Facts:

The case involves an administrative complaint filed by Prosecutor Leo T. Cahanap (Complainant) against Judge Leonor S. QuiAones (Respondent) of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Iligan City, Lanao del Norte. The complaint was lodged on October 30, 2012, alleging gross ignorance of the law, gross misconduct, and violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Complainant detailed several incidents over the last two years of his service in Branch 6, where he claimed to have suffered from the Respondent's oppressive behavior. Notably, in the case of People v. Inot (Criminal Case No. 6-15566), the Respondent objected to leading questions during the Complainant's re-direct examination, despite no objections from the defense. In another case, People v. Badelles (Criminal Case No. 06-15405), the Respondent blamed the Complainant for the absence of forensic reports, and publicly lectured him on courtroom demeanor, causing embarrassment. The Complainant also noted that o...

Facts:

1. Complaint Filed by Prosecutor Leo T. Cahanap

   • Complainant Prosecutor Leo T. Cahanap filed an administrative complaint against Judge Leonor S. Quinones on October 30, 2012, alleging Gross Ignorance of the Law, Gross Misconduct, and violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
   • The complaint detailed several instances of alleged misconduct by the respondent Judge, including oppressive behavior, habitual tardiness, and improper conduct during court proceedings.

2. Oppressive Behavior Towards Complainant and Others

   • In People v. Inot, respondent Judge objected to leading questions during re-direct examination, despite no objections from the defense counsel.
   • In People v. Badelles, respondent Judge blamed complainant for the failure of the forensic chemist to bring chemistry reports and publicly lectured complainant on proper court demeanor, causing embarrassment.
   • Prosecutors and court staff reportedly experienced humiliation and harsh treatment, leading some to request transfers to other courts.

3. Habitual Tardiness

   • Respondent Judge was habitually late, starting court sessions between 9:30 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., earning her sala the nickname "Branch 10."
   • Court staff testified that the actual start times were not reflected in the Minutes of Proceedings.

4. Improper Conduct in the Heck Case

   • In People v. Heck, respondent Judge allegedly asked private complainant Hanna Mamad to visit her house to sell jewelry, which Mamad confirmed.
   • Court personnel testified that respondent Judge displayed the jewelry she purchased from Mamad.

5. Improper Handling of the Macapato Case

   • In People v. Macapato, respondent Judge ordered the release of the accused's vehicle despite the prosecution's opposition, violating the three-day notice rule.
   • The TSN revealed that respondent Judge acted as if she were the defense counsel, prompting the prosecution to move for her inhibition.

6. Dismissal of the Tingcang Case

   • In People v. Tingcang, respondent Judge dismissed the case provisionally for violation of the accused's right to a speedy trial, despite the accused being in hiding since 1996.

7. Dismissal of the Casido Case

   • In People v. Casido, respondent Judge dismissed the case for Attempted Murder due to the absence of a fatal wound, which the prosecution argued was misplaced.

8. Mistreatment of Court Staff

   • Respondent Judge allegedly shouted at and berated court staff, calling them derogatory names such as "bogo" (dumb) and "punyeta ka" (you are cursed).

9. Respondent Judge’s Defense

   • Respondent Judge denied the allegations, claiming that her actions were in good faith and within her judicial discretion.
   • She admitted to occasional tardiness but argued that her case disposal rate was high.
   • She also denied asking for jewelry from Mamad and claimed that her interactions with court staff were part of her supervisory duties.

10. OCA Investigation and Recommendations

    • The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended dismissing charges related to judicial decisions, as they were beyond the scope of administrative proceedings.
    • However, the OCA found the allegations of oppressive behavior and habitual tardiness serious and recommended a formal investigation.

11. Investigating Justice’s Findings

    • Investigating Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh found respondent Judge guilty of Oppression and Habitual Tardiness, recommending fines and a transfer to another court due to strained relations with staff.

12. OCA Final Report

    • The OCA agreed with the Investigating Justice’s findings, recommending fines for Oppression and Habitual Tardiness and periodic reporting to monitor respondent Judge’s behavior.

Issue:

1. Whether respondent Judge is guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law, Gross Misconduct, and violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct based on the allegations of oppressive behavior, habitual tardiness, and improper conduct during court proceedings.
2. Whether respondent Judge’s actions in handling specific cases (e.g., Macapato, Tingcang, Casido) constitute judicial errors or administrative misconduct.
3. Whether respondent Judge’s treatment of court staff and lawyers constitutes Oppression and violates the standards of judicial conduct.
4. Whether respondent Judge’s habitual tardiness violates court rules and undermines public confidence in the judiciary.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court found respondent Judge GUILTY of:

1. Oppression (Gross Misconduct) and imposed a fine of P40,000.00.
2. Habitual Tardiness and imposed a fine of P20,000.00.

The Court also issued a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely. The Branch Clerk of Court was directed to submit periodic reports on the working relationship in the court for two years.

Ratio:

• (Unlock)