Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-05-1920, RTJ-99-1432, RTJ-01-1623, OCA-IPI No. 02-1418-RTJ, A.M. No. 10425-Ret ,)
Facts:
Concerned Trial Lawyers of Manila v. Judge Lorenzo B. Veneracion, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1920 (formerly OCA IPI No. 01-1141-RTJ), A.M. No. RTJ-99-1432, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1623, OCA I.P.I. No. 02-1418-RTJ, A.M. No. 10425-RET, April 26, 2006, Supreme Court Second Division, Corona, J., writing for the Court.Complainants included the Concerned Trial Lawyers of Manila, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), and several private litigants (Angeline Y. Cuevillas et al.). The primary respondent was Judge Lorenzo B. Veneracion, then Presiding Judge of Branch 47, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila; some consolidated matters named Branch Clerk of Court Rogelio M. Linatoc and court stenographer Teresita C. Vasquez as respondents in their official capacities.
The controversies arose from multiple complaints referred to the OCA. An anonymous letter dated February 8, 1999 (purporting to be from the Concerned Trial Lawyers of Manila) alleged that Judge Veneracion habitually lectured and embarrassed counsel and litigants in annulment (declaration of nullity) cases, sought to prevent presentation of evidence by stressing technicalities, read and forced Bible verses on parties, and was habitually tardy. The Ombudsman forwarded the letter to the OCA, which in turn referred it to Executive Judge Rebecca de Guia Salvador for a discreet investigation. Judge Salvador verified that 27 annulment petitions were withdrawn from Branch 47 and found that these withdrawals involved predominantly one lawyer, Atty. Rizalino Simbillo.
Separately, a judicial audit and physical inventory conducted from June 19–26, 2000 (later summarized by Deputy Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock) identified numerous administrative and docket-management deficiencies in Branch 47: failure to submit monthly reports; many cases submitted beyond the reglementary 90-day period (41 of 60 cases listed), numerous pending motions and cases with no action or long inaction; misfiled records; failure to issue warrants or set arraignments in criminal matters; long delays in transmitting records for execution; and erroneous docket inventories and reports. The OCA file thus accumulated several administrative matters against Judge Veneracion and, in some instances, his clerk and stenographer.
Judge Veneracion answered these complaints. He denied being hostile to annulment petitions, pointed to letters from former litigants who appreciated his practice of reading Bible verses, and explained that Atty. Simbillo alone had repeatedly withdrawn his cases. He attributed many docket problems to Branch 47’s special assignments (family relations, juvenile and domestic relations, special tax and criminal courts) without commensurate personnel, occasional misfiling due to lack of space and filing cabinets, and his own medical condition — a mild stroke in March 1993 that impaired his handwriting and necessitated reliance on stenographic notes before he could sign decisions. He acknowledged reading Bible verses in open court but characterized it as voluntary spiritual guidance, not coercion, and asked that he be permitted optional retirement if the Court found any impropriety.
Prior to the Second Division resolution, some of the consolidated matters were previously acted upon: two administrative cases were decided (including an En Banc resolution in June 2000), the application for optional retirement had been approved effective September 23, 2000 (with retirement benefits withheld pending disposition of other administrative cases), and other related administrative proceedings (against the clerk and the stenographer) had been separately resolved. The consolidated matters before the Second Division concerned the remaining unresolved administrative charges.
The OCA and the Court examined applicable standards — including Section 6, Canon 4 and Canon 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct; Section 15(1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution (three-month reglementary period for lower courts); Rule 3.09 of the Code of Judicial Conduct; and Rule 140, Revise...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does respondent Judge Veneracion’s retirement render the administrative complaints against him moot or otherwise divest the Court of jurisdiction to impose administrative liability?
- Did respondent’s practice of reading Bible verses in court and the attendant allegations of harassment, reluctance to grant annulments, and tardiness constitute actionable judicial misconduct?
- Was respondent guilty of gross inefficiency for failing to decide cases within the reglementar...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)