Case Digest (A.M. No. 04-7-373-RTC, 04-7-374-RTC)
Facts:
Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Branch 60, Barili, Cebu; Re: Violation of Judge Ildefonso Suerte, RTC, Branch 60, Barili, Cebu, A.M. No. 04-7-373-RTC; A.M. No. 04-7-374-RTC, December 17, 2004, the Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam.The matter arose from concerns about the handling by Judge Ildefonso B. Suerte of several matters in RTC, Branch 60, Barili, Cebu, most prominently Criminal Case No. CEB-BRL-1039 (People v. Cedric Q. Devinadera), an accessory charge connected to the killing of Alona Bacolod-Ecleo. Deputy Court Administrator Christopher Lock recommended a judicial audit of Branch 60 and an investigation into Judge Suerte’s compliance with Administrative Order No. 36-2004 (AO No. 36-2004) after media reports and pending Judge Suerte’s compulsory retirement.
Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. directed an immediate inquiry and inclusion of Branch 60 in the judicial audit. The audit team, headed by Atty. Rullyn S. Garcia, filed a report (submitted July 9, 2004) later summarized in an en banc Resolution dated October 12, 2004. That audit identified multiple irregularities: 170 dormant cases; several cases Judge Suerte acted on despite the AO’s assignment of new cases and certain pending matters to Assisting Judge Leopoldo V. Canete; suspicious residency assertions in annulment/nullity petitions; premature ex parte dispositions and rapid submission for decision in family cases in apparent violation of the Court’s Rules on Nullity and Annulment (A.M. No. 02-11-10); use of an apparently fabricated transcript of stenographic notes in Civil Case No. CEB-BAR-250; proceeding with and deciding the Devinadera case despite the pendency of a related case in RTC Cebu City (CBU-62308); issuance of an appointment of a special administrator one day after filing SP-BAR-266 without required notice/hearing; and issuance of duplicate dismissals in an estafa case (CEB-BRL-742).
DCA Lock’s July 12, 2004 memorandum gave a detailed narrative of the Devinadera proceedings: the information was filed March 29, 2004; arraignment and a plea of guilty to accessory to homicide occurred April 23, 2004, later changed to accessory to murder and a judgment was rendered May 7, 2004; motions to intervene/reconsider were filed by the victim’s surviving brothers; and the audit found procedural lapses (failure to authenticate or probe voluntariness of extra-judicial confession in open court, doubtful status of the private complainant, limited prosecutor participation, and that the case should not have been heard by Judge Suerte under AO No. 36-2004 because it was filed after March 3, 2004). Judge Suerte acknowledged receipt of the AO but asserted he implemented it only from March 15, 2004 and defended his acts as efforts to expedite disposition of detention cases.
In the October 12, 2004 en banc Resolution the Court suspended Judge Suerte pending final administrative proceedings and directed him, Judge Rosabella M. Tormis (MTCC Branch 4, Cebu City), and Clerk of Court Atty. Rhoda S. Paquero-Razonable to show cause for various alleged violations (AO No. 36-2004; Sections 3 & 1, Rules 79 & 80, Rules of Court; Section 9, Rule 30, Rules of Civil Procedure; Section 17, Rule 114, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure; and the Court’s nullity/annulment rule). Extensions to file answers were sought but no answers or comments were filed within the prescribed period; the Court treated the case submitted for resolution.
Acting on the audit report, DCA memorandum, the en banc Resolution and undisputed findings from the audit team, the Court reached its administrative disposition on December 17, 2004: it dismissed Judge Suerte from the service (forfeiting retirement benefits and with prejudice to reinstatement to gove...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did Judge Ildefonso B. Suerte violate Administrative Order No. 36-2004 and other applicable procedural rules by taking cognizance of, acting on, and deciding certain cases after March 3, 2004?
- Do Judge Suerte’s acts and omissions constitute administrative offenses (gross misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, and incompetence) warranting dismissal?
- Are Judge Rosabella M. Tormis and Clerk of Court Atty. Rhoda S. Paquero-Razonable administratively liable for the acts attributed to them (approving bail outside rule limits; mishandling court recor...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)