Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-17-2507)
Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-17-2507)
Facts:
Re: Anonymous Complaints Against Hon. Dinah Evangeline B. Bandong, Former Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 59, Lucena City, Quezon Province, A.M. No. RTJ-17-2507 (formerly OCA IPI No. 14-4329-RTJ), October 09, 2017, Supreme Court First Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court (819 Phil. 518).The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received two anonymous letters-complaints on April 16, 2013 and a third anonymous letter on April 18, 2013 accusing then Presiding Judge Dinah Evangeline B. Bandong of failures in judicial competence and misconduct, and accusing certain court personnel (Clerk III Eduardo Febrer and Court Interpreter Francisco Mendioro) of malfeasance. The complaints alleged that Judge Bandong habitually watched television during office hours and hearings, delegated decision-making and mediation to staff (including non-accredited personnel), favored certain employees, and improperly demanded priority receipt of checks; Febrer and Mendioro were separately accused of dereliction and extortion-like schemes.
The OCA indorsed the complaints to the Executive Judge of RTC Lucena City for discreet investigation. Meanwhile, the Court approved Judge Bandong’s application for optional retirement effective September 30, 2013 but withheld most retirement benefits pending resolution of the anonymous complaints and two other administrative matters against her. Executive Judge Eloida R. De Leon‑Diaz conducted the discreet inquiry and submitted reports recommending dismissal of charges against Febrer and Mendioro but recommending administrative charges against Judge Bandong for gross ignorance of the law, incompetence, and conduct unbecoming.
Pursuant to the OCA recommendation, the Court in its October 15, 2014 Resolution re‑docketed the anonymous complaints as an administrative matter, furnished Judge Bandong copies of the complaints and reports, required her comment, dismissed the charges against Febrer and Mendioro for lack of merit, and directed a judicial audit of Branch 59. Judge Bandong filed a detailed comment denying the charges and attacking the Executive Judge’s findings.
The OCA conducted a judicial audit and a parallel investigation, obtaining sworn statements from several Branch 59 personnel and parties to a contested criminal case; it also found a handwritten receipt allegedly evidencing a mediated settlement handled by a court stenographer. The OCA concluded that most allegations lacked sufficient corroboration but that substantial evidence supported three charges: (1) watching television during court hours (conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service/Canon 6), (2) delegating mediation of cases to court personnel in violation of A.M. No. 01-10-05-SC-PHILJA (grave misconduct), and (3) assigning a process server duties of a Clerk III in violation of Canon IV for court personnel (violation of SC rules/directives). The OCA recommended re‑docketing the matter, finding Judge Bandong liable and, given her retirement, recommending forfeiture of benefits (except accrued leave) and bar from reemployment.
The Court reviewed the record, adopted in part the OCA’s findings, and rendered judgment as set out below.
Issues:
- Whether the evidence presented constitutes substantial evidence to hold Judge Bandong administratively liable for (a) watching television during court hours, (b) delegating mediation to court personnel, and (c) assigning Clerk III duties to a process server.
- If liability is established, what sanctions are appropriate given Judge Bandong’s retirement status and applicable rules on administrative penalties and forfeiture of benefits.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)