Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559, RTJ-19-2561)
Facts:
Presiding Judges Tomas Eduardo B. Maddela III and Merinnisa O. Ligaya v. Presiding Judge Norman V. Pamintuan, A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559 [formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3810-RTJ] and A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561 [formerly A.M. No. 15-02-49-RTC], August 14, 2019, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam.The matter originated with a joint letter-complaint dated October 4, 2011 by Judge Tomas Eduardo B. Maddela III and Judge Merinnisa O. Ligaya, MTCC Olongapo City, alleging that Judge Norman V. Pamintuan, Presiding Judge, RTC Branch 73, Olongapo City, repeatedly failed to solemnize marriages raffled to his sala in violation of OCA Circular No. 87-2008 (guidelines on raffling of requests for solemnization of marriage). The complainants said that requests raffled to respondent were re-raffled because respondent was frequently “absent” for reasons including high blood pressure, fever and other ailments, and that the re-raffling resulted in complaints by couples and their relatives.
Respondent answered that his absences were for genuine medical reasons—he cited pending surgery for multinodular thyroid and hypertension—submitted medical certificates and approved leave applications, and denied a pattern of neglect. The Court, in an October 13, 2014 resolution, reminded respondent of his duty to promptly dispose of court business and ordered a judicial audit of Branch 73 starting August 2011.
During the OCA judicial audit (January 26–30, 2015), additional complaints surfaced. Executive Judge Richard A. Paradeza filed an affidavit accusing respondent of attempting to bribe him to obtain a conviction in Criminal Case No. 670-2002 (People v. Terrie). Affidavits by the Clerk of Court Atty. Jolm V. Aquino, Officer-in-Charge Leo C. Dalit, and Judge Jose L. Bautista corroborated parts of Paradeza’s account. Other allegations included respondent’s following up on a friend’s case, forming a surety business allegedly to transact with local courts, soliciting donations for a concert and a shooting event, and holding his wife’s birthday at a venue linked to a person with a pending trafficking case. The audit also showed that of 831 presented records, respondent handled only 62 cases while Judge Bautista handled 769, and that 16 of respondent’s 18 submitted cases (88%) awaited decision beyond the 90-day reglementary period.
On March 9, 2015 the Court preventively suspended respondent and consolidated the administrative matters; it directed him to comment. Respondent filed motions to recall his preventive suspension and submitted a detailed comment denying bribery, contesting witnesses’ credibility, and explaining procedural difficulties (e.g., sudden resignation of a stenographer) that allegedly caused delays.
The Court referred the consolidated administrative cases to the Court of Appeals; CA Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting was the investigating justice and submitted a Report (Oct. 26, 2016). Investigating Justice Inting found respondent guilty only of undue delay (recommended six months suspension) and recommended dismissal of the bribery charge for insufficiency; he also recommended a P10,000 fine for certain Code of Judicial Conduct violations while discounting several other imputations for lack of proof.
Thereafter the OCA evaluated the case and, by Memorandum dated June 6, 2017, recommended that respondent be adjudged guilty of gross misc...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did respondent shirk his judicial duty by failing to solemnize marriages raffled to him in violation of OCA Circular No. 87-2008?
- Was there substantial evidence that respondent attempted to bribe Executive Judge Paradeza, amounting to gross misconduct?
- Did respondent engage in conflict-of-interest activities violative of the New Code of Judicial Conduct?
- Was respondent guilty of undue delay and gross inefficiency in rendering decisions?
- What penalty, if any, should be i...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)