Case Digest (A.M. No. 92-8-027-SC)
Facts:
Josefina V. Palon, A.M. No. 92-8-027-SC, September 02, 1992, Supreme Court Second Division, Nocon, J., writing for the Court. This administrative matter originated with a complaint by Arnulfo Tauro against Judge Joselito dela Rosa for serious misconduct, extreme bias and prejudice, and a highly partisan attitude, the complaint being supported by an affidavit of Josefina V. Palon, an employee of the Supreme Court. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) investigated and, by memorandum, recommended dismissal of the respondent judge but also called the Court’s attention to Palon’s alleged actuation — specifically that she had actively sought to interfere in RTC Case No. 90-55019, had brought a large sum of money to the judge’s chambers, and had exploited her position as a Supreme Court employee to gain access to the judge, although she had not been formally charged at that time.Acting on the OCA memorandum, the Court issued a resolution dated February 18, 1992, directing Mrs. Palon to file an answer concerning her alleged intervention. After several extensions she answered, denying that she used her influence as a Supreme Court employee and explaining that a lady personnel of the court where Judge dela Rosa presided recognized her as a Supreme Court employee and, because the Clerk of Court Atty. Solano was unavailable, urged her to enter the judge’s chambers to talk to him. Mrs. Palon also asserted she was merely running an errand for her brother — to ask permission to deposit a complainant’s money with the City of Manila Cashier and to inquire about execution pending appeal.
The Court found Palon’s explanations incredible and inconsistent with her earlier affidavit (which stated she was informed that the presiding judge wanted to talk to her), and noted that the sala displayed a sign barring ex parte conferences (permitting lawyers with pending cases to see the judge only under specified conditions). The contradictions, lack of corroboration, the bringing of money to the judge’s chambers, and the exploitation of her Supreme Court status were treated as conduct that tainted the judiciary and forced Judge dela Rosa to inhibit himself from acting on the case on December 14, 1990. The OCA memorandum, the conflicting statements, and prior Supreme Court pronouncements on the required standard of conduct for court personnel were consid...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did Mrs. Josefina V. Palon, by her acts and conduct, use her position as a Supreme Court employee to interfere with the jurisdiction of the trial court in RTC Case No. 90-55019?
- If so, is the suspension of six months without pay an appropriate disci...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)