Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-09-2183)
Facts:
Concerned Lawyers of Bulacan, Complainants, vs. Presiding Judge Victoria Villalon-Pornillos, Regional Trial Court, Branch 10, Malolos City, Bulacan, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2183 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2346-RTJ], March 15, 2022, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam.An anonymous administrative complaint dated August 31, 2005, filed under the name Concerned Lawyers of Bulacan, accused respondent Victoria Villalon-Pornillos, then Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 10, Malolos City, of multiple improprieties: receiving large bribes and “selling” decisions in various local election contests, extortion, maintaining illicit relationships with court staff, ostentatious displays of wealth, habitual tardiness and poor court attendance, and inadequate records management. The complaint alleged, among other things, borrowing money from litigants and staff, renting a taxi at high cost, and irregular case-handling behavior.
The complaint was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for investigation. The OCA found the serious corruption and extortion allegations to be based largely on hearsay and rumor, but it confirmed that respondent had in fact obtained small loans from a lawyer and from court employees. The OCA also found troubling attendance records: respondent reported to court only 20 of 29 working days in the September 1–October 11, 2005 period, and exhibited frequent tardiness and early departures.
Pursuant to a Court resolution dated January 17, 2006, the OCA was directed to conduct a judicial audit to determine whether respondent should answer administratively for habitual tardiness, failure to report during all working days, and apparent poor records management. After investigation and proceedings, the Court in Concerned Lawyers of Bulacan v. Judge Villalon‑Pornillos, 609 Phil. 504 (2009), found respondent guilty of Gross Misconduct for borrowing money from a lawyer in a case pending before her (a serious charge under Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court), aggravated by undue delay in rendering decisions and violations of Supreme Court rules and the Code of Judicial Conduct, and dismissed her from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits and prejudice to reemployment. The dismissal was ordered effective immediately upon service.
Respondent later sought relief. On August 8, 2016 she filed a purported petition for absolute pardon addressed to the Office of the President and notified the OCA; she reiterated pleas for judicial clemency in letters to the Court in late 2016. By Resolution dated February 14, 2017, the Court denied an earlier petition for judicial clemency for failure to show remorse and reformation, stressing that respondent’s submissions reflected impenitence and self‑righteousness rather than acceptance of wrongdoing. On October 6, 2020 respondent filed the present “Petition for Judicial Clemency with Prayer for the Reopening of the Administrative Case Against Her for the Reception of Improperly Excluded Evidence,” contending that her dismissal was null and void for denial of due process (no opportunity to be heard and to cross‑examine complainants) and reiterating requests to reopen the administrat...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is respondent entitled to judicial clemency (reversal or mitigation of dismissal) by showing remorse and reformation?
- Should the administrative case be reopened and improperly excluded evidence received as prayed by respondent?
- Does respondent’s claim that she was denied due process (no opportunity to be heard or to cross‑examine complainants) justify r...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)