Facts:

The case revolves around an anonymous complaint filed against Judge Edmundo P. Pintac, presiding over the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 15 in Ozamiz City, and his court stenographer, Lorelei T. Sumague. The anonymous letter-complaint was sent on May 25, 2009, to then Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, alleging that Judge Pintac had an illicit relationship with Ms. Sumague. This complaint was logged as OCA I.P.I. No. 10-3510-RTJ. Subsequently, on November 22, 2010, Judge Pintac submitted a complaint against process server Rolando O. Ruiz for gross misconduct and dishonesty, leading to an additional complaint series recorded as OCA I.P.I. No. 10-3559-P. Ruiz's response to this complaint later morphed into a counter-claim against Judge Pintac, which was then logged as OCA I.P.I. No. 11-3633-RTJ, causing it to be consolidated with the earlier cases following the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). It became evident that Ruiz engaged in corrupt practic

Facts:

The case involves a series of consolidated administrative complaints filed within the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15 in Ozamiz City. It began with an anonymous complaint alleging that Judge Edmundo P. Pintac maintained an illicit relationship with his court stenographer, Lorelei T. Sumague. Subsequent complaints, largely initiated by internal court personnel, also accused Process Server Rolando O. Ruiz of gross misconduct – specifically, of demanding and receiving money from litigants (notably Regina, wife of an accused in criminal cases pending before the court) and engaging in other irregularities. Ruiz, who at one point tendered and later withdrew a resignation letter, admitted to his unlawful actions but asserted that he acted under the direction of Judge Pintac. Conversely, Judge Pintac and Sumague denied the allegations of impropriety, with Sumague testifying that she never had an illicit relationship with the judge. Throughout the proceedings, accusations intertwined issues of corruption, inappropriate behavior, and misconduct by both the judge and the process server. Records show that evidentiary support was strong only for some charges—particularly the ones against Ruiz pertaining to the unauthorized collection of money—while evidence against Judge Pintac and Sumague on allegations of immorality proved insufficient. Later, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended a series of findings, including Ruiz’s liability for Gross Misconduct (with dismissal and forfeiture of benefits) and the dismissal of charges against Judge Pintac and Sumague for lack of substantial evidence.

Issue:

1. Whether Process Server Rolando O. Ruiz committed Gross Misconduct by demanding and accepting money from litigants, and whether he should be dismissed from service along with the associated penalties.
2. Whether the allegations and counter-charges against Judge Edmundo P. Pintac and Stenographer Lorelei T. Sumague of illicit relations, gross immorality, oppression, and abuse of authority are supported by substantial evidence warranting administrative liability.
3. Whether judicial conduct regarding the handling of cases—for example, Judge Pintac’s decision to hear a case filed by his personnel—affected his impartiality and should be subject to penalty, considering his subsequent death.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)