investigation of the complaint,
Judge Ocampo, together with the parties, held an ocular inspection of that rented
house and another one where Spelmans kept some of the personal belongings
of his late mother.
During the ocular inspection, Judge Ocampo allegedly took pieces of antique,
including a marble bust of Spelmans' mother, a flower pot, a statue, and a copper
scale of justice. A week later, Judge Ocampo went back and further took six
Oakwood chairs and its table, four gold champagne glasses, and a deer horn
chandelier. 2 In the meantime, the Bureau of Immigration happened to detain
Spelmans in Manila and let him free only on January 28, 2003. 3 ADCSEa

The Court's Ruling

The evidence of Spelmans is that his wife, Villan, made it appear that she filed a
complaint for theft against Rencio, the lessor or caretaker of the rented house, before
Judge Ocampo's court but that this was a mere ploy. Her true purpose was to get certain
properties belonging to Spelmans from that house. During the preliminary investigation
of the case, Judge Ocampo held an ocular inspection of the house and another one that
also belonged to Spelmans and took some of the personal properties from these places.
On the other hand, Judge Ocampo insists that Villan gave him the personal items
mentioned by Spelmans for safekeeping before she filed in his court the complaint for
theft against Rencio. This did not influence him, however, since he eventually ordered
the dismissal of that complaint. But this explanation is quite unsatisfactory.

First. Judge Ocampo did not explain why, of all people in Polomolok, South Cotabato,
Spelmans' wife, Villan, would entrust to him, a municipal judge, certain personal items
for safekeeping. This is essentially suspect because she would subsequently file,
The Ombudsman, Mindanao, referred Spelmans' complaint against Judge according to Judge Ocampo, a case of theft of personal items that Rencio supposedly
Ocampo to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). In his comment of August took from Spelmans' houses. CaESTA
8, 2006 4 Judge Ocampo denied the charge, pointing out that Spelmans' wife,
Villan (the complainant in that theft case), gave him certain household items for Second. Judge Ocampo does not deny that he conducted an ocular inspection of the
safekeeping before she filed the case of theft against Rencio. On August 28, houses that Spelmans used in Polomolok. But the purpose of this ocular inspection is
2002, however, after conducting a preliminary investigation in the case, Judge suspect. Judge Ocampo did not explain what justified it. The charge was not robbery
Ocampo dismissed Villan's complaint.
where he might have an interest in personally looking at where and how the break-in
took place. It was a case of theft where it would be sufficient for the complainant to
Only in 2006, according to Judge Ocampo, when he received a copy of simply state in her complaint-affidavit where the alleged theft took place.
Spelmans' complaint for grave misconduct did he learn of the couple's separation
and his unwitting part in their legal battles. As a last note, Judge Ocampo said Third. If Judge Ocampo received the pieces of antique from Villan for safekeeping, this
that instead of hurling baseless accusations at him, Spelmans should have meant that a relation of trust existed between them. Consequently, Judge Ocampo had
thanked him because he kept his personal properties in good condition.
every reason to inhibit himself from the case from the beginning. He of course claims
that he dismissed the case against Rencio eventually but this is no excuse since his
In a supplemental complaint dated August 30, 2006 5 Spelmans further alleged ruling could have gone the other way. Besides, Spelmans claims that the complaint was
that Judge Ocampo requested him to sign an affidavit which cleared the Judge just a scheme to enable Villan to steal his personal properties from the two houses. This
and prayed for the dismissal of the administrative complaint. 6
claim seems believable given the above circumstances.
On October 17, 2006 OCA found Judge Ocampo guilty of committing acts of Fourth. By his admission, Judge Ocampo returned the items only after four years when
impropriety and maintaining close affinity with a litigant in violation of Canons 1 Spelmans already filed a complaint against him. He makes no claim that he made a

previous effort to return those supposedly entrusted items either to Villan or to The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) required the respondent judge to comment
Spelmans. His years of possession obviously went beyond mere safekeeping.
on the complaint. In her comment, 2 the respondent judge maintained that she had
rendered the decision on March 22, 2005, although it was mailed on a later date. Even
For the above reasons, the OCA erred in regarding Judge Ocampo's offense as assuming that there was delay in rendering the decision, the delay was not deliberate.
falling merely under Section 11 (B), in relation to Section 9 (4) of Rule 140, as She added that the complainant was not prejudiced by the delay as she continuously
amended, which is a less serious charge of violation of Supreme Court rules, received support pendente lite from the defendant.
punishable by either suspension from office without salary and other benefits for
not less than one nor more than three months or a fine of more than P10,000.00 The respondent judge likewise explained that the orders she issued after March 22,
but not exceeding P20,000.00. 9 On the other hand, impropriety is treated as a 2005 did not touch on the merits of the case; they were orders directing the release of
light charge and is punishable by a fine of not less than P1,000.00 but not money deposited by the defendant as support pendente lite. According to her, she
exceeding P10,000.00 or by censure, reprimand, or admonition with warning. 10 denied the complainant's notice of appeal because Section 1, Rule 41 of the Revised
Rules of Court provides that no appeal may be taken from an order dismissing an action
Respondent judge should be made accountable for gross misconduct 11 without prejudice. Finally, she explained that her dismissal of the subject civil case and
constituting violations of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically Section 6 the denial of the notice of appeal are not the proper subjects of an administrative case
of Canon 1, 12 Section 1 of Canon 2, 13 and Section 1 of Canon 4. 14 From the as they are acts pertaining to her judicial functions. cADaIH
circumstances, his acts were motivated by malice. 15 He was not a
warehouseman for personal properties of litigants in his court. He certainly would In her reply, 3 complainant maintained that the respondent judge violated the 90-day
have kept Spelmans' properties had the latter not filed a complaint against him. reglementary period for rendering decisions. She also revealed that the respondent
He was guilty of covetousness. It affected the performance of his duties as an judge made her sign a complaint against a Public Attorneys Office lawyer, to force the
officer of the court 16 and tainted the judiciary's integrity. He should be punished said lawyer to stay in her (respondent judge's) sala.
accordingly.
The OCA, in its Report 4 dated April 18, 2006, recommended that the respondent judge
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Judge Gaydifredo Ocampo GUILTY of be fined in the amount of P10,000.00 for undue delay in rendering a decision, with a
gross misconduct and IMPOSES on him the penalty of SUSPENSION from office stern warning that a commission of similar acts in the future will be dealt with more
without salary and other benefits for six (6) months. 17 He is STERNLY severely.
WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more
severely. cAIDEa
THE COURT'S RULING
We agree with the finding of the OCA that the respondent judge is guilty of undue delay
||| (Edao v. Asdala, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2007, [December 6, 2010], 651 PHIL 183- in rendering a decision. Section 15, Article VIII of the Constitution requires judges to
189)
decide all cases within three (3) months from the date of submission. This Constitutional
policy is reiterated in Rule 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which states
We resolve in this Decision the administrative complaint for violation of the Code that a judge should administer justice impartially and without delay; and Rule 3.05,
of Judicial Ethics, misconduct, rendering an erroneous decision, and rendering a Canon 3 of the same Code provides that a judge shall dispose of the court's business
decision beyond the 90-day reglementary period filed by Carmen Edao promptly and decide cases within the required periods.
(complainant) against Judge Fatima G. Asdala (respondent judge).
In Office of the Court Administrator v. Garcia-Blanco, 5 the Court held that the 90-day
In her letter-complaint, 1 the complainant alleged that she was the plaintiff in a period is mandatory. Failure to decide cases within the reglementary period constitutes a
civil case for Support with prayer for Support Pendente Lite (Civil Case No. Q-97- ground for administrative liability except when there are valid reasons for the delay. We
30576), entitled "Carlo Edao and Jay-ar Edao, represented by Carmen Edano explained the raison d'etre behind the rule on mandatory compliance with the
v. George F. Butler," pending before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 87, Quezon constitutionally prescribed periods in Office of the Court Administrator v. Reyes: 6
City, presided over by the respondent judge.
The honor and integrity of the judiciary is measured not only by the fairness and
The complainant claimed that the respondent judge made it appear that Civil correctness of the decisions rendered, but also by the efficiency with which disputes are
Case No. Q-97-30576 was decided on March 22, 2005, although the records resolved. Thus, judges must perform their official duties with utmost diligence if public
show that she (respondent judge) still ruled on several motions relating to this confidence in the judiciary is to be preserved. There is no excuse for mediocrity in the
case even after that date. The complainant further alleged that the respondent performance of judicial functions. The position of judge exacts nothing less than faithful
judge erred in denying her notice of appeal.
observance of the law and the Constitution in the discharge of official duties.

In the present case, Civil Case No. Q-97-30576 had been submitted for decision
on December 9, 2004; the decision was, therefore, due on March 9, 2005. The
records do not show that the respondent judge asked for an extension to decide
this case. Thus, when she decided the case on March 22, 2005, the 90-day
reglementary period had already lapsed. The respondent judge's explanation that
the complainant was not prejudiced by the delay is immaterial, as it is her
constitutional duty to decide the case within three months from the date of
submission.

sanctioned. To hold, otherwise, would be to render judicial office untenable, for no one
called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can
be infallible in his judgment.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Judge Fatima G. Asdala is hereby found GUILTY
of undue delay in rendering a decision. Accordingly, she is FINED Ten Thousand Pesos
(P10,000.00), to be deducted from the Eighty Thousand Pesos (P80,000.00) which the
Court withheld pursuant to its January 15, 2008 Resolution.

Under Rule 140, Section 9 (1) of the Rules of Court, 7 as amended by SO ORDERED. CaATDE
Administrative Matter No. 01-8-10-SC, 8 the respondent judge's undue delay in
rendering a decision is classified as a less serious offense. It is punishable by
suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one
month nor more than three months or a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not
exceeding P20,000.00. The OCA's recommendation of P10,000.00 fine is,
therefore, in order. CAIaHS
We point out that the respondent judge, in Edao v. Asdala, 9 had been
dismissed from the service, with forfeiture of all salaries, benefits and leave
credits to which she may be entitled. The Court, in its resolution of September 11,
2007, modified the dispositive portion of this decision and exempted from
forfeiture her accrued leave credits. The Court, in another Resolution dated
January 15, 2008, directed the Financial Management Office to release and pay
the money value of the accrued leave credits of Judge Fatima G. Asdala, subject
to the retention of P80,000.00. In light of these considerations, we thus deduct
the P10,000.00 fine, imposed in this case, from the P80,000.00 which this Court
withheld, pursuant to our January 15, 2008 Resolution.
Other Charges
The Court agrees with the OCA that the complainant's charges of misconduct
and rendering an erroneous decision have no leg to stand on. The respondent
judge's dismissal of the civil case for Support and her denial of the notice of
appeal were done in the discharge of her judicial functions. Time and again, we
have ruled that the acts of a judge, pertaining to his judicial functions, are not
subject to disciplinary action, unless they are tainted with fraud, dishonesty,
corruption or bad faith. 10 As we explained in Jabon v. Usman: 11
It must be stressed that an administrative complaint is not an appropriate remedy
where judicial recourse is still available, such as a motion for reconsideration, an
appeal, or a petition for certiorari, unless the assailed order or decision is tainted
with fraud, malice, or dishonesty. The remedy of the aggrieved party is to elevate
the assailed decision or order to the higher court for review and correction. Thus,
disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions against magistrates do not
complement, supplement or substitute judicial remedies, whether ordinary or
extraordinary. An inquiry into their civil, criminal and/or administrative liability may
be made only after the available remedies have been exhausted and decided
with finality. In fine, only judicial errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross
ignorance, bad faith, or deliberate intent to do an injustice will be administratively