Prosec.

Hernandez Et al vs Judge Soluren

am no rtj-12-2333, Oct. 22, 2012

FACTS
Complainants aver that on June 20 and 22, 2011 and July 19, 2011, Judge Soluren went to the Aurora Provincial Jail
and conferred with the inmates including those who had pending cases before her sala. This was in contravention
of Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Circular No. 03- 2010, dated January 12, 2010, which suspended the
conduct of jail visitation and inspection by Executive Judges and Presiding Judges pending results of the re-
examination of the provisions of A.M. No. 07-3-02-SC.
According to complainants, the purpose of Judge Soluren’s visit was to persuade the prisoners into signing a letter
addressed to then Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, calling for the dismissal of the administrative complaint filed
against her by Atty. Juliet M. Isidro-Reyes, District Public Attorney, Baler, Aurora, and for the removal of Judge
Evelyn Atienza-Turla as Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 6, Baler, Aurora.

ISSUE:
WON Respondent is guilty

HELD:
Judge Soluren opened herself to charges of impropriety when she went to the Aurora Provincial Jail to solicit the
sympathies and signatures of the prisoners, especially those who had pending cases in her sala.
This Court has consistently enjoined judges to avoid not just impropriety in their conduct but even the mere
appearance of impropriety because the appearance of bias or prejudice can be damaging as actual bias or
prejudice to the public's confidence on the Judiciary's role in tile administration of justice. To say the least, using
detention prisoners who had cases before Judge Soluren cannot be countenanced.

the Court finds retired Judge Corazon D. Soluren, Regional Trial Court, Branch 96, Baler, Aurora, GUlLTV of SIMPLE
MISCONDUCT and imposes upon her the penalty of FINE in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (PI0,000.00) to be
deducted from her retirement/gratuity benefits.
Re: Anonymous Letter- dated August 12, 2010, complaining against Judge Ofelia T. Pinto, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 60, Angeles City, Pampanga

A.M. No. RTJ-11-2289, Oct 2, 2012

FACTS:

An anonymous letter-complaint dated August 12, 2010 was filed before the Office of the Comi Administrator (DCA)
against Judge Ofelia T. Pinto, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 60, Angeles City, Pampanga. Judge
Pinto was charged with dishonesty, violation of the Anti-

Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Gross Misconduct in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and knowingly
rendering an unjust judgment in connection with the reopening of a criminal case whose decision was already
final and executory and subject of an entry of judgment in the Court of Appeals (CA) . The anonymous letter-
complaint narrated that despite the finality of the decision in Criminal Case No. 91-937, Judge Pinto granted the
motion filed by the convicted accused (at large) to reopen the case and to adduce evidence in his behalf.

ISSUE:
WON respondent is guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law ad Procedure
HELD:
There is gross ignorance of the law when an error committed by the judge was “gross or patent, deliberate or
malicious.”10 It may also be committed when a judge ignores, contradicts or fails to apply settled law and
jurisprudence because of bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption.11 Gross ignorance of the law or incompetence
cannot be excused by a claim of good faith
Judge Pinto's continued failure to live up to the exacting standards of her office is clear. Her escalating violations,
taken collectively, raise the question of her competency in continuing to perform the functions of a magistrate.

Bearing this in mind and the warnings she earlier received from the Court, we find the imposition o f the supreme
penalty o f dismissal from the service justified.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Judge Ofelia T. Pinto, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 60,
Angeles City, Pampanga, is found GUlLTY of Gross Ignorance of the Law and is hereby DISMISSED FROM THE
SERVICE, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-
employment in any branch, agency or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or
controlled corporations.
 
UY vs. JAVELLANA 
  A.M. No. MTJ-07-1666  5 September 2012 
TOPIC: 
Uniform Procedure in Trial Courts/Summary Procedure 
FACTS: 
This administrative case arose from a verified complaint for "gross ignorance of the law and  procedures,
gross incompetence, neglect of duty, conduct improper and unbecoming of a judge, grave misconduct and others,"
filed by Public Attorneys Uy and Bascug of PAO against Presiding Judge Javellana of the Municipal Trial Court, La
Castellana, Negros Occidental. 
COMPLAINT ALLEGATIONS 
JAVELLANA’S DEFENSE
 
In 
People vs. Cornelio   , a case for malicious mischief, Judge Javellana issued a warrant of arrest after the filing of
a certain criminal case despite Section 16 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure the necessity of holding the
accused in detention became evident when it was revealed during trial that the same accused were wanted for
Attempted Homicide in another case. In People vs. Lopez   , a case for Malicious Mischief, Judge Javellana did not
apply the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure and, instead, conducted a  preliminary examination and
preliminary investigation in accordance with the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, then set the case for
arraignment and  pre-trial, despite confirming that therein complainant and her witnesses had no  personal
knowledge of the material facts alleged in their affidavits, which should have been a ground for dismissal of
said case. Judge Javellana reiterated that a motion to dismiss is a prohibited pleading under the Revised Rule on
Summary Procedure and added that he could not dismiss the case outright since the prosecution has not yet fully
presented its evidence. In another case for trespass to dwelling, Judge Javellana did not grant the motion to
dismiss for non-compliance with the Lupon requirement under Sections 18 and 19(a) of the Revised Rule
on Summary Procedure the Lupong Tagapamayapa was not a  jurisdictional requirement and the Motion to
Dismiss on said ground was a  prohibited pleading under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. 

ISSUE: 
Whether or not Judge Javellana was grossly ignorant of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. 

HELD: 
YES. Without any showing that the accused in People v. Cornelio and People v. Lopez, et al. were  charged with the
special cases of malicious mischief particularly described in Article 328 of the Revised Penal Code the appropriate
penalty for the accused would be arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods which under Article 329(a) of
the Revised Penal Code, would be imprisonment for two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) months. Clearly,
these two cases should be governed by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. 
Judge Javellana’s issuance of a Warrant of Arrest for the accused in People v. Cornelio is in violation 
of Section 16 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, categorically stating that "the court  shall not order the
arrest of the accused except for failure to appear whenever required."
 
GACAD VS. JUDGE CLAPIS JR., AM NO. RTJ-10-2257, JULY 17, 2012. 

FACTS: 
Petitioner filed a Verified Complaint against Judge Clapis for Grave Misconduct and Corrupt Practices, Grave Abuse
of Discretion, Gross Ignorance of the Law, and violations of Canon 1 (Rule 1.01, 1.02), Canon 2 (Rule 2.01),
and Canon 3 (Rule 3.05) of the Code of Judicial Conduct relative to a criminal case. Petitioner alleged that she met
Judge Clapis at the Golden Palace Hotel in Tagum City to talk about the case of her brother. The prosecutor of the
said case, Graciano Arafol, informed the petitioner that the Judge will do everything for her favor but on the
pretext that in return she has to give P50,000.00 to the Judge. During the meeting, the Judge,  after being satisfied
of the promise of the petitioner for that amount, told her "Sige, kay ako na bahala, gamuson nato ni sila." (Okay,
leave it all to me, we shall crush them.) When the case was set on hearing, the Notices of Hearings were mailed to
the petitioner only after the date of hearing. Judge Clapis started conducting the bail hearings without an
application for bail and granting the same without affording the prosecution the opportunity to prove that the guilt
of the accused is strong. He set a preliminary conference seven months from the date it was set, patently contrary
to his declaration of speedy trial for the case. However, the judge claimed that notices were made verbally because
of time constraints. Nevertheless, he stressed that both sides were given the opportunity to be heard since in
almost all proceedings, petitioner was in court and the orders were done in open court. He admitted that his
personnel inadvertently scheduled the preliminary conference of the case. 

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent Judge is guilty of the charges. 

HELD: YES. Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of
behavior in 
connection with one’s performance of official functions and duties. For grave or gross misconduct to exist, the
judicial act complained of should be corrupt or inspired by the intention to violate the law, or a persistent
disregard of well-known rules. The misconduct must imply wrongful intention and not a mere error of
judgment. The acts of Judge Clapis in meeting the petitioner, a litigant in a case pending before his sala and telling
those words, constitute gross misconduct. Judge Clapis’ wrongful intention and lack of judicial reasoning are made
overt by the circumstances on record. Judge Clapis cannot escape liability by shifting the blame to his court
personnel. He ought to know that judges are ultimately responsible for order and efficiency in their courts, and the
subordinates are not the 
guardians of the judge’s responsibility.

 The arbitrary actions of respondent judge, taken together, give doubt as to his impartiality, integrity and
propriety. His acts amount to gross misconduct constituting violations of the New Code of Judicial Conduct,
particularly: Canon 2, Section 1 and 2; Canon 3, Section 2 and 4; and Canon 4, Section 1. We also find Judge Clapis
liable for gross ignorance of the law for conducting bail hearings without a petition for bail being filed by the
accused and without affording the prosecution an opportunity to prove that the guilt of the accused is strong.
Here, the act of Judge Clapis is not a mere deficiency in prudence, discretion and judgment but a  patent disregard
of well-known rules. When an error is so gross and patent, such error produces an inference of bad  faith, making
the judge liable for gross ignorance of the law. If judges are allowed to wantonly misuse the powers vested in them
by the law, there will not only be confusion in the administration of justice but also oppressive disregard of
the basic requirements of due process.