Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-11-2301, RTJ-11-2302, 12-9-188-RTC)
Facts:
Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Perla V. Cabrera-Faller; Office of the Court Administrator v. Presiding Judge Fernando L. Felicen et al.; A.M. No. RTJ-11-2301; A.M. No. RTJ-11-2302; A.M. No. 12-9-188-RTC, January 16, 2018, Supreme Court En Banc, Sereno, C.J., writing for the Court.The consolidated administrative matters originated with judicial audits by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA): a 15–17 September 2010 audit of RTC Dasmariñas, Branch 90 (docketed as A.M. No. RTJ-11-2301), and a 3–11 February 2011 audit of RTC Imus, Branches 20, 21 and 22 together with Branch 90 (docketed as A.M. No. RTJ-11-2302). An anonymous letter claiming corruption in Civil Case No. 1998-08 before Judge Perla V. Cabrera-Faller generated A.M. No. 12-9-188-RTC and was consolidated with the other matters.
The OCA reports catalogued systemic irregularities in petitions for declaration of nullity and annulment of marriage: suspicious or incomplete addresses and multiple petitions showing the same addresses; substituted service of summons without compliance with the requirements of Manotoc v. CA; service outside territorial jurisdiction; absence or inadequate collusion reports by prosecutors; non‑attachment or defective psychological evaluation reports and minutes; issuance of certificates of finality and decrees on the same day; and unusually rapid grants of petitions (many decided in six months or less). The Court initially directed respondents to explain and to take corrective action; noncompliance and overlapping subject matter prompted consolidation and referral to the Court of Appeals (CA) for investigation.
The CA investigating justice, Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, conducted a full investigation and filed an Amended Report (4 October 2016) recommending discipline ranging from fines and suspensions to dismissal for various judges, clerks, sheriffs and process servers — while recommending dismissal of some charges and exoneration of certain personnel. The CA report emphasized violations of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (the Rule on Declaration of Nullity/Annulment), Rule 14, Rules of Court, and the requirements for substituted service in Manotoc; it also flagged the courts’ failure to guard against the appearance of impropriety.
On plenary consideration, the Supreme Court En Banc reviewed the OCA audit findings, the CA Amended Report and r...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does the absence of objections by the parties, the public prosecutor, the Solicitor General, or the State in the underlying judicial proceedings bar administrative discipline against judges and court personnel for the irregularities found?
- Did the judges commit administratively actionable violations by allowing cases filed in improper venues to proceed?
- Did sheriffs and process servers, and the judges who tolerated their practices, commit administrative offenses by effecting substituted service or service outside their territorial jurisdiction without complying with the requirements in Manotoc and Rule 14?
- Did the judges err in permitting proceedings to continue without adequate collusion investigation reports from the public prosecutor in violation of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC?
- Do the issuance of certificates of finality/decrees without proper service or registration, the extraordinarily rapid grant of petitions, and questionable raffling practices establish gross ignorance of the law and gross misconduct warranting the penalties impo...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)