A.M. No. RTJ-16-2470 - Cahanap vs. Quinones

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-16-2470)

Factual Background of the Administrative Complaint

The complainant alleged a pattern of oppression and misconduct during his last two years as a prosecutor in Branch 6. He recounted several episodes in specific criminal cases involving the manner of courtroom interaction, the timing and handling of proceedings, and alleged interference with prosecutorial functions. He also accused the respondent judge of habitual tardiness and delays in the opening of court sessions. In addition, he alleged humiliating and disrespectful behavior directed toward lawyers and toward court personnel, including shouted remarks and insulting language. The complaint covered seven principal accusations, each tied to a particular case event or conduct in court or in the judge’s chambers.

Allegations Concerning Judicial Conduct Toward Lawyers

First, the complainant alleged that in People v. Inot (Criminal Case No. 6-15566), the respondent judge objected angrily to leading questions during the complainant’s re-direct examination despite the absence of objections by defense counsel. He similarly alleged that in People v. Badelles (Criminal Case No. 06-15405), the respondent judge issued an order blaming him for the failure of the forensic chemist to bring chemistry reports for other accused because he allegedly did not sufficiently specify the chemistry reports due to the court. He further alleged that in the same case, the respondent judge gave him a “lecture” on proper courtroom demeanor while he was making a formal offer of testimony, causing extreme embarrassment. The complainant maintained that prosecutors assigned in the past eventually sought reassignment because of recurring humiliation and harsh treatment, and that even the judge’s staff experienced insolent behavior.

Allegations of Habitual Tardiness

Second, the complainant accused the respondent judge of habitual tardiness. He asserted that court sessions often started at 9:30 a.m. or 10:00 a.m., and that the practice earned for her the monicker “Branch 10.”

Allegations of Interference and Impropriety in Court Proceedings

Third, in the Heck case (People v. Heck; Criminal Case Nos. 15144, 15149, 15151, and 15153 for Estafa), the complainant alleged that the respondent judge, in open court and in the presence of the public, asked a private complainant, Hanna Mamad, to go to her house because the judge was interested in buying jewelry. He alleged that the judge directed her staff to provide Mamad directions to her house. He further asserted that Mamad confirmed to him on September 13, 2012 that the respondent judge bought jewelry from her, and that court personnel testified that the judge displayed the jewelry she allegedly purchased.

Fourth, in the Macapato case (People v. Macapato; Criminal Case No. 16089 for Attempted Murder), the complainant alleged that the respondent judge issued an Order dated June 18, 2012 directing the release of accused Dimaampao’s vehicle despite the prosecution’s written opposition on the ground that the vehicle had not yet been presented as evidence and formally offered so the court could acquire jurisdiction. He also alleged that the judge set the motion for hearing a day after its filing, in violation of the three-day notice rule. He further alleged that the TSN showed bias and conduct that practically acted as defense counsel, prompting the prosecution to move for inhibition.

Fifth, in People v. Tingcang (Tingcang Case; Criminal Case No. 6-6115 for Murder), the complainant alleged that the respondent judge dismissed the case provisionally without prejudice to refiling upon the availability of prosecution witnesses on the ground of speedy trial. The complainant explained that the delay allegedly arose because the accused had been in hiding since 1996.

Sixth, in People v. Casido (Casido Case; Criminal Case No. 6-16034), the complainant alleged that the respondent judge dismissed a complaint for attempted murder because of the alleged absence of a fatal wound, which the complainant contended had been misplaced in the information for attempted murder.

Allegations of Oppressive and Disrespectful Behavior Toward Court Staff

Seventh, the complainant asserted that the respondent judge mistreated her staff. He alleged that on July 29, 2011 the judge shouted at a court stenographer and called her “bogo” (dumb). He further alleged that she berated another stenographer using offensive language.

Respondent Judge’s Denials and Explanations

In her Comment dated January 12, 2013, the respondent judge denied maltreatment of prosecutors assigned to her sala. She supported her denials with documentation: a certification dated January 3, 2013 from OIC-Provincial Prosecutor Diosdado D. Cabrera indicating that Prosecutor Macacuna B. Macadatu requested transfer for security reasons rather than due to maltreatment; a letter dated March 22, 2011 from Prosecutor Macadato requesting reassignment due to a threat to his life; an affidavit dated December 18, 2012 by Prosecutor Mangontawar M. Gubat stating he declined to be trial prosecutor for health reasons; and a joint affidavit dated January 3, 2013 by public attorneys Nur Jaypha R. Bacaraman and Rashid A. Macarimbang explaining that reassignment was based on policy considerations such as caseloads.

On the jewelry incident in the Heck case, the respondent judge denied that she asked Mamad to go to her house, explaining instead that she acted on events in court in response to motions and circumstances. Regarding the Macapato case, she asserted that the motion was acted upon immediately in good faith because it was an urgent motion exempted from the three-day notice rule. Regarding the Tingcang case, she insisted that the dismissal was issued in good faith as part of judicial functions. Regarding the Casido case, she admitted error, describing the finding of lack of probable cause due to absence of a “fatal injury” as a mistake of judgment made in good faith.

As to alleged undue interference with proceedings, the respondent judge explained that she merely reminded lawyers of the purposes of enforcing rules and eliciting evidence with sufficient probative value, and she claimed she did not act to hinder the prosecution. As to offensive attitude toward staff, she denied oppression and characterized her conduct as supervisory admonition. She also admitted arriving late but denied habitual tardiness. She asserted that her disposal rate of cases from June 2010 to November 2012—stated as sixty percent (60%)—would disprove the allegation.

OCA Proceedings and Recommendation

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended dismissal of three sets of charges as involving issues judicial in nature: (1) the Order dated June 18, 2012 in the Macapato case; (2) the June 18, 2012 order dismissing in the Tingcang case on the ground of violation of the accused’s right to speedy trial; and (3) the disposition in the Casido case dismissing for lack of probable cause. The OCA reasoned that reviewing the merits underlying decisions and orders issued by a judge would amount to re-evaluation of judicial discretion, which the OCA does not possess in an administrative complaint. It explained that questions judicial in nature should be litigated through the proper judicial review.

As to the remaining allegations, the OCA found them serious but noted that conflicting versions created factual issues that could not be resolved solely from the records. It therefore recommended that the remaining charges be referred to the Executive Justice of the Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City, for raffle among Justices for investigation, report, and recommendation within sixty (60) days.

Court Adoption of OCA’s Recommendation

The Court adopted the OCA’s recommendations through a resolution dated February 11, 2015. The complainant sought reconsideration of the OCA report, but the Court denied his motion through a resolution dated July 1, 2015.

Investigating Justice’s Findings and Recommendations

After investigation, Investigating Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh recommended administrative liability for Oppression with a fine of P40,000.00 and for Habitual Tardiness with a fine of P20,000.00. She also recommended transferring the respondent judge to a different court given irreparably strained relations between the judge and the staff. She further recommended blocking the names of certain witnesses from the Court’s decision in the case.

On habitual tardiness, the investigating justice treated court staff and related witnesses’ testimonies as substantially supporting the charge. The witnesses consistently testified that the respondent judge generally started hearings between 9:00 a.m. and 9:30 a.m. The complainant’s judicial affidavit stated that during his time as public prosecutor, court hearings began at 9:30 a.m. rather than 8:30 a.m. The successor prosecutor, Assistant City Prosecutor Diaz, likewise confirmed sessions commencing between 9:30 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. The investigating justice also noted testimony that respondent judge did not want the actual start time written in the Minutes of the Proceedings. The Branch Clerk of Court admitted under oath that the Minutes reflected hearings start at 8:30 a.m. despite the actual commencement time.

On oppression, the investigating justice found that the respondent judge failed to show compassion, patience, courtesy, and civility toward lawyers appearing in her sala, violating the standards of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. She relied on incidents shown in the TSNs, including antagonistic behavior toward defense counsel Atty. Basher Macapado during a May 14, 2012 hearing, where the judge interrupted, raised her voice, and threatened contempt language while responding to what counsel perceived as an issue already taken in a prior hearing. The investigating justice also treated the judge’s behavior in open court toward opposing counsel and the prosecution as humiliating and lacking temperance, including a Se

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-16-2470)

Complainant Prosecutor Leo T. Cahanap filed an administrative complaint on October 30, 2012 against respondent Judge Leonor S. Quinones, Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Iligan City.
The complaint charged respondent Judge with Gross Ignorance of the Law, Gross Misconduct, and violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
The Supreme Court resolved the matter En Banc and ultimately found respondent Judge administratively liable for Oppression (gross misconduct) and Habitual Tardiness.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Complainant prosecuted the administrative case by filing the complaint on October 30, 2012.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) conducted review and issued an OCA Resolution dated October 9, 2014 recommending dismissal of charges involving judicial in nature and referral of the remaining serious charges for formal investigation.
The Court adopted the OCA recommendations through a Resolution dated February 11, 2015, and denied complainant’s Motion for Reconsideration in a Resolution dated July 1, 2015.
The case proceeded to a formal investigation before Investigating Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, who recommended liability for Oppression and Habitual Tardiness, with corresponding fines and additional recommendations.
The OCA later issued a Report dated October 26, 2015, adopting the findings and recommendations of the Investigating Justice and recommending sanctions.
The Court agreed with the OCA’s findings and imposed fines with a warning.

Key Factual Allegations

Complainant alleged a pattern of oppression during his last two years as a prosecutor in Branch 6, anchored on multiple courtroom and chamber incidents.
Complainant claimed that during People v. Inot (Criminal Case No. 6-15566), respondent Judge objected angrily to complainant’s leading questions during re-direct despite no defense objections.
Complainant claimed that in People v. Badelles (Criminal Case No. 06-15405), respondent Judge issued an order blaming complainant for failure of the forensic chemist to bring chemistry reports for other accused due to complainant’s alleged insufficient specification.
Complainant alleged that in the same Badelles case, respondent Judge gave complainant a lecture on proper demeanor while complainant was making a formal offer of testimony, resulting in embarrassment.
Complainant further alleged that prosecutors who previously appeared before respondent Judge opted to be assigned elsewhere due to humiliation and harsh treatment, and that respondent Judge’s staff also suffered insolent behavior.
Complainant alleged habitual tardiness marked by consistent delays in starting court sessions at around 9:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., leading to the monicker “Branch 10.”
Complainant alleged that in the Heck Case (Criminal Case Nos. 15144, 15149, 15151, and 15153 for Estafa), respondent Judge asked private complainant Hanna Mamad in open court to go to her house because she was interested in buying jewelry, and ordered staff to provide directions.
Complainant alleged that when he called Mamad on September 13, 2012, Mamad confirmed respondent Judge bought jewelry and court personnel testified that respondent Judge showed off the jewelry.
Complainant alleged that in People v. Macapato (Criminal Case No. 16089 for Attempted Murder), respondent Judge issued an order releasing accused Dimaampao’s vehicle despite prosecution’s written opposition grounded on lack of presentation and formal offering in evidence.
Complainant alleged that respondent Judge set the release motion for hearing a day after filing, purportedly violating the three-day notice rule, and that the TSN showed bias where respondent Judge practically acted as defense counsel, prompting a motion to inhibit.
Complainant alleged that in the Tingcang Case (Criminal Case No. 6-6115 for Murder), respondent Judge dismissed the case provisionally without prejudice for refiling upon availability of prosecution witnesses, invoking speedy trial.
Complainant alleged that in the Casido Case (Criminal Case No. 6-16034 for Attempted Murder), respondent Judge dismissed the complaint due to absence of a fatal wound, which complainant considered a misplaced factual basis from the information.
Complainant alleged mistreatment of court staff, including allegations that respondent Judge shouted at a court stenographer and called her “bogo,” and berated another stenographer with statements including “punyeta ka” and “buwisit ka.”

Respondent Judge’s Denials and Defenses

Respondent Judge denied maltreatment of prosecutors and submitted documents to support her position.
Respondent Judge presented a Certification dated January 3, 2013 issued by OIC-Provincial Prosecutor Diosdado D. Cabrera to show that a prosecutor’s transfer request was for security reasons, not due to her maltreatment.
Respondent Judge presented a Letter dated March 22, 2011 to former Secretary Leila M. De Lima requesting reassignment from Iligan City to Marawi City due to a threat to life.
Respondent Judge presented an Affidavit dated December 18, 2012 executed by Prosecutor Mangontawar M. Gubat, stating refusal to be trial prosecutor was for health reasons, not her insolent behavior.
Respondent Judge presented a Joint Affidavit dated January 3, 2013 by Public Attorneys Nur Jaypha R. Bacaraman and Rashid A. Macarimbang, stating their transfers and reassignment were due to office policy and caseload balancing, not due to her misbehavior.
As to the Heck Case allegation, respondent Judge denied asking jewelry from Mamad.
Respondent Judge argued that her immediate action on the motion in Macapato was in good faith and invoked that an urgent motion is exempt from the three-day notice rule.
Respondent Judge maintained that her dismissal order in the Tingcang Case was issued in good faith as an exercise of judicial functions based on speedy trial.
Respondent Judge admitted an error in the Casido Case by acknowledging mistake in the finding of lack of probable cause due to absence of a “fatal injury,” characterizing it as an error of judgment made in good faith.
Respondent Judge explained that her interventions in court were limited to reminding lawyers of rules and eliciting evidence with sufficient probative value to help in the search for truth.
Respondent Judge denied oppression of court staff and asserted she merely admonished or rebuked them in the exercise of supervisory authority.
Respondent Judge admitted arriving late only “sometimes,” and she claimed that even assuming habitual tardiness, her sixty percent (60%) disposal rate from June 2010 to November 2012 refuted the punctuality charge.
Respondent Judge did not fully concede wrongdoing on demeanor issues and framed allegations of disrespect as within her supervisory discretion.

OCA and Investigating Justice Findings

The OCA recommended dismissal of charges related to: the June 18, 2012 Order in Macapato, the June 18, 2012 Order in Tingcang dismissing for speedy trial, and the Casido Case order dismissing for lack of probable cause, on the ground that these issues were judicial in nature beyond administrative review.
The OCA ruled that the statutory mandate of the OCA covered administrative supervision and did not authorize interference with judicial prerogatives of a judge to try and resolve cases and incidents.
The OCA held that re-