A.M. No. RTJ-99-1453 - Sinnott vs. Barte

On February 25, 1992, Demetria Pedrano, a lay leader of the Roman Catholic Church from Barrio Laperian, Zamboanga del Sur, left her residence in Laperian to settle her land taxes in Poblacion, San Miguel.
Upon her return that afternoon, Demetria was fatally shot in the mouth by one of three assailants assembled at her house, while Basilia Pedrano, her mother, was hacked to death.
Lolita Pedrano Pingkian, the seven-year-old niece, managed to escape the scene when the killings began.

State prosecutors filed two murder charges (Criminal Case Nos. 0474 and 0475) against Nenito Gadonan for the killings of Demetria and Basilia Pedrano.
The criminal cases were raffled to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 29 in San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur, which was presided over by Judge Recaredo P. Barte.
On January 20, 1995, Judge Barte promulgated a joint decision acquitting accused Nenito Gadonan on both murder counts on the basis of reasonable doubt.

On March 29, 1995, a group composed of Demetria Pedrano’s siblings (Erlinda Pedrano Pingkian, Rosita Pedrano Lopez, Alfredo Pedrano, Gaspar Pedrano, Antonio Pedrano, and Carino Pedrano), along with Fr. Michael Sinnott, Parish Priest of Our Lady of Lourdes Parish, Corazon Mendoza (a parish worker), and Virginia Baling PestaAas (a diocesan pastoral worker), filed an administrative complaint against Judge Barte.
The complainants alleged that Judge Barte was biased and partial in his handling of the criminal cases because, despite the overwhelming evidence that Nenito Gadonan committed the murders, the judge disregarded such evidence.
The complaint further asserted that Judge Barte’s alleged bias stemmed from his personal relationship with members of Gadonan’s family—specifically, that one daughter was his former househelper and another was rumored to be in a special personal relationship with him—thus, he should have inhibited himself from the case.

In his comment submitted on September 1, 1995, Judge Barte denied any bias, asserting that he would have inhibited himself if a motion had been duly filed by the complainants.
He explained that while one of the accused’s daughters had once served as his househelper, she had left his household before the criminal cases were assigned to him, and he denied any special relationship with any other daughter of the accused.
Judge Barte maintained that the administrative complaint was an improper remedy for seeking a retrial, noting that the prosecution also neglected several evidentiary procedures during the trial.

An affidavit from Vicente A. Gerebise, a process server, alleged that Judge Barte, during telephone conversations in July and August 1995, requested him to seek hired killers to assassinate Fr. Sinnott and other human rights activists involved in the case.
Fr. Sinnott, in correspondence and affidavits, also produced letters allegedly from Michelle "Ging-Ging" Gadunan—purportedly the respondent’s lover—adding to the cloud of impropriety.
Later, additional letters and sworn statements surfaced, further suggesting that Judge Barte engaged in improper conduct linked to his personal relationships with women associated with the accused.

The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), acting on a request by the Supreme Court, conducted an investigation and, in its March 24, 1997, Disposition Report, uncovered new evidence.
The NBI learned that in July 1994, Judge Barte was introduced to Richel Gadunan, who later submitted a sworn statement alleging that the judge used his influence to initiate a sexual relationship with her.
Richel Gadunan gave birth to a child on May 16, 1996, and the birth certificate obtained by the NBI indicated that Judge Barte was the father. Despite the claim of marriage between them on June 13, 1994, no marriage certificate was filed with the civil registry in Pagadian City.
Witnesses during the subsequent hearings in Pagadian City, including testimony from process servers, law enforcement personnel, and human rights workers, further confirmed the existence of correspondence and inappropriate conduct linking Judge Barte and Richel Gadunan.
Notably, witnesses also testified regarding other personal interactions and corroborative evidence (letters, affidavits, and photographic evidence) that painted a picture of the judge’s immoral conduct outside the bench.

The administrative case was referred for further investigation by Associate Justice Marina L. Buzon of the Court of Appeals, with hearings conducted in Pagadian City involving various witnesses.
Respondent Judge Barte testified regarding the flow of the criminal trial proceedings, his assignment, and the absence of any motion for his inhibition during the concourse of the case.
Even after the trial, the complainants raised issues only when they discovered the judge’s alleged personal involvement with the accused’s daughter, raising a question of whether the acquittal was influenced by bias.
Amidst the proceedings, the Supreme Court also addressed ancillary issues such as the release of Judge Barte’s retirement benefits and motions regarding the conduct of the investigation.

After a thorough examination of the evidence, the investigating justice recommended the dismissal of the charges of bias and partiality in the trial of the murder cases.
However, substantial evidence showed that Judge Barte was guilty of immoral conduct by engaging in an illicit sexual relationship with Richel Gadunan, a woman other than his wife, thereby violating the ethical standards expected of a judicial officer.

Whether Judge Barte exhibited bias and partiality in the handling of Criminal Case Nos. 0474 and 0475 by acquitting accused Nenito Gadonan despite substantial evidence linking him to the murders.

The issue centered on whether his personal ties to members of the accused’s family, including a rumored special relationship with a daughter, predisposed him to act in favor of the accused.
It questioned the timeliness and propriety of raising an objection regarding bias, given that no motion to inhibit was filed during the trial proceedings.

Whether the administrative proceedings were properly invoked as a remedy to address alleged misconduct, including bias and moral impropriety.

The complainants sought a mistrial and retrial of the criminal cases through the administrative complaint, raising issues of whether such an approach was appropriate.
The issue also entailed whether an administrative complaint could serve as a substitute for timely judicial remedies like a motion for reconsideration or petition for certiorari.

Whether the evidence presented, particularly the affidavits, letters, and NBI’s findings regarding an extramarital relationship, was sufficient to uphold a finding of misconduct against a judge.

It involved examining if the evidence meets the threshold of “substantial evidence” in administrative proceedings.
The issue extended to assessing whether the evidence of immoral conduct was disconnected from the issue of alleged bias in the criminal trial.