Case Summary (G.R. No. 221366)
Allegations by the Complainant
Leticia V. Mallorca asserts that Judge Panopio misled her parents into leasing a portion of their property for a nominal rental fee of P2.00 per month, allegedly with the intent to erect a hut. Mallorca contends that the respondent subsequently constructed a large house instead, and had a prior lease application filed with the Bureau of Lands, which evidenced his intent to assert possession of the property. She further alleges that following her father’s death from a heart attack, caused by distress over these matters, she confronted Judge Panopio, who falsely accused her of grave threats and slander, ultimately filing charges against her in his own court.
Response from the Respondent
Judge Panopio denied the allegations made by Mallorca, asserting that her claims were fabricated. He acknowledged his role as the complaining witness in the criminal charges against Mallorca but maintained that the initiation of those charges was the result of investigations undertaken by law enforcement and not based on his personal complaints. He confirmed that he requested to inhibit himself from the case and that another judge was designated to handle the proceedings.
Findings and Legal Basis
In a report from the Office of the Court Administrator, the claims of grave abuse of authority were not substantiated and the complaint was recommended for dismissal. The report detailed Judge Panopio's steps to inhibit himself from the ongoing criminal cases and the appropriate referral of those cases to another judge for unbiased adjudication. The findings also acknowledged the presence of several witnesses to support Judge Panopio's claims, including neighbors.
Investigating Judge's Recommendations
After evaluating the circumstances, Executive Judge Placido Marquez found that the complainant failed to substantiate her accusations, thereby recommending the exoneration of Judge Panopio. The judge noted that the lease entered by Mallorcas’ parents was indeed for P20.00 a month, contrary to the P2.00 figure stated by the complainant, and not only recognized the amicable relationship between the parties but also the legality of the f
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 221366)
Case Background
- The case involves an administrative complaint filed by Leticia V. Mallorca against Hon. Judge Reynaldo M. Panopio of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of San Agustin, Sta. Maria, Romblon.
- The complaint was initiated through a verified letter dated August 27, 1996, alleging abuse of authority, misconduct, and harassment by Judge Panopio.
- Central to the complaint is an alleged lease agreement between Judge Panopio and the parents of the complainant, wherein Judge Panopio was purportedly allowed to erect a hut on the complainant’s family lot for a nominal fee.
Allegations by Complainant
- The complainant asserts that on October 1, 1990, an agreement was executed allowing Judge Panopio to build a hut for a rental fee of P2.00 per month for ten years.
- It was later discovered that prior to this agreement, Judge Panopio had filed a lease application with the Bureau of Lands concerning the property in question.
- The complainant claims that her father died from a heart attack after learning about Judge Panopio's lease application, which caused distress to the family.
- Following the death of her father, the complainant confronted Judge Panopio but was instead accused of making threats and slander against him.
Respondent's Defense
- Judge Panopio denied a