Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-03-1799)
Facts:
Maria Cristina Olondriz Pertierra v. Judge Alberto L. Lerma, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1799 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 01-1268-RTJ], September 12, 2003, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Maria Cristina Olondriz Pertierra filed two administrative complaints (September 27, 2001 and June 20, 2002) against respondent Judge Alberto L. Lerma, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 256, Muntinlupa City, charging (1) gross ignorance of the law and (2) conduct unbecoming a judge, bias, partiality, impropriety, and lack of integrity. The underlying civil matter was Civil Case No. 99-266 (petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage) filed by Arturo B. Pertierra on September 14, 1999 and raffled to Branch 256.
In the first complaint, Pertierra alleged that Judge Lerma erred in granting an urgent motion allowing disposition of the complainant’s share in a Manila Polo Club share (valued at P3.15 million), arguing the share was an inheritance and not conjugal property, and that the judge failed to require an accounting of sale proceeds. She filed a motion for reconsideration on August 8, 2000, which remained unresolved for over a year; instead, the judge set the case for pre-trial on September 5, 2001 without first referring the case to the prosecuting attorney or Solicitor General as required under Article 48 of the Family Code.
Judge Lerma, in a December 20, 2001 comment, denied irregularity and explained he granted the urgent motion after weighing pleadings and evidence; he also attributed the delay in acting on the motion for reconsideration to the complainant’s counsel’s withdrawal on August 20, 2001 and the complainant’s failure to retain new counsel. The complainant further alleged that the favorable disposition was motivated by the judge’s close social relationship with petitioner’s counsel, Atty. Felisberto L. Verano, Jr.
The second complaint (June 20, 2002) arose from an incident on June 19, 2002 when the complainant saw Judge Lerma having lunch with Atty. Verano in the courtroom shortly before a scheduled hearing. The judge explained that Verano was invited by the Branch Clerk of Court to a personnel birthday celebration and that their talk was trivial. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended admonition for failure to act on the motion for reconsideration and, separately, found that fraternizing with counsel constituted a light offense punishable under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, recommending a fine of P1,000 and warning.
By resolution dated July 31, 2002 (per OCA recommendation), this Court admonished Judge Lerma for the undue delay in resolving the motion for reconsideration, required him to resolve it within ten days and to comply with Article 48, and dismissed the gross ignorance charge as premature for lack of an adverse appellate finding; it also directed the judge to comment on the June 20, 2002 complaint. In subsequent comments, Judge Lerma stated he had granted the complainant’s motion to inhibit by Order dated August 7, 2002 and that the case records had been re-raffled, thereby removing his authority over the matter.
The OCA memorandum of January 7, 2003 reiterated the recommendation of finding Judge Lerma guilty of the light offense of fraternizing and imposing a P1,000 fine with a warning. The Supreme Court, applying Canon 30 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics and Rule 140 (Section 5 and Section 10.C), found that while fraternizing with counsel is not per se wrong, the judge should have avoided such association given pending litigation before him; there was no showing of malice,...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the administrative complaint for gross ignorance of the law against Judge Lerma premature and properly dismissed?
- Did Judge Lerma’s prolonged delay in resolving the complainant’s motion for reconsideration warrant disciplinary sanction?
- Did Judge Lerma’s act of eating lunch with counsel who had a pending case before his sala constitute conduct unbecoming a judge, a...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)