Issue 21-7

July 2021

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE (SANDIGANBAYAN)

• Judicial clemency ‒ when warranted
x x x This Court lifts and modifies penalties if there are intervening factors that merit mitigation.
Penalties “are imposed not to punish but to correct offenders.” Thus, when an errant officer
“demonstrates [their] sincere repentance and remorse for the wrong [they] committed” and
the penalty imposed has already served its purpose, judicial clemency is warranted. [A.M. No.
SB-14-21-J, January 19, 2021] https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/19661/

JUDGES
• Impropriety and violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct
In the case at bar, there is sufficient basis to find respondent judge guilty of impropriety for
sending the parties’ respective counsels his text message supposedly explaining his judgment. It
was certainly unnecessary for respondent [j]udge to elaborate on the rationale for his
disposition because his promulgated judgment should already speak for itself. Respondent
[j]udge’s supposed intent to discourage the parties from appealing cannot justify his text
message to their lawyers because his judgment itself had already included such a discussion on
this matter.

x x x It is of no moment that he sent his message after the decision was promulgated
because the termination of the case will not preclude public criticism for acts which may render
the disposition of a case suspect. [A.M. No. RTJ-20-2600 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-4952-RTJ),
January 12, 2021] https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/19492/

• Gross ignorance of the law and procedure; violation of Administrative Circular No. 7-99
Here, if respondent judge had just heeded the information provided by the DOH regarding the
existence of the earlier decision of Judge A, she would have been more circumspect in the
eventual issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction realizing the ruse propagated by AAA to
get a favorable judgment. Surely, as the OCA correctly pointed out, respondent judge’s
eventual issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction causes confusion as to which order the
parties should follow: the initial decision of Judge A denying the application of the writ or the
subsequent decision of respondent judge? This could have easily been avoided if only
respondent judge observed the aforementioned doctrine.

xxxx

Likewise, the Court is convinced that respondent judge failed to comply with
Administrative Circular No. 7-99. She utterly failed to notice that the contract between AAA and
the DOH had long been extinguished. As such, the same cannot be the source of any right to be
protected by injunction. Also, as correctly ruled upon by Judge A, the acts sought to be enjoined
have already been accomplished. The settled rule is that an injunction would not lie where the
acts sought to be enjoined had become fait accompli—an accomplished or consummated act. It

Issue 21-7|July 2021 Page 1 of 2

is thus undeniable that respondent judge erroneously issued the writ of preliminary injunction
despite two glaring warning signs— signs she would have surely taken into consideration had
she not taken a nonchalant attitude towards Judge A’s earlier decision. [A.M. No. 20-08-05-SC,
February 16, 2021] https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/18868/

JUDGE AND PROCESS SERVER

• Gross inefficiency and gross incompetence for failure to decide cases and resolve motions
within the reglementary period; simple neglect of duty
Respondent Judge
Indeed, the Court allows a certain degree of latitude to judges and grants them reasonable
extensions of time to resolve cases upon proper application and on meritorious grounds. Here,
it was only after the conduct of the first judicial audit did respondent judge justify his delayed
decisions and resolutions, citing lack of personnel and high case load, among others.
Respondent judge failed to even explain why the cases and pending incidents before his court
dragged for so long a time and why he should not be administratively sanctioned.

Respondent Process Server

The essential function of a process server is to serve court processes such as subpoenas,
summonses, court orders and notices of hearing. The process server’s duty is significant for the
defendants to know of the action brought against them and for the court to acquire jurisdiction
over the defendant. Thus, service of summons, and other writs and court processes should be
properly and expeditiously served. As found by the OCA, respondent process server has been
remiss in his duty to strictly observe the rules on service of summons, particularly when he
improperly resorted to substituted service of summons.

xxxx

The OCA also found respondent process server to have violated Administrative Circular
No. 12 when he served summons outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the court without first
notifying and seeking the assistance of the sheriff of the place where the service shall be made
in Civil Case No. XX-XXX19. When OCA directed him to explain why he made the service of
summons outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the court and whether he was authorized by
the judge to make the personal service, he failed to submit an explanation. [A.M. No. RTJ-21-
2606 (Formerly A.M. No. 20-12-164-RTC), February 9, 2021]
https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/18866/

COURT PERSONNEL
• Grave misconduct due to use of a prohibited drug
In this case, respondent court personnel’s use of marijuana has been proven not only by the
result of the NBI drug test but also by his own admission. As in Castor, the Court finds
respondent court personnel guilty of grave misconduct for his admitted drug use, which, as
discussed above, is a flagrant violation of RA 9165 and is, in fact, a crime in itself.

xxxx

Let this case serve as another reminder to all court personnel whose conduct is
expected, at all times, to “be characterized by propriety and decorum and above all else, be
above suspicion so as to earn and keep the respect of the public for the Judiciary.” The Court
would never countenance any conduct, act, or omission of any court personnel that violates the
norm of public accountability and diminishes, or even just tends to diminish, the faith of the
people in the Judiciary. [A.M. No. 2020-10-SC (Formerly A.M. No. 21-01-05-SC), March 16,
2021] https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/19133/

Issue 21-7|July 2021 Page 2 of 2