Facts:

In the case of Remedios A. Antonino vs. Judge Francisco X. Velez, Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 57, the complainant, Remedios A. Antonino, lodged a complaint against Judge Velez concerning grave misconduct, including allegations of favoritism, unjust judgment, and delays in resolving cases. The events trace back to civil cases numbered 90-350 and 90-2517, which were pending in Judge Velez's court. On September 1, 1992, the Supreme Court disposed of an earlier recommendation from the Office of the Court Administrator by dismissing the complaint against Judge Velez for lack of merit, although he was admonished to act promptly on motions. Antonino subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming, for the first time, that Judge Velez demanded and received PHP 30,000 for conducting an ocular inspection of a building related to the case. The case progressed through various stages, including the investigation of Judge Velez; however, significant issues arose regar

...

Facts:

Background and Initial Resolution

• On September 1, 1992, the Supreme Court approved the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator.
• The initial resolution ordered:
• Dismissal of the complaint against Judges Zosimo Angeles and Francisco Velez for lack of merit.
• An admonishment to Judge Francisco Velez to act promptly on motions and decide cases without further delay.

Motion for Reconsideration and New Allegations

• Remedios A. Antonino, the complainant, filed a motion for reconsideration.
• In her motion, she introduced new allegations:
• Claiming that she had given P30,000.00 to Judge Velez, on his demand, in exchange for an immediate ocular inspection.
• Alleging that Judge Angeles improperly denied an injunction ruling out of the blue, without evidence that the building was completed.
• Arguing that the prior resolution was prematurely issued, thus depriving her of her day in court.

Responses and Procedural Developments

• Respondents’ Comments:
• Judge Angeles submitted his comment on the motion on January 11, 1993.
• Judge Velez rendered his response on January 19, 1993.
• Subsequent Developments:
• Judge Angeles was compulsorily retired on April 4, 1993.
• On May 13, 1993, the Court allowed Judge Angeles to receive his retirement benefits, subject to withholding P50,000.00 pending the resolution of the case.

Court’s Subsequent Resolution and Referral

• On December 9, 1993, the Supreme Court:
• Granted the motion for reconsideration.
• Modified the September 1, 1992 resolution by:
• Dismissing the complaint against Judge Angeles.

ii. Referring the charges against Judge Velez to the Court of Appeals for investigation, report, and recommendation within 90 days.

Charges Against Judge Francisco Velez

• The investigation recapitulated several charges including:
• Grave misconduct by favoring one party and prejudicing the other.
• Knowingly rendering unjust judgment with reference to dismissals of civil cases.
• Issuing unjust interlocutory orders, notably:
• Denial of a Motion for Reconsideration based on an ocular inspection.

ii. Issuance of an order directing a Certificate of Electrical Inspection. ii. The orders issued, including the dismissal of civil cases, were based on: - The inaction of the plaintiffs. - Procedural considerations regarding pending motions. iii. The dismissal of the related criminal case was justified by the merit of a motion to dismiss, supported by subsequent issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

Investigator’s Findings and Recommendation

• The investigation found that:
• Judge Velez dismissed civil cases precipitously and delayed resolution of several pending motions and incidents.
• His justification for relying on the plaintiffs’ inaction was unconvincing.
• While errors were found in his administrative handling, there was insufficient evidence to prove malice or bad faith.
• Regarding the bribery charge:
• The allegation surfaced only in the motion for reconsideration and was not in the original complaint.
• The timing and manner of its presentation undermined its credibility.
• As a result, the recommended administrative sanctions were:
• Adoption of the recommendation involving a fine for the improper dismissal of cases and delays.
• Initially recommended a fine of P1,000.00, but the penalty was revised upward to P2,000.00 for abuse of authority and neglect of duty.
• The decision also included a warning to Judge Velez regarding repetition of such acts in the future.

Issue:

Procedural and Administrative Issues

• Whether the dismissal of the complaint against the judges for lack of merit was proper and timely.
• Whether the motion for reconsideration, and its introduction of new allegations (including bribery), justifiably warranted reopening the case.

Judicial Misconduct and Improper Court Management

• Whether Judge Velez’s dismissal of civil cases and failure to promptly resolve pending motions constitute abuse of authority and neglect of duty.
• Whether his acts were accompanied by malice or bad faith to warrant charges of grave misconduct.

Evidence and Credibility Issues

• The sufficiency and timing of evidence presented to support the bribery accusation.
• The reliability of the complainant’s allegations given that key accusations were introduced only in the motion for reconsideration.

Appropriate Sanctions and Penalties

• Whether the imposition of a fine (eventually set at P2,000.00) is an adequate sanction for the noted judicial errors and poor court management.
• How the administrative sanctions align with judicial ethical standards and the need to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)