A.M. No. MTJ-03-1505 - Ali vs. Pacalna

Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-03-1505)

Administrative Liability Under the September 25, 2007 Decision

In the Decision dated September 25, 2007, respondent was found administratively liable for dishonesty, gross misconduct amounting to a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and gross ignorance of the law or procedure. The Court held that respondent violated the ethical mandates that judges must uphold the integrity of the judiciary, avoid impropriety or the appearance of impropriety in all activities, and perform official duties honestly and diligently.

The September 25, 2007 disposition ordered respondent to pay a fine of P20,000.00, with a warning that repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely. The Court also reprimanded the Court Stenographer, Mandag Batua-an, with a similar warning.

Respondent did not file a motion for reconsideration. He paid the fine on December 3, 2007.

Subsequent Administrative and Criminal Developments

One week after the September 25, 2007 Decision, a new administrative complaint was filed against respondent, docketed as A.M. No. MTJ-11-1791 (formerly OCA IPI No. 08-1958-MTJ). The complaint was submitted by members of the Marawi City Police, namely: PO2 Ricky C. Gogo; PO2 Mamintal B. Osop; PO2 Casan A. Imam; PO1 Agakhan A. Tomawis; PO1 Anowar C. Modasir; PO1 Alano D. Osop; PO1 Alnasser D. Ali; and PO1 Casanali M. Lawi.

On August 17, 2011, the Supreme Court’s First Division resolved to adopt and approve the findings and recommendations of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). Respondent was held liable for grave misconduct and was meted the penalty of six (6) months suspension, which was converted to the forfeiture of the corresponding amount of his salary. The Court ordered the salary withheld through a February 16, 2011 Resolution.

The second administrative case was subsequently indorsed to the OCA Legal Office to commence criminal charges against respondent for violation of P.D. No. 1829 (Obstruction of Justice). Respondent later filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by Resolution dated January 23, 2013 of the Supreme Court’s Second Division.

On September 4, 2013, the OCA filed a criminal complaint for Obstruction of Justice with the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao. The OCA issued a Certification on October 25, 2013 stating that P209,810.70, representing six months of respondent’s salary, was deducted from his terminal leave benefits.

Respondent resigned on December 1, 2009 while he was being investigated in the second administrative case.

Respondent’s Petition for Judicial Clemency

Respondent thereafter sought to rejoin the judiciary. He filed an application before the Supreme Court for clemency and emphasized that he had already been interviewed by the JBC in November 2012. He claimed that the only barrier to his judicial nomination was the penalty imposed in the September 25, 2007 administrative case.

Respondent requested compassion and, at minimum, the reduction of the fine from P20,000.00 to P10,000.00. In support of the petition, respondent stated that he promised before God and the High Court that he would never repeat the acts or omissions committed as a judge. He also asserted that he had learned sufficient lessons during the period he had become jobless for three years and that his family had suffered due to his shortcomings.

The Supreme Court evaluated the petition against the standards it had previously adopted.

Governing Standards on Judicial Clemency

The Supreme Court relied on the guidelines in A.M. No. 07-7-17-SC, which required, among others, proof of remorse and reformation, demonstrated through certifications or testimonials from credible sources such as members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, judges or judges’ associations, and prominent community members of known integrity and probity. The Court also stated that a subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case for the same or similar misconduct creates a strong presumption of non-reformation.

Further, the Court required sufficient time to have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to permit reformation. It also required a showing of promise and potential for public service, and it allowed other relevant factors and circumstances that might justify clemency.

Evaluation of Respondent’s Claims of Remorse and Reformation

The Supreme Court found that respondent’s petition was not supported by any single proof of repentance. The Court held that his appeal was anchored only on his own declarations. It was further premised on his intention to return to the judiciary based on his belief that his seventeen (17) years of experience would make him an effective instrument in the delivery of justice in Lanao del Sur, and on his promise that he would not repeat his wrongful acts.

The Court emphasized that, beyond respondent’s self-serving assertions, there was no independent evidence or other relevant circumstances to justify clemency. The Court thus concluded that respondent failed to satisfy the evidentiary requirements laid down in A.M. No. 07-7-17-SC.

The Court’s Assessment of the Gravity and Pattern of Misconduct

In explaining why the petition could not be granted, the Court revisited the nature of respondent’s earlier and later administrative transgressions.

For the September 25, 2007 administrative case, the Court held that respondent exhibited gross ignorance of procedure in the conduct of election cases involving petitions for inclusion of voters in barangay elections. The Court found that his procedural errors caused delays and resulted in the complainants’ name not being timely included in the master list, such that the complainant was not considered a candidate for barangay chairman. The Court ruled that such failure to observe fundamental rules could not be excused.

The Court also found that respondent intentionally fabricated an order purportedly granting a motion for intervention filed by counsel for the incumbent mayor, whose re-election complainant and co-petitioners allegedly did not support. The Court characterized the fabrication as dishonesty.

In the subsequent administrative case (A.M. No. MTJ-11-1791), the Court found that respondent misused his authority by taking custody of an accused then detained for carnapping charges, despite the vigorous objection of the complainant police officers. The Court described the act as improper because respondent issued only a signed handwritten acknowledgment receipt with an undertaking to present the accused to the court when ordered. The accused was never returned to jail, and while the case against him was dismissed, the Court found that no court order for release had been issued.

Respondent sought to justify his conduct by invoking his position as Sultan in his hometo

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. MTJ-03-1505)

The case involved a Petition for Absolute Judicial Clemency filed by Baguinda-Ali A. Pacalna, a former Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Balindong, Lanao del Sur.
The respondents named in the petition were Hon. Baguinda-Ali Pacalna (Presiding Judge), Hon. Pundaya A. Berua (Acting Presiding Judge), Hadji Ibra Darimbang (Clerk of Court), and Mandag U. Batua-an (Court Stenographer), all of the MCTC, Municipality of Balindong, Province of Lanao del Sur.
The matter was resolved by the First Division of the Court.
The Court treated the petition as a request for mercy after multiple administrative findings involving the same respondent.

Procedural Posture

The petition for clemency was filed after the Court’s September 25, 2007 Decision finding the respondent administratively liable.
The respondent did not file any motion for reconsideration of the September 25, 2007 Decision and paid the imposed P20,000.00 fine on December 3, 2007.
Shortly after the 2007 Decision, a second administrative complaint was filed against the respondent.
The Court later adopted the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) findings in the second administrative case, resulting in a further penalty.
After resignation during the pendency of the second administrative case, the respondent sought to rejoin the judiciary by applying for an RTC position.
The Court ultimately denied the petition for judicial clemency for lack of merit.

Key Factual Background

In the September 25, 2007 Decision, the Court found the respondent administratively liable for dishonesty, serious misconduct, and gross ignorance of the law or procedure, and for violating the Code of Judicial Conduct requiring judges to uphold integrity, avoid impropriety or the appearance of impropriety, and perform duties honestly and diligently.
The September 25, 2007 ruling ordered the respondent to pay a P20,000.00 fine and warned that repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.
One week after the September 25, 2007 Decision, a new administrative complaint was filed by members of the Marawi City Police against the respondent.
In the second administrative case, the Court held the respondent liable for grave misconduct and imposed a penalty of six (6) months suspension, later converted to the forfeiture of salary amounts ordered withheld by a February 16, 2011 Resolution.
The OCA indorsed the case for criminal prosecution for alleged violation of P.D. No. 1829 (Obstruction of Justice).
The respondent’s motion for reconsideration in the second administrative case was denied under a January 23, 2013 Resolution of the Court’s Second Division.
A criminal complaint for Obstruction of Justice was filed by the OCA with the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao on September 4, 2013.
The OCA certified on October 25, 2013 that P209,810.70, corresponding to six months salary, had been deducted from the respondent’s terminal leave benefits.
The respondent resigned on December 1, 2009 while being investigated by the OCA in the second administrative case.
The respondent sought judicial clemency to rejoin the judiciary and applied for an RTC of Marawi City, Branch 9.
The respondent informed the Court that the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) had interviewed him in November 2012, and that the only hindrance to his nomination was the penalty imposed in the present clemency case.
The respondent asked the Court to reduce the penalty imposed in the September 25, 2007 Decision from P20,000.00 to P10,000.00.

Administrative Findings Cited

The Court’s September 25, 2007 Decision involved the respondent’s mishandling of election-related cases concerning petitions for inclusion of voters in barangay elections.
The Court found gross ignorance of procedure that resulted in delays and prevented the complainant’s name from being timely included in the master list, which led to the complainant’s non-consideration as a barangay chairman candidate.
The Court held that the respondent’s failure to observe fundamental rules relative to such petitions could not be excused.
The Court also found that the respondent intentionally fabricated an order purportedly granting a motion for intervention, involving counsel for the incumbent mayor’s reelection-related contest.
The Court treated the fabrication as dishonesty constituting a reprehensi