Issue 22-6

June 2022

JUDGES
• Conduct unbecoming of a judge
After a careful study of the case, the Court adopts the findings of the OCA, but modifies the
penalties to be imposed against respondent judge.

The Court has often reminded judges to always conduct themselves irreproachably and
in a manner exemplifying integrity, honesty, and uprightness, not only in the discharge of their
official duties, but also in their personal lives. In other words, “[t]heir conduct must be guided
by strict propriety and decorum at all times in order to merit and maintain the public’s respect
for and trust in the Judiciary.”

xxxx

The Court agrees with the OCA that respondent judge had breached his duty to avoid
impropriety, or even just the appearance of impropriety, when he posted the subject pictures
showing his half-dressed body and tattooed torso on his Facebook account that eventually
became readily accessible to the general public.

xxxx

The Court clarifies that the impropriety in this case relates solely on respondent judge’s
act of posting the subject pictures on social media, and it has absolutely nothing to do with his
choice to have tattoos on his body. Simply put, by posting the pictures on Facebook,
respondent judge placed himself in a situation where he, and the status he holds as a sitting
judge, became the object of the public’s criticism and ridicule. This is easily evinced by the very
fact that an anonymous person saw fit to send the pictures to the OCA for appropriate
disciplinary action.

xxxx

It is elementary that the exclusionary rule under Section 3(2), Article III of the
Constitution only applies as a restraint against the State and cannot be extended to acts
committed by private individuals, save for instances where such individuals are shown to have
acted under the color of a state-related function. Clearly, the exclusionary rule finds no
application in the case because the State was in no way involved in the retrieval of the subject
pictures from respondent judge’s Facebook account.

Moreover, the OCA is correct that respondent judge cannot simply evade administrative
liability by relying on the “friends” only privacy setting of his Facebook account as a defense.

Issue 22-6|June 2022 Page 1 of 5

 xxxx

Here, respondent judge already admitted that he had a “sizeable” number of Facebook
friends who can access his daily posts, including the subject pictures, and even share content on
his account profile page. As a matter of fact, it appears that respondent judge had allowed a
certain AAA to share his pictures on his Facebook account, which content could be viewed not
only by respondent judge’s Facebook friends, but also, by the Facebook friends of AAA or by the
public, depending on the latter’s privacy setting.

xxxx

The Court is not unaware that respondent judge’s act of posting the subject pictures on
his Facebook account would no doubt seem harmless and inoffensive if it was done by an
ordinary member of the public. “As the visible personification of law and justice, however,
judges are held to higher standards of conduct and thus must accordingly comport
themselves.”

By doing so, respondent judge likewise failed to adhere to the standard of propriety
required of judges and court personnel under OCA Circular No. 173-2017, which mandates all
members of the Judiciary who participate in social media to be cautious and circumspect in
posting photographs, liking posts, and making comments in public on social networking sites
like Facebook. Indeed, respondent judge should have known better than to post highly personal
content on his Facebook account that was viewable not only by his family and close friends, but
also, by his “regular followers” or, in other words, members of the general public.

xxxx

With the emergence of various social media platforms through the years since the
Lorenzana ruling came out in 2014, the Court once again reminds judges to be mindful of what
they communicate in social networking sites—regardless of whether it is a personal matter or a
part of his or her judicial functions—as such content indubitably creates and contributes to the
public’s perception not only of the concerned judges, but, more importantly, of the Judiciary as
a whole. [A.M. No. RTJ-21-018 (Formerly A.M. No. 20-07-109-RTC), September 29, 2021]
<https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/26922/>

• Gross inefficiency and dishonesty

No less than Section 15(1), Article VIII of the Constitution decrees lower courts to decide or
resolve cases or matters for decision or resolution within three months from date of
submission. In consonance thereto, Section 5 of Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct
requires judges to perform all judicial duties efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.
Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct also states that a judge should promptly
dispose of the court’s business and decide cases within the required periods. Judges are to be
held at a higher standard in the performance of their duties, and the failure to fulfill this duty
would not only violate every litigant’s constitutional right to the speedy disposition of cases but
will also hold the erring judge administratively liable for the offense. Under Section 23, Rule
140, undue delay in rendering a decision or order is a less serious charge punishable by either
suspension from office without salary or benefits, or a fine.

Based on the audit conducted by the OCA, respondent judge had a total of 66
unresolved cases, which were already submitted for decision before his court. The unresolved
cases consist of 43 criminal cases and 23 civil cases that were already beyond the reglementary
period to decide. The delay in some of the cases ran for at least three years at the time of audit.

Issue 22-6|June 2022 Page 2 of 5

These facts were not denied nor sufficiently explained by respondent [judge] as the cases have
been submitted for decision even before the typhoon Yolanda hit x x x. Further, respondent
[judge] falsely stated in his monthly certificates of service for the months of March 2014 to
January 2015 that he has “decided and resolved all incidents within three months from the date
of submission pursuant to Section 15(1) and (2) Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.” Such
certifications were misleading since there were unresolved cases as reflected in the monthly
reports of cases covering the same period.

Accordingly, respondent judge should be held administratively liable for his lapses.
Indeed, the failure of a judge to decide a case within the required period is not excusable and
constitutes gross inefficiency. Non-observance of said rule is a ground for administrative
sanction against the defaulting judge. Moreover, dishonesty is deemed a serious charge,
punishable by: (a) the ultimate penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all or part
of retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from
reemployment in the government service; (b) suspension from office without salary and other
benefits for more than three but not exceeding six months; or (c) a fine of more than
PhP100,000 but not exceeding PhP200,000. [A.M. No. RTJ-15-2432 (Formerly A.M. No. 15-06-
195-RTC), October 6, 2021] <https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/26571/>

• Grave misconduct and gross ignorance of the law

The crux of the controversy is the subject Decision dated March 14, 2008 rendered by Judge A
in LRC Case No. TG-07-1XXX that he attested to be authentic and genuine. In turn, he blamed
respondents clerk of court, legal researcher/officer in charge, court stenographer and clerk for
the removal of Decision dated March 14, 2008 and respondent clerk of court’s alleged
Certificate of Finality from the records of LRC Case No. TG-07-1XXX. Respondents clerk of court,
legal researcher/officer in charge, court stenographer and clerk, on the other hand, faulted
Judge A for rendering a decision when the case, i.e. LRC Case No. TG-07-1XXX, was not yet
submitted for decision as the party had not yet presented her evidence when the subject
decision was issued on March 14, 2008.

As between these two versions, there is overwhelming evidence to disprove Judge A’s
accusations against respondents clerk of court, legal researcher/officer in charge, court
stenographer and clerk and his claim of authenticity and immutability of Decision dated March
14, 2008.

As correctly observed by [the] investigating justice, LRC Case No. TG-07-1XXX was not
yet submitted for decision when Judge A issued the March 14, 2008 Decision as the records are
bereft of any order which considered the case ripe for determination. In fact, the records reveal
that after the subject Decision was rendered on March 14, 2008, Judge A himself issued several
Orders, i.e. March 28, 2008, June 20, 2008 and August 22, 2008, setting the case for hearing on
June 20, 2008, August 22, 2008 and October 3, 2008, respectively, for failure of [plaintiff] CCC
and her counsel to appear and present evidence.

Thus, when Judge B assumed her duties as Acting Presiding Judge of RTC, X City, Branch
Y, she fittingly issued an Order dated October 3, 2008 resetting LRC Case No. TG-07-1XXX for
another hearing on November 21, 2008 for failure of CCC and her counsel to appear.
Respondents clerk of court, legal researcher/officer in charge, court stenographer and clerk
could not have deceived [Acting Presiding] Judge B into believing that LRC Case No. TG-07-1XXX
was still pending for the determination of the court as the case records patently show Judge A’s
Orders dated March 28, 2008, June 20, 2008 and August 22, 2008 setting the case for hearing
on June 20, 2008, August 22, 2008 and October 3, 2008, respectively. Thus, respondent court
stenographer’s Certification dated March 12, 2010 stating that LRC Case No. TG-07-1XXX was

Issue 22-6|June 2022 Page 3 of 5

still pending at that time was surely not issued in bad faith, or in wanton disregard of rules and
serious negligence, or to influence Acting Presiding Judge B to ultimately issue Order dated May
28,2010 dismissing LRC Case No. TG-07-1XXX.

Also, it is highly questionable for Judge A to render Decision dated March 14, 2008
granting CCC’s petition for issuance of new owner’s copies of TCT Nos. (T-968XXX) 6XXX and (T-
968YYY) 6YYY when he himself issued and signed several Orders resetting the case for hearing
for CCC’s presentation of evidence. As culled from the records of LRC Case No. TG-07-1XXX,
prior to the issuance of the Decision dated March 14, 2008, the last Order dated February 22,
2008 issued by Judge A was a resetting of hearing on March 28, 2008. No other order was
issued stating that the case was already submitted for decision. It is therefore highly irregular
for a judge to attest to the veracity and authenticity of a decision when the same was not even
supported by the records of LRC Case No. TG-07-1XXX. Indeed, respondents clerk of court, legal
researcher/officer-in-charge, court stenographer and clerk could not have removed or
concealed Decision dated March 14, 2008 and Certificate of Finality dated April 18, 2008 when
they were not even part of the records of LRC Case No. TG-07-1XXX in the first place.

We also agree with the findings of the OCA as to the irregularities in the issuance of
Decision dated March 14, 2008 and Certificate of Finality, such as: (a) the absence of a header
which contains the case number and page number contrary to the court’s format; (b) the initial
“EGL/ddm” which appeared on the lower left part of the second and last page of the decision
does not correspond to any court employee; (c) no formal offer of evidence was attached to the
records of LRC Case No. TG-07-1XXX in contrast with the exhibits referred to in the body of the
decision; and (d) the dates of the proceedings stated and cited in the body of the decision do
not correspond to the records of LRC Case No. TG-07-1XXX.

In view of the foregoing, we rule that Judge A is liable for [g]rave [m]isconduct and
[g]ross [i]gnorance of the [l]aw in rendering Decision dated March 14, 2008 without any factual
and legal basis. x x x

xxxx

Administrative Circular No. 28-89 states that a case is considered submitted for decision
upon admission of the evidence of the parties at the termination of the trial. Patently, CCC had
not yet presented her evidence in support of her petition for issuance of new owner’s copies of
TCT Nos. (T-968XXX) 6XXX and (T-968YYY) 6YYY as borne by her repeated failure to appear on
the several hearings of LRC Case No. TG-07-1XXX. Thus, Judge A erroneously and blatantly
disregarded established rules when he issued Decision dated March 14, 2008 prematurely
when no evidence was presented at all to support the granting of CCC’s petition. Also, Judge A
contradicted himself when he issued Orders dated March 28, 2008, June 20, 2008 and August
22, 2008 setting the case for hearing on June 20, 2008, August 22, 2008 and October 3, 2008,
respectively, after issuing Decision dated March 14, 2008.

If indeed LRC Case No. TG-07-1XXX has already been decided and the Decision dated
March 14, 2008 has become final, there is no reason for Judge A to issue several orders to set
the case for hearing. Clearly, the only logical conclusion is that Judge A committed [g]rave
[m]isconduct and [g]ross [i]gnorance of the [l]aw by insisting on the authenticity and
immutability of a falsified, non-existent, null and void Decision dated March 14, 2008. Judge A
cannot now negate his own admission that he himself rendered Decision dated March 14, 2008
in LRC Case No. TG-07-1XXX when he insisted on its authenticity and thereafter blamed
respondents clerk of court, legal researcher/officer in charge, court stenographer and clerk on
its removal from the records.

Issue 22-6|June 2022 Page 4 of 5

 “A judge is presumed to have acted with regularity and good faith in the performance of
judicial functions. But a blatant disregard of the clear and unmistakable provisions of a statute,
as well as Supreme Court circulars enjoining their strict compliance, upends this presumption
and subjects the magistrate to corresponding administrative sanctions.” As a judge, respondent
judge is expected to know the laws and procedures and to apply them properly in good faith.
Unfamiliarity with the rules is a sign of incompetence. Respondent judge’s insistence on the
validity and authenticity of Decision dated March 14, 2008 despite contradiction with the
records of LRC Case No. TG-07-1XXX displays utter lack of familiarity with the rules and
incompetency. More importantly, Judge A’s act of issuing Decision dated March 14, 2008 in LRC
Case No. TG-07-1XXX constitutes [g]rave [m]isconduct as he deliberately intended to violate the
law and established rules by rendering a falsified decision.

xxxx

As pointed out by OCA, Judge A had been convicted of a less serious charge in A.M. No.
RTJ-08-2XXX dated March 11, 2014 with a penalty of suspension for two months without pay
and was sternly warned that a repetition of similar acts or omissions would be dealt with
severely. In light of his previous infraction and the gravity of the offense, i.e., issuing a falsified
decision, the supreme penalty of dismissal is the proper penalty to be imposed. His act of
issuing a falsified decision raises a serious question on his competence and integrity in the
performance of his function as a magistrate. Thus, to protect and preserve the image and
integrity of the entire judiciary, we are constrained to impose the dismissal in this case.

As regards the charges against respondents clerk of court, legal researcher/officer in

charge, court stenographer and clerk for [s]erious [m]isconduct, [f]alsification of [p]ublic
[d]ocuments, and [s]erious [n]eglect of [d]uty, we find the same totally lacking in merit and
basis. There was absolutely no evidence showing that they committed the infractions imputed
against them. Hence, the complaint against them ought to be dismissed. [A.M. No. RTJ-19-2552
(Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4139-P), December 7, 2021] <https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/26093/>

Issue 22-6|June 2022 Page 5 of 5