A.M. No. RTJ-20-2596 - De Leon-Profeta vs. Mendiola

Agustina Maglaqui-De Leon died intestate on August 11, 2007, leaving behind her husband (former Judge Nestorio De Leon), her legally adopted children (petitioner Liza De Leon-Profeta and her brother Nestor De Leon), and her sister Elisa Maglaqui-Caparas.
On February 14, 2008, Elisa filed a petition seeking to be appointed administratrix of Agustina’s estate, asserting her status as a surviving heir while omitting the names of petitioner and Nestor.

During the hearings, oppositors (petitioner, Nestor, and Judge De Leon) presented their opposition in open court when Elisa proceeded with her petition.
Respondent Judge Francisco G. Mendiola issued multiple orders:

An initial Order on March 26, 2008, holding Elisa’s application for issuance of Letters of Administration pending submission of oppositors’ evidence.
A subsequent Order on March 28, 2008, granting Elisa’s request despite the oppositors’ later filing of a written opposition on March 31, 2008.
Thereafter, several orders were rendered denying motions for reconsideration and controlling the admission of exhibits, including issues regarding the presentation of evidence of adoption and birth certificates.

The oppositors escalated the matter by filing petitions for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) to annul the disputed orders and the issuance of Letters of Administration.
The CA found that respondent Judge Mendiola acted with grave abuse of discretion by:

Summarily granting the Letters of Administration without a full-dress hearing.
Ignoring the statutory order of preference provided under Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court.

Despite the CA’s rulings—including orders for the judge to inhibit himself—respondent Judge continued to handle the case, issuing further orders that favored Elisa.

Petitioner Liza De Leon-Profeta filed an administrative complaint on June 28, 2016, accusing respondent Judge of:

Gross ignorance of the law in handling the probate proceedings.
Manifest bias and partiality by favoring Elisa despite the oppositors’ standing as compulsory heirs.
Gross inefficiency, notably for the prolonged delay in addressing the oppositors’ formal offer of evidence.

The complaint highlighted that respondent Judge’s actions, including issuing orders hastily without waiting for opposition, departed from established procedural rules and precedents.

The OCA concurred with the CA’s findings and recommended that respondent Judge be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter.
The OCA’s report emphasized that Judge Mendiola committed multiple infractions including:

Three counts of gross ignorance of the law (in the issuance of Letters of Administration under flawed procedures).
Manifest bias and partiality, in violation of Canon 3, Section 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.

Additionally, the OCA noted that despite his 24 years in judicial service, this was his first offense, recommending specific monetary fines and penalties to be deducted from his retirement benefits.

Amid various motions for reconsideration and petitions for certiorari (both before the CA and the Supreme Court), respondent Judge continued to rule on the case even after appellate directives.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court rendered a decision that addressed the charges against respondent Judge, imposing separate penalties for:

Gross ignorance of the law (five counts with fines and, for one count, forfeiture of retirement benefits).
Manifest bias and partiality (with an additional fine).
Gross inefficiency (also punishable by a fine).

Whether the respondent Judge’s issuance of Letters of Administration without a proper full-dress hearing and without waiting for oppositors’ opposition amounted to gross ignorance of the law.
Whether disregarding the statutory order of preference, as established under Section 6, Rule 78 of the Rules of Court, constitutes a legal error warranting administrative sanction.

Whether respondent Judge’s actions—specifically his heavy-handed rulings against oppositors and failure to adhere to the CA’s directive to inhibit himself—demonstrate manifest bias and partiality.
Whether continuing to hear the proceedings in spite of clear appellate orders violates the principles of impartiality and due process expected of a judge.

Whether the prolonged inaction regarding the oppositors’ formal offer of evidence (exceeding two years) constitutes gross inefficiency.
Whether such delay, in combination with other procedural missteps, justifies an administrative penalty.

Whether the respondent Judge can be held administratively liable for his errors, even if a judge ordinarily is not held accountable for every erroneous decision rendered in good faith.
How the actions and the subsequent penalties imposed fit within the framework of judicial discipline under the Rules of Court and the Code of Judicial Conduct.