Title
De Leon-Profeta vs. Mendiola
Case
A.M. No. RTJ-20-2596
Decision Date
Jan 19, 2021
Judge issued biased rulings, ignored CA directives, and failed to act on evidence, resulting in fines, forfeiture of benefits, and disqualification from government service.

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-20-2596)

Background of the Complaint

This case involves an administrative complaint lodged against Judge Francisco G. Mendiola by Liza De Leon-Profeta, who asserts that the judge exhibited gross ignorance of the law and manifest bias during the proceedings related to the estate of Agustina Maglaqui-De Leon, who died intestate. After Agustina's death, her sister, Elisa, filed a petition for Letters of Administration of the estate, omitting mention of Agustina's husband, former Judge Nestorio De Leon, and the children of the marriage, Liza and Nestor.

Procedural Irregularities

Upon the filing of Elisa's petition, oppositors Liza and Nestor, along with their father, objected in open court, asserting their entitlement as compulsory heirs. Despite this, the respondent judge issued an order just two days later granting Elisa the Letters of Administration without a full hearing or allowing a proper examination of the oppositors' opposition, leading to a subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA).

Findings of the Court of Appeals

The CA found Judge Mendiola acted with grave abuse of discretion, highlighting the lack of a full hearing and a disregard for legal procedures in issuing the Letters of Administration. The court ordered that the Letters be annulled and a proper hearing held to determine the suitable administrator of Agustina's estate, lending credence to the concerns raised by the oppositors.

Continued Proceedings and Judicial Conduct

Despite the CA's directive, Judge Mendiola continued to issue orders favorably toward Elisa, notably allowing her withdrawal of funds from Agustina's estate and denying the admission of the oppositors' evidence. A pattern of favor toward one party arose, subsequently prompting accusations of bias and partiality against the judge.

Allegations of Bias and Conduct During Hearings

Oppositors alleged that Judge Mendiola demonstrated bias by denying their motions for reconsideration and by being dismissive of their claims regarding their status as adopted children. His public remarks reflected a hostile attitude toward the oppositors, leading to further claims of partiality. The actions taken by the judge, particularly his insistence on hearing Elisa’s motions despite known conflicts, illustrated a misalignment with judicial impartiality standards.

Administrative Liabilities Considered

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended addressing the judge's conduct as grave abuse, gross ignorance of the law, and personal bias, highlighted by a series of errors in applying the law as established in the Rules of Court regarding priority in letters of administration. The OCA pointed out that being a judge demands a thorough understanding of both legal principles and procedural rules, and failure to adhere to these standards would warrant administrative action.

Rulings and Conclusions on Judge Mendiola's Conduct

The Court concluded that Judge Mendiola was guilty of multiple counts of gross ignorance of the law by hastily issuing Letters of Administration without full hearings or consideration of necessary evidence. The judge also exhibited manifest bias through his continued preferential treatment of one party over another, despite l

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.