A.M. No.

RTJ-07-2062* January 18, 2011

IMELDA R. MARCOS, Complainant,

vs.
JUDGE FERNANDO VIL PAMINTUAN, Respondent.

Facts:

Marcos filed a complaint-affidavit charging Judge Pamintuan with Gross Ignorance of the Law for
reversing motu proprio the final and executory order of then Acting Presiding Judge Reyes. Ten years
later, Judge Pamintuan set the case for hearing purportedly to formally and finally release the Golden
Buddha to its rightful owner. Marcos was one of the subpoenaed parties, being a person with interest in
the case.

Issue/s:

Whether Judge Pamintuan violated the Canon of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.

Held:

Yes.

Section 6, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct provides:

SECTION 6. Judges, like any other citizen, are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and
assembly, but in exercising such rights, they shall always conduct themselves in such manner as to
preserve the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.

Judge Pamintuan indeed made a serious error in making such a pronouncement in the challenged order.

It is axiomatic that when a judgment is final and executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable. It
may no longer be modified in any respect either by the court which rendered it or even by this Court.
The doctrine of immutability and inalterability of a final judgment has a two-fold purpose, to wit: (1) to
avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus, procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of
judicial business; and (2) to put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors, which is
precisely why courts exist. Controversies cannot drag on indefinitely.