A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559, RTJ-19-2561 - Maddela III vs. Pamintuan

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559, RTJ-19-2561)

Factual Background

Judge Maddela and Judge Ligaya filed a letter-complaint asserting that requests for the solemnization of marriage raffled to Presiding Judge Norman V. Pamintuan were repeatedly re-raffled because respondent was absent or unavailable on the scheduled dates, allegedly on grounds such as high blood pressure, flu, loose bowel movement, or fever, and that couples and their relatives were turned away from the courtroom. The complaint characterized respondent’s conduct as shirking from judicial duty pursuant to OCA Circular No. 87-2008, which directs judges in multiple-sala courts to observe the raffle of marriage solemnization requests and deems refusal, absent valid reasons, as shirking.

Judicial Audit and Additional Allegations

A judicial audit of Branch 73 conducted January 26–30, 2015 elicited further complaints from members of the Bench and court personnel. Executive Judge Richard A. Paradeza executed an Affidavit-Complaint alleging that, in June 2014, respondent attempted to bribe him with P100,000.00 to secure a conviction in Criminal Case No. 670-2002, People v. Terrie; affidavits by the Clerk of Court Atty. Jolm V. Aquino and Mr. Leo C. Dalit corroborated material aspects of Paradeza’s account. Other allegations arising from the audit included that respondent followed up on a friend’s case pending before another court, established or promoted a surety business intended to transact with lower courts, solicited donations for events he organized, and concentrated most of Branch 73’s caseload in an assisting judge, Judge Jose L. Bautista.

Case Load and Case-Processing Findings from the Audit

The audit examined 831 records and found that respondent handled only 62 cases (7.46%), while Judge Bautista handled 769 cases (92.54%). Of the 62 cases assigned to respondent, 18 had been submitted for decision and 16 of those, or 88%, remained undecided beyond the mandated 90-day period applicable under applicable rules and the 1987 Constitution franchise to prompt disposition.

Respondent’s Denials and Explanations

Respondent denied bribery and other allegations, maintained that his absences were caused by serious medical conditions including multinodular thyroid disease and stage II hypertension and were covered by approved leave applications, and contested the credibility of Paradeza and other affiants. He denied any establishment or management of the alleged surety company, denied personal follow-up of a friend’s case, and explained the delay in the undecided cases by reference to the abrupt resignation and departure of his stenographer who failed to complete and submit transcripts, while acknowledging his participation in social activities such as a concert and a shooting event whose solicitations he solicited.

Procedural History

The Court, upon preliminary consideration, in an October 13, 2014 Resolution directed a judicial audit; it later issued a March 9, 2015 Resolution preventively suspending respondent pending investigation, consolidating the matters, and ordering specific pleadings and explanations. The Court referred the consolidated administrative cases to the Court of Appeals for investigation and report. Respondent filed motions for recall of the preventive suspension and a Comment; the motion for recall was denied and the matter proceeded to investigation by an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals acting as Investigating Justice.

Investigating Justice’s Report and Recommendations

Investigating Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting found respondent guilty of undue delay in rendering decisions, rejecting respondent’s stenographer-excuse and noting that respondent should have sought an extension; he recommended the maximum suspension of six months for that charge. The Investigating Justice did not find the bribery charge proven for lack of corroborating evidence and recommended its dismissal. He found the charge respecting absences insufficient to constitute shirking because leave applications had been filed and approved, but he found violations of the New Code of Judicial Conduct based on respondent’s admitted organization of a concert, solicitation of donations, celebration at a venue owned by a person with a pending case, and organization of a shooting event, recommending a fine of P10,000.00 for those lapses.

Office of the Court Administrator’s Report and Recommendation

The OCA, after evaluating the audit and the record, recommended that respondent be adjudged guilty of gross misconduct, undue delay in rendering decisions, and violations of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars, and that he be dismissed from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits and with prejudice to re-employment. The OCA found respondent’s failure to solemnize raffled marriages on certain dates unjustified and tantamount to shirking, credited Executive Judge Paradeza’s account of an attempted bribe as deserving full faith and credit and corroborated circumstantially by Mr. Dalit and Atty. Aquino, and concluded that some conflict-of-interest activities he admitted violated provisions of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.

Standard of Proof and Evidentiary Considerations

The Court reiterated that administrative proceedings require substantial evidence, defined as the amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, and applied the doctrine of independently relevant statements to admit the accounts given by Mr. Dalit and Atty. Aquino that Executive Judge Paradeza related to them the bribery attempt immediately after it occurred, thereby corroborating Paradeza’s account and lending circumstantial support to the finding of attempted bribery despite the inherent difficulty of proving bribery where only the alleged offeror and offeree have direct knowledge.

The Court’s Findings and Legal Reasoning

The Court found that respondent shirked his duty to participate in the raffle of marriage solemnization requests by failing to solemnize three marriages on July 20 and August 20, 2011, dates on which no leave applications were on file; this conduct violated OCA Circular No. 87-2008 and constituted a violation of Supreme Court rules and directives. The Court concluded that there was substantial evidence to sustain a finding of attempted bribery: Executive Judge Paradeza’s account, corroborated circumstantially by Mr. Dalit and Atty. Aquino, established that respondent offered P100,000.00 to influence the outcome of People v. Terrie, and the act manifested corruption and a breach of Canons 1, 2, and 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. The Court dismissed other imputations that lacked competent proof, including the alleged establishment and operation of a surety business and the allegation that respondent personally followed up on a friend’s case, as primarily hearsay or unsupported documentary links. The Court held that respondent was guilty of gross inefficiency and undue delay for failing to decide 16 cases beyond the 90-day reglementary period despite a minimal caseload and for failing to s

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559, RTJ-19-2561)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Presiding Judges Tomas Eduardo B. Maddela III and Merinnisa O. Ligaya filed a letter-complaint against Presiding Judge Norman V. Pamintuan alleging failure to solemnize raffled marriage requests in violation of OCA Circular No. 87-2008.
Office of the Court Administrator later lodged a separate administrative complaint against Presiding Judge Norman V. Pamintuan raising additional charges including bribery, conflict of interest, and undue delay.
The separate matters were docketed as A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559 [formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3810-RTJ] and A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561 [formerly A.M. No. 15-02-49-RTC] and were consolidated for resolution.
The Court ordered a judicial audit, conducted a preventive suspension of respondent, raffled the case to the Court of Appeals for investigation, received the investigating justice’s report, accepted the OCA memorandum, and rendered a per curiam decision.

Key Factual Allegations

Complainants alleged that fourteen marriage solemnization requests raffled to respondent were re-raffled because respondent was absent or unavailable on scheduled dates.
Executive Judge Richard A. Paradeza accused respondent of attempting to bribe him with P100,000.00 to secure a conviction in Criminal Case No. 670-2002, People v. Terrie.
Other judges and court personnel alleged that respondent engaged in conflict-of-interest activities such as organizing a Freddie Aguilar concert and soliciting donations, holding his wife’s 60th birthday at a venue linked to a pending trafficking case, organizing a shooting event soliciting donations, and establishing or promoting a surety business.
A judicial audit revealed that out of 831 cases presented, respondent handled sixty-two cases while an assisting judge handled 769 cases, and that sixteen of respondent’s eighteen submitted cases remained undecided beyond the mandated 90-day period.

Procedural History

The initial letter-complaint was filed on October 4, 2011.
A judicial audit of Branch 73 was conducted from January 26 to January 30, 2015.
The Court issued a preventive suspension on March 9, 2015 and consolidated the administrative matters.
Respondent filed motions and comments, including an Urgent Partial Motion for Reconsideration on March 31, 2015 and a Comment on April 16, 2015.
The consolidated matters were raffled to CA Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting who submitted his Report on October 26, 2016.
The OCA submitted a Memorandum dated June 6, 2017 recommending dismissal from service.
The Court rendered its per curiam decision on August 14, 2019.

Issues Presented

Whether respondent shirked from judicial duty by failing to solemnize marriages raffled to him in violation of OCA Circular No. 87-2008.
Whether respondent attempted to bribe Executive Judge Richard A. Paradeza to influence the outcome of People v. Terrie.
Whether respondent engaged in conflict-of-interest and impropriety in violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.
Whether respondent committed undue delay and gross inefficiency in rendering decisions within the mandated reglementary period.

Evidentiary Findings

The judicial audit documented that fourteen marriage requests raffled to respondent were re-raffled and that some absences on scheduled dates were not supported by leave applications.
Executive Judge Richard A. Paradeza narrated his personal knowledge of the alleged bribery attempt, and his account was corroborated circumstantially by the affidavits of