Case Digest (G.R. No. 253003)
Facts:
Antonio M. Lorenzana v. Judge Ma. Cecilia I. Austria, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2200 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 08-2834-RTJ), April 02, 2014, Supreme Court Second Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court.
The administrative complaints were filed by Antonio M. Lorenzana (complainant), then Executive Vice‑President and Chief Operating Officer of Steel Corporation of the Philippines (SCP), against Judge Ma. Cecilia I. Austria (respondent), presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 2, Batangas City, arising from SCP’s corporate rehabilitation proceedings (SP. Proc. No. 06‑7993) over which Judge Austria presided. The original verified complaint (Jan. 21, 2008) alleged numerous violations including gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority, gross misconduct, grave incompetence, irregularity in the performance of duty, grave bias and partiality, lack of circumspection, conduct unbecoming of a judge, failure to observe the reglementary period, and violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Specific allegations included the judge’s appointment of Atty. Santiago T. Gabionza, Jr. as rehabilitation receiver despite alleged conflicts of interest; holding informal out‑of‑court “consultative” meetings where she purportedly dictated the plan; off‑record meetings favoring a creditor (Equitable‑PCI Bank, EPCIB); secret communications with EPCIB; appointment of Gerardo Anonas as financial adviser with an alleged familial tie to Gabionza’s firm; intimidation and discourtesy toward SCP’s counsel; and approval of a rehabilitation plan beyond the 180‑day reglementary period without Supreme Court extension.
A supplemental complaint (Apr. 14, 2008) alleged impropriety based on photographs and personal details the respondent posted on the social networking site Friendster, including a photograph described as wearing an off‑shouldered, suggestive dress. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) indorsed the matters to Judge Austria for comment. Judge Austria denied bad faith, justified informal meetings as appropriate in summary rehabilitation proceedings, defended her modifications to the rehabilitation plan as within judicial discretion, maintained that authorization to grant extensions lay with the rehabilitation court, and asserted that her Friendster photos were not vulgar.
By Resolution dated September 9, 2009, the Supreme Court re‑docketed the complaints as regular administrative matters and referred them to the Court of Appeals (CA) for investigation and recommendation. Justice Marlene Gonzales‑Sison (Investigating Justice) conducted a hearing (Nov. 13, 2009) and, in a January 4, 2010 Report and Recommendation, found the complaints partly meritorious: many issues were judicial in nature, but she criticized respondent’s intemperate conduct toward counsel and found that maintaining a public social networking account with suggestive photos constituted impropriety; she recommended a P20,000 fine and admonition. The CA also noted its May 16, 2006 decision (CA‑G.R. SP No. 100941) finding grave abuse in creating a management committee without an evidentiary hearing.
The OCA, in a September 4, 2013 Memorandum, adopted similar recommendations: note the CA report; find Judge Austria guilty of conduct unbecoming and violation of Section 6, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct; fine P20,000; and admonish her. The OCA concluded other charges (gross ignorance, grave abuse, bias, etc.) were not supported or were judicial in nature.
The Supreme Court (Second Division), acting on the CA report and OCA recomm...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Whether the allegations that concern the respondent’s adjudicative rulings and application of the Rules on Corporate Rehabilitation are judicial in character and thus not administratively cognizable absent proof of bad faith, corruption, or malice.
- Whether Judge Austria committed gross ignorance of the law by ordering the creation of a management committee without holding an evidentiary hearing.
- Whether Judge Austria’s maintenance of a public Friendster account and posting of suggestive photographs constituted impropriety and conduct unbecoming of a judge. ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)