G.R. No. 252124 - Mabao vs. Bohol Wisdom School

On February 10, 2006, Atty. Plaridel C. Nava II filed a petition to disbar then-Prosecutor Ofelia M. D. Artuz, alleging that:

On July 28, 2005, he sought her inhibition and re-raffle in a client’s case before the Iloilo City Prosecutor’s Office;
Artuz’s comment maliciously maligned and insulted Nava and his father, violating Canon 8 of the CPR;
She made baseless criminal accusations, filed harassing criminal cases against him, and maligned her former superior, constituting grave misconduct and violations of the CPR and RA 6713.

On August 2, 2006, the Supreme Court referred the disbarment case to the DOJ.
Nava also opposed Artuz’s judgeship nomination before the JBC on January 4, 2006, but Artuz was appointed MTCC Branch 5 Presiding Judge on September 28, 2006.
The disbarment records were later retrieved from the DOJ and sent to the OCA for action (February 2008).

On October 17, 2006, Nava petitioned to nullify Artuz’s MTCC Branch 5 appointment, claiming she was unfit due to pending cases affecting her character and integrity.
He listed:

Nava further alleged repeated tardiness, absences, case dismissals, and vindictive conduct by Artuz.
Artuz defended that the petition was retaliatory, that the cases were dismissed or not given course, and that she met all qualifications for judgeship.
The OCA inquired with the DOJ and Ombudsman on the status of Artuz’s cases; the DOJ confirmed pending proceedings since October 2003; the Ombudsman reported receipt and pendency of several complaints.
The OCA secured Artuz’s October 28, 2005 PDS from the JBC, which omitted disclosure of any charges.
By Resolution dated November 28, 2007, the Court directed Artuz to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken for her PDS omissions.
After unsatisfactory compliance, the case was re-docketed as an administrative matter and investigated by RTC Executive Judges, culminating in EJ Galvez’s September 30, 2014 report finding deliberate omissions and false answers in both her October 28, 2005 and November 6, 2006 PDS.
On November 3, 2015, the OCA recommended finding Artuz guilty of Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Falsification of Official Documents, and dismissal from service, and further recommended consolidation with the disbarment case, which the Court adopted on June 17, 2015.

Whether Judge Ofelia M. D. Artuz is guilty of Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Falsification of Official Documents for failing to disclose in her PDS the fact that she had been formally charged.
Whether Artuz is guilty of Grave Misconduct and violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility (Canon 8) and RA 6713 for her conduct as a prosecutor.