Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-13-2360)
Allegations Against the Respondent
The allegations against Judge Mantua included various forms of misconduct such as utilizing his judicial chambers as his residence, bringing his mistress to court, employing court personnel for personal errands, neglecting his duties, and committing gross ignorance of the law in handling criminal cases. A significant point of contention also involved demanding benefits such as allowances from the local government, as well as failing to render decisions within the prescribed timeframes in expectation of monetary inducements from litigants.
Respondent's Defense
In response to the allegations, Judge Mantua submitted a comment denying all accusations. He claimed he was renting a house nearby, asserted that the woman seen in his office was a caterer, and clarified that he only accepted rides from his process server for logistical reasons related to his work. The judge contended he had not extorted any money and that he had followed the legal protocols surrounding the accused's representation in court.
Procedural Background and Investigations
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) referred the matter to an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals for investigation. The investigating justice produced a report determining that the respondent was guilty of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct regarding the use of court facilities for residential purposes. The report recommended a fine, initially set at P25,000, which was later increased to P40,000 due to the nature of the infractions and in light of the respondent's compulsory retirement before the conclusion of the case.
Findings of the Investigating Justice and OCA
Both the Investigating Justice and the OCA found substantial evidence supporting the claims of the complainant, including testimonies that illustrated Judge Mantua's misconduct, particularly regarding his use of judicial premises as personal living quarters and his extramarital affair. The exoneration of some charges was based on a lack of sufficient evidence from the complainant.
Legal Provisions and Judicial Standards
The court explicitly cited SC Administrative Circular No. 3-92, which imposes strict limitations on the use of Halls of Justice, emphasizing they should not be utilized for residential or commercial purposes. The court noted that the acts committed by Judge Mantua amou
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-13-2360)
Case Background
- The case arises from an Amended Administrative Complaint filed on October 6, 2008, by Dorothy Fe Mah-Arevalo, a Court Stenographer at the Regional Trial Court of Palompon, Leyte.
- The respondent, Judge Celso L. Mantua, is accused of multiple charges including:
- Disgraceful/immoral conduct
- Gross neglect of duty
- Grave misconduct
- Dishonesty
- Violation of Republic Act No. 3019
- Gross violation of the Judicial Code of Conduct
- Abuse of authority
- Gross ignorance of the law.
Allegations Against the Respondent
- Specific allegations include:
- Using his chamber in the Hall of Justice as a residence.
- Bringing his mistress into the court, which was observed by his staff.
- Utilizing court process server Benjamin Pepito as his personal driver.
- Delegating his work to Atty. Elmer Mape due to his personal vices.
- Allowing a trial to proceed without the accused having legal counsel and allegedly extorting P200,000 from the accused.
- Requesting benefits such as gasoline and personal allowance from the local government.
- Failing to resolve cases within the 90-day period in expectation of monetary considerations.
Respondent's Defense
- Judge Mantua submitted an undated comment denying all allegations, asserting:
- He was renting a house near the Hall of Justice and could not have been residing there.
- The woman seen in his office was his caterer, not a mistress.
- He only requested to hitch rides with Pepito for convenience and did not engage in any for