G.R. No. 143868 - Ferdez vs. Spouses Tarun

Five administrative cases were filed against Judge Alberto L. Lerma of the RTC, Branch 256, Muntinlupa City.
The charges pertained to alleged violations of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars; making untruthful statements in certificates of service; gross ignorance of the law; gross negligence; delay in rendering orders; abuse of judicial authority and discretion; and serious irregularity.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) consolidated the cases and referred them to the Investigating Justice of the Court of Appeals, after which the Supreme Court redocketed the cases as A.M. Nos. RTJ-07-2076, RTJ-07-2077, RTJ-07-2078, RTJ-07-2079, and RTJ-07-2080.

Originated from Criminal Case No. 3639-R where Ruperto Pizarro y Bruno was charged with violating Presidential Decree No. 1866.
Procedural history:

The accused was already detained in another criminal case and, consequently, the RTC ordered that all notices be forwarded to the Quezon City Jail.
After the accused’s transfer from Quezon City Jail to the Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa City, a Supreme Court resolution directed the raffle of the criminal case to RTC Branch 256.
Judge Lerma, assigned the case, received the evidence and later granted a motion for a demurrer to the prosecution’s evidence when the firearm evidentiary exhibit was omitted.
The dismissal of Criminal Case No. 3639-R was rendered on grounds of insufficiency of evidence, though the OCA contended that by ruling on the merits he exceeded the Supreme Court directive which limited his authority to the arraignment and receiving evidence only.

Charges arose from allegations concerning Judge Lerma’s participation in golf activities during hours when he was required to be present in court.
Evidence of his attendance at Alabang Country Club and at TAT Filipinas Golf Club was presented:

Logbook entries and testimonies confirmed his presence at TAT Filipinas on several dates and specified times, all of which were Thursdays.
The OCA noted that on several occasions, Judge Lerma failed to file the requisite leave of absence, violating Supreme Court Memorandum Order and subsequent administrative circulars.

The allegations further included making untruthful statements in the certificate of service and absconding from his judicial duties for half the working/session hours.

The case originated as part of Civil Case No. 90-659 involving a dispute over a bank deposit and related orders in favor of Alexander Van Twest.
Procedural history and actions:

Amid the disappearance of Van Twest, an administrator was appointed in Special Proceeding No. 97-045.
Union Bank subsequently filed motions and manifestations challenging the administrator’s powers and seeking to recall the writ of execution/garnishment.
While Judge Lerma was on official leave, a pairing judge handled one aspect of the matter. However, upon resuming, Judge Lerma issued a controversial second order on the same day (June 6, 2007) which contradicted his earlier ruling.
This second order was criticized for its lack of transparency, secretiveness, and for proceeding without proper notice, which ultimately rendered subsequent proceedings moot.

The OCA and the complainant charged this act with gross negligence, leading to a determination that such conduct warranted the most serious penalty.

Involved a dispute with Jose Mari L. Duarte tied to Civil Case No. 2003-433 concerning the validity of the general membership meeting and election of the Ayala Alabang Village Association (AAVA).
Judge Lerma:

Handled the case by denying the defendants’ motions to dismiss on the basis of lack of jurisdiction and later set the hearing for a TRO, which was eventually denied.
Rendered a decision favoring the plaintiff by declaring the meeting void ab initio, enjoining certain defendants from exercising office functions, and ordering a re-election.

After the decision, a petition for indirect contempt was filed against some defendants for continuing to perform their official functions despite the order.
The judge’s handling of the contempt proceedings was later called into question due to the lack of proper opportunity for rebuttal and the absence of a separate hearing for the contempt charge.

The Investigating Justice’s recommendations ultimately led to a finding of gross ignorance of the law on Judge Lerma’s part.

Concerned Criminal Case No. 06-179 involving an estafa charge against Bennie Cuason for allegedly defrauding retired General Meliton D. Goyena by promising the return of a large investment along with condominium certificates.
Procedural timeline and judicial actions:

The case was initially raffled to another judge in RTC Branch 204, but following its designation as a special court for drug cases, it was re-raffled to Judge Lerma’s sala.
Judge Lerma issued an omnibus order dismissing the case due to a determination of lack of probable cause, despite motions by both the accused (seeking determination) and the complainant.
The delay, amounting to 48 days after hearing the motions, and the reliance on documentary evidence instead of a proper ocular inspection were central to the controversy.
The delay and alleged abuse of judicial discretion in dismissing the case without adequately probing the existence of the condominium units were highlighted by the OCA as a serious administrative lapse.

Whether Judge Lerma exceeded the boundaries of his authority by deciding on the merits in a criminal case (A.M. No. RTJ-07-2076) when his directive was limited to arraignment and receipt of evidence.
Whether his failure to file approved leave of absence and his engagement in off-duty activities (golf) constituted a violation of Supreme Court rules, resulting in untruthful certificates of service (A.M. No. RTJ-07-2080).
Whether the issuance of a second, conflicting order without proper notice in the civil matter (A.M. No. RTJ-07-2077) demonstrates gross negligence and abuse of judicial discretion.
Whether Judge Lerma’s assumption of jurisdiction in a case involving the AAVA, and his handling of indirect contempt proceedings without affording due process, amounts to gross ignorance of the law (A.M. No. RTJ-07-2078).
Whether the undue delay in rendering an order and reliance on insufficient evidentiary procedures in dismissing a criminal case for estafa constitutes grave abuse of judicial authority and undue delay (A.M. No. RTJ-07-2079).