Facts:

This case originated from an administrative complaint filed by Judge Reinerio (Abraham) B. Ramas of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18 in Pagadian City, Zamboanga del Sur, against Atty. Norlinda R. Amante-Descallar, the Clerk of Court. The complaint, identified as Administrative Case No. 05-222-P, charged Atty. Descallar with Grave Misconduct for allegedly disclosing the existence of unopened ballot boxes, under the custody of Judge Ramas relating to Election Protest Case No. 0001-2K4, to a third party, Allan Singedas. In her defense, dated August 11, 2005, Atty. Descallar refuted the accusations and countercharged Judge Ramas with Gross Misconduct for taking home evidence pertaining to Criminal Case Nos. 5294 and 5295 (People v. Tesoro, Jr.) and dishonesty regarding his absences in his Certificates of Service for the months of May and June 2005. The administrative matter was re-docketed and investigated over the ensuing years, with hearings scheduled by Justice Renato C. Dacud

...

Facts:

Case Background

• The case originated from Administrative Case No. 05-222-P instituted by Judge Reinerio (Abraham) B. Ramas of RTC-Branch 18, Pagadian City, Zamboanga del Sur.
• Atty. Norlinda R. Amante-Descallar, the Clerk of Court, was originally charged with Grave Misconduct for allegedly showing unopened ballot boxes—kept in Judge Ramas’ custody in connection with Election Protest Case No. 0001-2K4—to Allan Singedas.

Counterclaims and Additional Allegations

• In her Verified Comment/Counter-Complaint dated August 11, 2005, Atty. Descallar denied the charges against her and countercharged Judge Ramas.
• Her counterclaims included allegations that Judge Ramas:

- Removed a complete set of computer equipment (evidenced in Criminal Case Nos. 5294 and 5295, People v. Tesoro, Jr.) for personal use. - Failed to reflect his absences on May 12, 13, and subsequently on several days in May and June 2005 in his Certificates of Service.

Administrative Proceedings and Recommendations

• On June 13, 2006, the Court Administrator recommended a redocketing of the administrative complaint as a regular administrative matter.
• The recommendations included:

- Finding Judge Ramas guilty of SIMPLE MISCONDUCT for removing evidence (the computer) from the court premises and imposing a fine of P11,000 with a stern warning. - Referring the charges of absenteeism and falsification of certificates of service for further investigation by the Court of Appeals.

Evidentiary Hearings and Testimonies

• Justice Dacudao scheduled hearings in October 2006:

- Atty. Descallar, along with her counsel, husband Atty. Romeo Y. Descallar, and witness Atty. Vicente Madarang Cerilles testified on October 12 and 13, 2006. - Judge Ramas did not appear in person but filed a Motion to Admit Memorandum with an accompanying Memorandum as his defense. - Atty. Cerilles testified regarding his personal interactions with Judge Ramas and noted multiple pending cases in the judge’s sala. - Atty. Descallar presented documentary evidence showing Judge Ramas’ absence on specific dates in May and June 2005. - The court calendar and records further corroborated the absence of Judge Ramas, including an Omnibus Order dated May 23, 2005, indicating his temporary cessation from judicial functions due to personal threats.

Judge Ramas’ Defense and Narrative

• Judge Ramas claimed that on May 12, 2005, he was delayed due to working on the draft decision in a controversial election protest case, which required extensive evaluation of voluminous records.
• He asserted that on May 13, 2005, he resumed work by issuing an order for the promulgation of the decision.
• He maintained that his actions were justified in light of credible threats to his life and that:

- His absences were a precautionary measure against imminent danger. - He continued his judicial functions intermittently and even performed some duties despite the threats. - The mysterious circumstances, including the betrayal by his own clerk, were a factor in the unfolding of events.

Consolidation of Findings from the Investigation

• The investigation was later transferred to the Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City, upon Atty. Descallar’s request due to financial constraints and accessibility considerations (approved in a Memorandum dated November 16, 2006).
• Justice Mario Lopez of the Court of Appeals conducted further hearings in May 2007, noting that Judge Ramas:

- Waived his right to cross-examine evidence or present direct testimony. - Had no supporting evidence to refute the allegations regarding his unexcused absences.

Final Administrative Decision

• After reviewing Justice Lopez’s Report and the gathered evidence, the Court concurred that Judge Ramas was guilty of making untruthful statements in his Certificates of Service.
• Considering that this was his second offense in nearly 12 years in the Judiciary, the Court imposed a fine of P15,000 and issued a warning against any repetition of the infraction.

Issue:

Whether the evidence sufficiently established that Judge Ramas failed to accurately record his attendance and judicial activities during May and June 2005.

• The absence of Judge Ramas on key dates and the inconsistencies in his Certificates of Service versus court records were critical points.

Whether Judge Ramas’ claim of personal danger and threats to his life justified his absences from his official judicial functions and his failure to accurately mark these absences.

• The issue involved balancing the judge’s personal security concerns with his duty to remain present and accountable in his role.

Whether the administrative proceeding, including the transfer of the case to the Court of Appeals and the conduct of the investigation, was properly followed under the prevailing rules governing administrative discipline of judges.

• This encompassed the procedural fairness and adherence to judicial disciplinary protocols, including the judge’s waiver of cross-examination rights.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)