Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-21-018)
Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-21-018)
Facts:
Office of the Court Administrator v. Hon. Romeo M. Atillo, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-21-018 (Formerly A.M. No. 20-07-109-RTC), June 24, 2024, Supreme Court Second Division, Inting, J., writing for the Court.The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received printed copies of photographs allegedly taken from the Facebook account of Judge Romeo M. Atillo, Jr., Branch 31, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Agoo, La Union, showing him half-dressed with visible tattoos used as his profile and cover pictures. The OCA sent Judge Atillo, Jr. a letter dated January 28, 2020 requiring his comment regarding possible violations of the New Code of Judicial Conduct and OCA Circular No. 173-2017 (Proper Use of Social Media).
Judge Atillo, Jr. filed a Comment dated February 11, 2020 admitting that his account had been hacked on August 11, 2019 and alleging that the privacy setting had been switched from “friends” to “public.” He asserted the photos were meant only for friends and argued they were inadmissible under the exclusionary rule and his constitutional right to privacy of communication and correspondence (Section 3, Article III, Constitution).
The OCA, in a Memorandum dated July 14, 2020, found Judge Atillo, Jr. guilty of violating Sections 1 and 2, Canon 4 of the New Code and OCA Circular No. 173-2017, and administratively liable for Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge. The OCA reasoned that the publicly viewable images could undermine public confidence in the judiciary and recommended re-docketing the matter as a regular administrative case, noting the Comment, and imposing a P15,000 fine and a reprimand with a strong warning.
The matter was resolved by the Supreme Court Second Division on June 24, 2024. The Court adopted the OCA’s factual findings but modified the penalty, holding that the conduct warranted an admonition (a lighter penalty) as a first offense. The decision cites precedents such as Lorenzana v. Judge Austria and Vivares v. St. Theresa’s College, applies Section 3(2), Article III of the Constitution on the exclusionary rule, and references amendments to Rule 140 (Internal Rules of the Judicial Integrity Board; A.M. No. amendments).
Issues:
- Does the exclusionary rule under Section 3(2), Article III of the Constitution bar the use of the subject Facebook photos in this administrative proceeding?
- Did Judge Atillo, Jr.’s postings of the subject photos on Facebook constitute a violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct and OCA Circular No. 173-2017, and what penalty is appropriate?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)