A.M. no.

RTJ-05-1920

Concerned trial lawyers of Manila vs. Judge Veneracio

Facts:

- Under A.M. no. RTJ-05-1920, the letter contained allegations of

misconduct and tardiness against respondent. They assail that
respondent reluctantly granted petitions for the declaration of
nullity of marriage despite their alleged merit. He would lecture
in open court that the declaration of nullity is not the proper
remedy. He would also embarrass lawyers by emphasizing
mistakes on legal technicalities, preventing them to present
evidence in favor of their clients and also, he would let them read
verses from the Bible and interpret the same. Also, he would
castigate them for failure to give the interpretation he wanted
and the fact that a number of declaration of nullity cases were
withdrawn prove such claim.
- The letter was referred to Judge Salvador, the executive judge of
Manila RTC, for discreet investigation. He required Judge
Veneracio to comment on the allegations. However, she thought
that a discreet investigation is unnecessary since it is already
well-known that respondent encouraged litigants to read verses
from the bible and also verified that 27 cases of declaration of
nullity were withdrawn, all handled by a certain Atty. Rizalino
Simbillo.
- Respondent denied the allegations and said that from the time he
was designated as presiding judge of branch 47, not more than 2
cases were dismissed for lack of merit. He maintains that the
complainant was only representing himself, not of the concerned
group.
Issue:
Is judge Veneracio liable for misconduct and tardiness?
Held:
No. Sec. 1, canon 5 states that “Judges shall be aware of, and
understand, diversity in society and differences arising from various
sources, including but not limited to race, color, sex, religion, national
origin, caste, disability, age, marital status, sexual orientation, social
and economic status and other like causes.”
In this case, the letters sent from the litigants belie the claim that
Judge Veneracio inappropriately expressed his beliefs and convictions
to the point of embarrassing the counsels in his court. Also, there was
no compulsion involved whenever he questions the litigants if they
read the bible or not. Outpouring of kind words is not mere
exaggeration. They were sincerely extended by persons previously lost
but found their way in life through respondent’s guidance. Also, this is
an opportunity for the judges that their actions in court should always
be seen by the public as guided by the law and not by personal belief.
As to the alleged tardiness, complainant failed to support the
allegation since he has an explanation for the delay in A.M. no. RTJ-01-
1623.