A.M. No. 92-8-027-SC - IN RE: Palon

Case Summary (A.M. No. 92-8-027-SC)

Filing, Initial Recommendation, and Referral to Palon

Tauro’s complaint against Judge dela Rosa was dismissed through the OCA’s recommendation dated January 27, 1992. The OCA, however, drew the Court’s attention to Palon’s alleged actuations. The OCA stated that Palon had “actively sought to interfere” with a case pending before a trial court, had brought a “large amount of money” to the chambers of the respondent judge, and had exploited her position as a Supreme Court employee to gain access to the judge, yet she had not been formally charged in connection with those acts. In view of this, the Court issued a resolution dated February 18, 1992, requiring Palon to file an answer regarding her alleged active intervention in RTC Case No. 90-55019.

Palon’s Answer and the Court’s Appraisal

After several motions for extension of time, Palon filed an answer denying that she used her influence as a Supreme Court employee. She claimed that a “lady personnel” in the sala of Judge dela Rosa recognized her as an employee of the Supreme Court. She asserted that since the Clerk of Court, Atty. Solano, whom she wanted to see, was not available at that time, the lady personnel allegedly urged her to enter the chambers of the judge to talk with him. The Court rejected these explanations as incredible.

The Court emphasized that employees in the sala were well aware of the judge’s policy against seeing litigants with pending cases in his sala. It noted a sign posted at the door of the judge’s chambers providing that lawyers with pending cases may see the judge only if opposing counsel is present and, if possible, the party litigants. The Court further found inconsistency between Palon’s later account and her earlier affidavit. In the earlier affidavit, Palon alleged that she “was informed by a Court personnel that the Presiding Judge, Hon. JOSELITO DELA ROSA, wanted to talk to me inside his chamber,” a statement which the Court viewed as insinuating that the judge himself initiated the meeting.

The Court held that Palon’s belated explanation on how she was introduced as a Supreme Court employee, and her assertion that she was advised to talk with the judge in the absence of Atty. Solano, remained unsupported by corroboration. The Court therefore gave weight to the charges of influence-peddling and interference.

What Palon Admitted and Why It Did Not Exculpate Her

Although the Court acknowledged that Palon may have “ran an errand for her brother,” namely to seek the respondent judge’s permission to deposit Tauro’s money with the Cashier of the City of Manila and to ascertain the court’s action on the plaintiff’s motion for Execution Pending Appeal, it ruled that she “need not have acted in the way she did.” The Court underscored that conduct required of court personnel must be beyond reproach and must be free from suspicion that could taint the judiciary. It relied on its prior holdings that the conduct and behavior of everyone connected with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must be characterized by propriety and decorum and must be above suspicion. Citing De la Cruz v. Ricaforte, AM P-90-486, 198 SCRA 763 (1991) and Jereos, Jr. v. Reblando, Sr., AM P-141, 71 SCRA 126 (1976), the Court reiterated that all court personnel must comport themselves so as to avoid any taint of suspicion on their official or private acts.

Disposition and Administrative Sanction

The Court found Palon guilty of using her position as a Supreme Court employee in interfering with Judge dela Rosa’s jurisdiction over RTC Case No. 90-55019, an interference that the Court stated forced the judge to

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. 92-8-027-SC)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The case was initiated by a complaint filed by Arnulfo Tauro against Judge Joselito dela Rosa for serious misconduct, extreme bias and prejudice, and highly partisan attitude.
The complaint was anchored on an affidavit executed by Mrs. Josefina V. Palon, an employee of the Supreme Court.
The case against the respondent judge was dismissed upon the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) dated January 27, 1992.
Despite dismissal, the OCA drew the Court’s attention to Palon’s alleged actuation involving a case pending before the trial court.
The Court issued a resolution dated February 18, 1992 requiring Mrs. Palon to file an answer regarding her alleged active intervention in RTC Case No. 90-55019.
After several motions for extension of time, Palon filed her answer denying that she used her influence as a Supreme Court employee.
The Court rendered a decision after finding Palon guilty and imposing an administrative penalty.

Key Factual Allegations

The OCA reported that Palon actively sought to interfere with a case pending before the trial court.
The OCA stated that Palon brought a large amount of money to the chambers of the respondent judge and exploited her position as a Supreme Court employee to gain access to the judge.
The OCA observed that Palon had not been formally charged at the time the recommendation was issued, and it submitted the matter to the Court for further instructions.
Palon denied using influence and claimed that a lady personnel of the judge’s court recognized her as a Supreme Court employee.
Palon averred that when Atty. Solano was unavailable, the lady personnel allegedly urged her to enter the judge’s chambers and talk with him.
The Court found Palon’s explanation incredible because employees in the sala were allegedly well aware of the respondent judge’s policy against seeing litigants with pending cases in his sala.
The Court referred to a sign on the chambers door stating that lawyers with pending cases may see the judge if opposing counsel is present and if possible the party litigants.
The Court also found Palon’s narration inconsistent with an earlier affidavit where she stated she was informed by court personnel that the presiding judge wanted to talk to her inside the chambers.
The Court reasoned that Palon’s belated and unsupported account regarding how she was introduced as a Supreme Court employee, and her claim about being advised to talk with the judge in the absence of Atty. Solano, supported the charges of influence-peddling and interference.
The Court acknowledged that Palon may have “ran an errand for her brother” to seek permission to deposit complainant’s money with the cashier of the City of Manila and to find out the status of a motion for Execution Pending Appeal.
The Court held that even if that were true, Palon still acted in a manner that was not warranted and that undermined the judiciary’s integrity.
The Court foun