Adm. Matter No. 1513-MJ, 1514-MJ, 1534-MJ, 1554-MJ

Complainant Col. Braulio F. Villasis charged Judge Prisco Pabatao with vindictiveness, oppression, grave misconduct, corruption (in violation of the Anti-Graft Law), illegal abuse of judicial process, usury, sabotage of Presidential Decree No. 583 and the land reform program, and accumulation of ill-gotten wealth.
It was alleged that in mid‑1976 the judge, as Municipal Judge of Molave, retaliated against the complainant by refusing to notarize loan documents for the Molave Rural Bank and by coercing persons (Anacorita Mahinay, Agatona Magadan, and Sisinando Baruc) to execute perjured affidavits against the complainant in exchange for substantial rewards and other favorable outcomes.
Additional allegations included the judge’s involvement in usurious lending operations, foreclosing on leasehold lands of the complainant’s tenants, then reoccupying and cultivating the land himself in contravention of land reform objectives.
Further, the complainant asserted that during the brief period of his incumbency, Judge Pabatao acquired various valuable assets—a residential house, parcels of land, and a new car—that were inconsistent with his known salary as a judge and that these were evidences of ill-gotten wealth.

Complainant Sisinando Baruc alleged that after being arrested as an accused in an estafa case, he approached the judge’s office to request a reduction in his bail.
The complaint charged that the judge recklessly set the bail at P3,000.00, despite Baruc’s ability to post a lower bond, and that he discriminated by allowing a co-accused (Anacorita Mahinay) to be released on an extremely low cash bond of P300.00, allegedly in return for performing household chores.
Documentary evidence, including affidavits and addenda, was submitted to support these allegations.

Complainant Anacorita Mahinay charged Judge Pabatao with grave abuse of authority, serious misconduct, violation of the Anti-Graft Law, and falsification.
She alleged that in August 1976, after being detained at the judge’s residence under arrest for estafa, she was forced to perform various household tasks – including cooking, washing, and laundering for the judge’s family – until she managed to escape to secure bail.
Moreover, she contended that an addendum to an undertaking bearing a signature allegedly not her own was fraudulently prepared by the judge, purporting that she had executed it.
Her affidavits and supporting documents were attached as part of her complaint.

Complainant Juan Oyao alleged that on October 1, 1975, Judge Pabatao, in filling out a required personal data sheet (C.S. Form No. 212), deliberately falsified his answer regarding the pendency of an administrative disciplinary action against him.
It was asserted that despite having an ongoing administrative complaint (Administrative Case No. 782-MJ), the judge answered “no” to the query about whether he had ever been the subject of an administrative disciplinary action, thereby committing serious misconduct.
Copies of the personal data sheet and the judge’s comment on the said administrative complaint were submitted as evidence.

In response to the multiple allegations, Judge Pabatao consistently denied the material assertions in his comment, maintaining that the complaints were fabricated and merely a pretext for harassment.
He argued that his actions – including the issuance of subpoenas or the determination of bail amounts – were in line with his judicial duties and discretion, and that the differences in treatment among accused in the same case could lawfully occur.
The administrative matters were referred for investigation, and Inquest Judge Asaali S. Isnani rendered a report recommending that all charges be dismissed, finding the allegations either unsubstantiated or based on unreliable testimony.

Whether Judge Pabatao committed acts of vindictiveness, oppression, grave misconduct, and corruption, including violating the Anti-Graft Law, by using his judicial office to retaliate against complainant Col. Braulio Villasis.
Whether the allegations of illegal abuse of judicial process—specifically, the filing of a complaint against Fiscal Rufino Cadelinia and the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum for fishing for evidence—are substantiated.
Whether the judge’s conduct in handling bail matters and alleged favoritism—such as setting disparate bail amounts for co-accused—is legally justifiable or constitutes discrimination and grave abuse of discretion.
Whether Judge Pabatao’s alleged falsification on his C.S. Form No. 212, by answering “no” regarding pending administrative disciplinary action despite an unresolved complaint, amounts to dishonesty or serious misconduct.
Whether the allegations of usury, sabotage of prescribed land reform measures, and accumulation of ill-gotten wealth are proved by the evidence on record.