A.M. No. RTJ-07-2052 - Ong vs. Dinopol

The administrative case arose from Civil Case No. 1632 entitled “Lorena P. Ong, Plaintiff, v. Domingo Ong, Defendant,” which involved issues over the custody of the couple’s minor children.
The civil case was filed as an action for the declaration of nullity of marriage or legal separation and for damages, and it was raffled to Branch 24 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Koronadal City, South Cotabato, presided over by Judge Oscar E. Dinopol.

On April 1, 2005, Lorena P. Ong (complainant) filed a motion for the issuance of a protection order, seeking the custody of her two children—Lorenzo Ruiz Ong (10 years old) and Maria Monica Loren Ong (4 years old)—as well as support from her husband, Domingo Ong.
By Order dated June 23, 2005, Judge Dinopol ordered Domingo Ong to turn over the custody of Maria Monica Loren to Lorena.
Domingo Ong sought reconsideration of the June 23, 2005 Order, but his motion was denied on September 15, 2005.

On September 15, 2005, during the hearing on the custody of Lorenzo Ruiz, an unannounced interview was conducted by Judge Dinopol with the children in the RTC staff’s working area.
The interview revealed that both children expressed a preference for remaining with their father, as well as a reluctance to sleep with their mother; additionally, evidence showed that the father was perceived as giving better care and that the mother’s commitments (i.e., her enrollment in a nursing school) limited her time with them.
As a result, on September 22, 2005, Judge Dinopol set aside his previous custody orders and maintained a status quo ante, directing that:

The children remain temporarily in the custody of Domingo until a further hearing scheduled for January 19, 2006.
Lorena be allowed to have them for a minimal period each day without forcing them to sleep with her.
The parties observe their Sunday family obligations.

Lorena filed a motion for reconsideration of the September 22, 2005 Order, while simultaneously a new Order dated February 22, 2006 directed a court-appointed Social Welfare Officer, Hidelisa O. Soria, to prepare a child study report with recommendations on preliminary custody arrangements.
In the report, both parents were directed to undergo a neuro-psychiatric evaluation and therapy, and a trial custody arrangement was recommended:

During weekdays (Monday to Friday afternoon), the children would remain with Domingo.
From Friday evening to Sunday, the children would be with Lorena, for a six-month trial custody period.

By Order dated August 17, 2006, Judge Dinopol approved this recommendation. Domingo then filed a motion for reconsideration of the trial custody schedule, seeking custody for the children predominantly during weekdays and only Sunday custody for Lorena.
On August 25, 2006, Judge Dinopol modified the custody schedule to:

Lorena, perceiving partiality on the part of Judge Dinopol in favor of Domingo, subsequently filed a motion for inhibition on September 15, 2006, and later a verified letter-complaint on October 25, 2006.
The letter-complaint charged the judge with:

Gross violations of Sections 18, 20, and 28 of Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004).
Violations of judicial ethics by allegedly rendering an unjust judgment in Civil Case No. 1632.
Unreasonable delay in resolving her motion to inhibit Judge Dinopol.

Domingo, in his comment, contended that Judge Dinopol’s orders were properly issued within the exercise of his sound judicial discretion.
Following the filing of the administrative complaint, Judge Dinopol filed his Answer/Comment denying the charges.
On June 13, 2007, the case was referred to Executive Justice Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores for investigation. The investigation report by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello, dated December 14, 2007, recommended:

Dismissing the administrative complaint for insufficiency of evidence.
Strongly reminding Judge Dinopol to refrain from entertaining litigants outside the court premises to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

Whether Judge Dinopol’s issuance of the custody orders and his conduct during the unannounced interview with the children amounted to a breach of judicial ethics or a misuse of judicial discretion.
Whether the actions of the judge, including the reversal of his earlier orders and the method and timing of the child interviews, violated the provisions of Republic Act No. 9262, particularly Sections 18, 20, and 28.
Whether the judge’s apparent conduct—such as entertaining litigants outside the court premises and receiving visits from Domingo Ong at his residence—created an appearance of impropriety and actual partiality.
Whether Lorena P. Ong’s motions for reconsideration and for inhibition, and her subsequent administrative complaint, adequately substantiated claims of bias and judicial misconduct.
Whether any errors in the exercise of judicial discretion in custody matters are reviewable through administrative proceedings rather than through judicial remedies such as appeals.