Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-02-1713, IPI 03-1744-RTJ)
Allegations Against the Respondent Judge
The complaints lodged by Jabon and Bohol include multiple serious charges against Judge Usman, primarily involving allegations of graft and corruption, incompetence, ignorance of the law, dishonesty, partiality, and absenteeism. Key allegations include:
- Judge Usman allegedly demanded that Jabon buy jewelry valued at PHP 40,000 as a condition for allowing him to give ex parte testimony in a damages case.
- The judge purportedly issued injunctions against legal deadlines, showing incompetence and ignorance regarding procedural laws.
- Claims of dishonesty were presented regarding Usman's participation in an auction of properties levied under different judicial jurisdiction.
- Allegations of bias and unethical conduct were made, particularly related to friendlier treatment of certain lawyers and absenteeism during hearings.
Judge Usman's Response
Judge Usman denied the allegations vehemently. He asserted that:
- He did not sell jewelry to Jabon and he facilitated a fair trial process despite the assertions regarding costs involved.
- He argued his judicial decisions were made in accordance with law, stating no orders he issued had been reversed or rebuked by higher courts.
- He maintained that his absence from court was within the limits of permissible leave and was justified given his extended judicial obligations.
Investigation and Evidence Presented
The investigation led by the Office of the Court Administrator required the collection of testimonies and documents:
- Atty. Plaridel Bohol, along with others, provided affidavits, certificates of sale, and police reports which purport to support the claims of Usman's misconduct.
- Judge Usman countered these accusations with documents indicating lawful proceedings and attendance, revealing discrepancies in the complainants' account.
Findings of the Investigation
After thorough examination of the testimonies and documents:
- The investigating Justice found inconsistencies in the complainants’ testimonies, primarily concerning the alleged transaction between Judge Usman and Jabon, which alluded to possible fabrication.
- Deficiencies in proving the incompetence and illicit activities against the judge were observed, leading to a lack of solid evidence.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The undersigned investigating Justice concluded that while several allegations lacked substantive proof, Judge Usman was guilty of:
- Attempting to influence the outcome of the administrative case.
- Violations concerning his engagement in teaching law without the necessary approval from the Supreme Court.
- Acknowledging his utterance of gr
Case Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-02-1713, IPI 03-1744-RTJ)
Introduction
- The case involves complaints filed by Romulo D. Jabon and Plaridel D. Bohol against Judge Sibanah E. Usman, presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Catbalogan, Samar.
- The complaints allege various acts of misconduct, including graft and corruption, incompetence, ignorance of the law, dishonesty, partiality, and absenteeism.
Allegations Against Judge Usman
Graft and Corruption
- Complainant Jabon alleged that Judge Usman required him to buy jewelry (earrings and a ring) worth P40,000.00 to allow him to testify ex-parte in his case against Adolfo Ibañez.
Incompetence
- Complaints were made regarding Judge Usman's failure to timely decide on cases, leading to delays in the resolution of numerous cases under his jurisdiction.
Ignorance of the Law
- Judge Usman was accused of issuing a preliminary injunction that stopped the redemption period of a foreclosed property, which was reportedly not legally permissible.
Dishonesty
- Allegations included Judge Usman's participation in an auction sale of properties levied in an execution case, which he denied, claiming he had no knowledge of any such auction involving him.
Partiality and Bias
- The judge was accused of favoritism in various cases, particularly citing a refusal to issue a writ of attachment favoring Bohol's client due to friendship with the opposing party.
Fraternization with Lawyers
- It was claimed that Judge Usman had a close relationship with certain lawyers, which affected the impartiality of his judicial actions.
Absenteeism
- Records indicated that Judge Usman had a history of being absent without proper notice, especially during critical hearings.
Respondent's Denial
- Judge Usman filed a counter-affidavit denying all allegations.
- He claimed he never sold jewelry to Jabon and allowed him to pres