Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-23-014 [Formerly JIB FPI No. 21-024-MTJ)
Petitioners / Complainants and Respondents
There were four consolidated administrative matters initiated by and against judges of MTCC Calamba: (1) Judge Alamada charged Judge Abad with gross ignorance of law and procedure; (2) Judge Abad charged Judge Alamada with dishonesty, misconduct, and CJC violations based on allegations of payroll irregularities and misappropriation; (3) Judges Abad and Sakkam lodged administrative complaints about Judge Alamada’s conduct in raffles and workplace relations; and (4) Judge Alamada charged Judges Abad and Sakkam with gross ignorance and NCJC violations for notarization and filing-related acts.
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
The factual incidents occurred primarily in 2020–2021 during the COVID‑19 pandemic. The Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) and the Office of the Executive Director (OED) investigated and made various recommendations; the Supreme Court, sitting En Banc, consolidated and resolved the four related administrative cases, adopting, modifying, or rejecting the OED and JIB recommendations as detailed in the Court’s per curiam decision.
Applicable Law, Rules, and Standards
The Court applied the 1987 Constitution as the governing charter and administrative standards and rules cited in the records, including Supreme Court circulars and OCA guidance issued during the pandemic (e.g., A.C. No. 33‑2020; OCA Circulars Nos. 89‑2020 and 94‑2020), Administrative Matter No. 03‑8‑02‑SC (Guidelines on Executive Judges powers), Circular No. 1‑90 (ex officio notarial authority of MTC/MCTC judges), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court (procedure for administrative complaints, including Section 6 on formal investigations), A.M. No. 21‑08‑09‑SC (penalties for offenses under amended Rule 140), the New Code of Judicial Conduct (NCJC) and the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (including provisions on serious offenses such as falsification and serious dishonesty), and relevant jurisprudence cited in the record.
Standard of Proof in Administrative Proceedings
The Court reiterated that administrative liability requires substantial evidence: that quantum of relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The Court repeatedly applied this standard in evaluating the OED and JIB findings.
Facts: Raffle, Bail, and Preliminary Orders (Judge Abad)
Judge Abad, acting as Executive Judge, issued motu proprio dismissal orders on three newly filed informations against an accused (Tamayo) when he applied for bail prior to raffle, and conducted an assessment of probable cause; one related case was raffled to Judge Alamada. Judge Alamada complained that the Executive Judge exceeded adjudicatory powers and committed gross ignorance of law and procedure. Judge Abad explained she acted in good faith, invoking pandemic circulars that temporarily modified operational procedures and her practice of promptly reviewing newly filed records and bail filings; upon clarification from the Court Administrator she recalled the dismissal orders.
Facts: Payroll, Cash Card and Allegations (Judge Alamada)
Judge Abad (and witness Eraga) alleged that Eraga’s LBP cash card—into which Calamba City LGU payroll credits were deposited—was taken from him, that deposits continued after he left in September 2020 and began new work in November 2020, and that withdrawals were made without his consent. Documentary evidence included payroll registers with Judge Alamada’s certifications and a cash‑card account history showing repeated top‑ups and withdrawals from October 2020 through July 2021. Testimony implicated Judge Alamada as the person who surrendered Eraga’s card for withdrawals and received withdrawal proceeds through an intermediary (Agoncillo). Judge Alamada admitted signing multiple payroll registers but denied possession of the cash card and maintained she believed she was facilitating JO workers’ salaries and that pandemic conditions affected communications.
OED and JIB Recommendations (Overview)
The OED and JIB produced varying recommendations across the consolidated matters: dismissals for lack of merit in some complaints; re‑docketing and formal investigation in others; and, in the payroll/cash‑card matter, the JIB recommended findings of guilt for Judge Alamada (including falsification, serious dishonesty, gross misconduct, and crimes involving moral turpitude) and recommended preventive suspension and criminal referral, while recommending administrative penalties against co‑respondents Worwor‑Miguel and De Jesus. The OED and JIB reports prompted formal hearings in the matter involving alleged misappropriation.
Court’s Analysis: Judge Abad (Error of Interpretation; Admonition)
The Court found Judge Abad erred in interpreting Supreme Court and OCA directives regarding Executive Judges’ authority during the pandemic but that the error was genuine, promptly remedied by withdrawing the dismissal orders, and insufficiently culpable to warrant serious sanction. Given it was her first administrative case and the remedial action taken, the Court imposed admonition only, emphasizing proper observance of superior court directives and circulars.
Court’s Analysis: Notarization and Executive Functions (Judges Sakkam and Abad)
The Court held that Circular No. 1‑90 authorizes MTC/MCTC judges to act as ex officio notaries for documents connected with their official duties; Canon 2, Section 3 of the NCJC requires judges to take disciplinary action where appropriate. Judge Sakkam’s notarization of Judge Abad’s letter‑complaint and Eraga’s sinumpaang salaysay was within the scope of judicial authority given the administrative function at issue, and Judge Abad’s investigatory acts were within the scope of an Executive Judge’s supervisory powers. The complaints against Judges Sakkam and Abad in that context were dismissed for lack of merit.
Court’s Findings: Judge Alamada — Falsification and Misappropriation
The Court found substantial evidence that Judge Alamada knowingly certified false information on multiple payroll registers by signing the “Certified Correct” certification while knowing Eraga no longer reported for work. Her signatures covered eight payroll periods; the Court treated the acts as a single collective act for penalty purposes but found falsification of an official document occurred. The cash‑card transaction history and testimony (including that of Agoncillo) supported the conclusion that Judge Alamada took possession of Eraga’s cash card and caused withdrawals which she received, thereby misappropriating amounts meant for Eraga. The evidence established material benefit to Judge Alamada and grave abuse of authority.
Legal Characterization of Judge Alamada’s Acts
The Court characterized Judge Alamada’s conduct as: (a) Falsification of Official Documents (certifying false payroll registers); (b) Serious Dishonesty (misrepresentation and misappropriation causing grave prejudice to public service integrity); (c) Gross Misconduct in violation of NCJC Canons 2 and 4 (integrity and propriety); and (d) Commission of crimes involving moral turpitude given the moral depravity and abuse of authority evident in the misappropriation of funds. The Court cited controlling jurisprudence that falsification and dishonesty by public officers undermine public trust and warrant severe sanctions.
Penalties Imposed on Judge Alamada
Given the multiplicity and gravity of offenses and the respondent’s lack of demonstrated remorse, the Court imposed the most severe administrative and professional sanctions: dismissal from public service with forfeiture of benefits (except accrued leave credits) and disqualification from public office; and, separately under the rules governing lawyers and judges, disbarment and striking of her name from the Roll of Attorneys, effective immediately. The Court also ordered the JIB to take steps to file appropriate criminal charges as warranted by the facts and to report actions within 60 days.
Findings and Penalties: Worwor‑Miguel and De Jesus
The Court found Worwor‑Miguel and De Jesus guilty of falsification of official documents and serious dishonesty for signing payroll registers certifying Eraga’s service despite lacking knowledge and acting on Judge Alamada’s instructions. The Court declined to find moral turpitude ascribed to them because they acted under superior instruction and did not materially benefit. In the exercise of discretion and considering lack of prior administrative records and admissions, the Court imposed fines rather than dismissal: Worwor‑Miguel was fin
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. MTJ-23-014 [Formerly JIB FPI No. 21-024-MTJ)
Consolidated Cases, Parties, and Docket References
- Four administrative matters consolidated: A.M. No. MTJ-23-014 (Formerly JIB FPI No. 21-024-MTJ); A.M. No. MTJ-23-015 (Formerly JIB FPI No. 21-032-MTJ); A.M. No. MTJ-24-026 (Formerly JIB FPI No. 21-033-MTJ); A.M. No. MTJ-24-027 (Formerly JIB FPI No. 21-042-MTJ).
- Principal judicial officers involved:
- Complainant in A.M. No. MTJ-23-014: Hon. Sharon M. Alamada (also referred to as Judge Alamada; formerly Judge Sharon M. Alamada-Magayanes).
- Respondent in A.M. No. MTJ-23-014: Hon. Leah Angeli B. Vasquez-Abad (Judge Abad), Executive Judge/Presiding Judge, Branch 1, MTCC Calamba City.
- Complainant in A.M. No. MTJ-23-015 and co-respondents: Judge Leah Angeli B. Vasquez-Abad (complainant) vs. Judge Sharon M. Alamada (respondent), and Branch 3 personnel Rachel Worwor-Miguel (Clerk of Court III) and Beverly A. De Jesus (Court Stenographer II).
- A.M. No. MTJ-24-026 and A.M. No. MTJ-24-027 involve cross-complaints among Judges Alamada, Abad, and Judge Eric Ismael P. Sakkam (Judge Sakkam), Presiding Judge, Branch 2, MTCC Calamba City.
- The Judicial Integrity Board (JIB), Office of the Executive Director (OED), and the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) participated in investigation, reporting, and recommendations.
Core Factual Background (General)
- The matters arise from multiple administrative complaints and cross-complaints originating from events in 2021 largely occurring in MTCC Calamba City amid the COVID-19 pandemic and related circulars that temporarily altered court operations.
- Disputes broadly concerned: (1) whether an Executive Judge acted beyond her prerogatives in handling bail/probable cause and in issuing motu proprio dismissals prior to raffle; (2) alleged falsification of payroll registers and misappropriation of LGU-deposited salaries credited to an alleged Job Order (JO) worker’s cash card; (3) alleged unverified letters/complaints and alleged improper notarization by a judicial officer; (4) workplace conduct, demeaning statements, and hostility among judges.
Facts Specific to A.M. No. MTJ-23-014 (Formerly JIB FPI No. 21-024-MTJ)
- Sequence of events:
- April 20, 2021: Office of the City Prosecutor filed four Informations against Jeffrey Ostil Tamayo (Criminal Case Nos. 65207-21 to 65210-21).
- April 22, 2021: Tamayo applied for bail by posting bond.
- Judge Abad assessed probable cause and issued Orders dated April 22, 2021, motu proprio dismissing three of the four cases (Criminal Case Nos. 65207-21, 65209-21, 65210-21) prior to raffle. The dismissed counts included Resistance and Disobedience; Violation of Section 56(e) of RA 4136; and Simple Disobedience — offenses governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure.
- April 26, 2021: Criminal Case No. 65208-21 (violation of a city ordinance) was raffled to Judge Alamada; Tamayo pleaded guilty April 27, 2021.
- During the raffle on April 26, 2021, initial non-participation by Judge Abad via videoconference led to Judge Alamada presiding; eventual participation by Judge Abad followed and an intention to elevate the Executive Judge power issue to the OCA was noted.
- Procedural administrative exchanges:
- April 26, 2021: Judge Alamada emailed then-Deputy Court Administrator Raul B. Villanueva (now Court Administrator Villanueva) for clarification on whether the Executive Judge could determine probable cause before raffle.
- Response from Court Administrator Villanueva: Executive Judge should raffle new cases; if bail applied before raffle, case must be raffled and Executive Judge cannot determine probable cause unless case is raffled or in other limited circumstances (judge-on-duty/pairing).
- Judge Alamada’s assertions:
- Contended Judge Abad exercised adjudicatory power improperly as Executive Judge.
- Cited prior administrative matters and Supreme Court authorities (Administrative Matter No. 05-08-26-SC; A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC; Section 12(b) Revised Rule on Summary Procedure; Crespo v. Mogul) to argue that disposition should be by proper court and raffle.
- Alleged prior incident (January 19, 2018) where Judge Abad purportedly made a probable cause determination and ordered a release without bail; Judge Alamada rectified that when the case was raffled to her.
- Sought preventive suspension of Judge Abad for gross ignorance of the law.
- Judge Abad’s defense:
- Asserts good faith dismissal based on lack of elements and premature filing to court (e.g., Traffic Adjudication Service of LTO requirement for certain traffic violations).
- Relied on practices of immediately studying newly-filed records, applied amid pandemic circulars (Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 33-2020; OCA Circulars 89-2020 and 94-2020) which modified raffle and judge-on-duty arrangements.
- Recalled her April 22, 2021 dismissal Orders on April 30, 2021 after clarification from OCA.
- Denied making a probable cause finding in the earlier 2018 incident; asserted release was appropriate given penalty is public censure for the offense.
- Reliefs sought and positions:
- Judge Alamada: admonition or preventive suspension for Judge Abad.
- Judge Abad: denial of gross ignorance allegation, assurance of unhampered JIB investigation.
Facts Specific to A.M. No. MTJ-23-015 (Formerly JIB FPI No. 21-032-MTJ)
- Parties and allegations:
- Judge Abad, by a Letter-Complaint dated July 19, 2021 to Chief Justice Gesmundo, charged Judge Alamada with Dishonesty, Misconduct, and Violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct; the Letter-Complaint was accompanied by a Sinumpaang Salaysay of Sandy Labarite Eraga (Eraga).
- Eraga’s core allegations: employed by Judge Alamada as driver (initially October 2018; included in Calamba City LGU JO/Casual Employee payroll January 2019); cash card (LBP) created for salary remittance allegedly taken from him at Judge Alamada’s office and he never personally used it; salary reductions during pandemic; he resigned with wife on September 24, 2020; subsequent employment November 2020 with Hunter Security; but payroll continued to list him and salary deposits to his cash card continued and withdrawals were made though he never possessed or used the cash card after it was taken.
- Evidence obtained and items requested by Judge Abad:
- Certified true copies of payroll registers showing Eraga’s name and Judge Alamada’s certification; Statement of Account for Eraga’s LBP cash card; Certificate of Employment from Hunter Security.
- Supplemental Complaint (October 28, 2021) specifics:
- Payroll registers reflected multiple periods where Judge Alamada certified “Certified Correct” and cash payments were shown. The Register entries with amounts (as alleged) for the periods where Judge Alamada signed include:
- October 1–15, 2020 — PHP 3,025.00
- October 16–31, 2020 — PHP 3,025.00
- November 16–30, 2020 — PHP 3,025.00
- December 16–31, 2020 — PHP 3,300.00
- January 16–31, 2021 — PHP 1,850.00
- March 1–15, 2021 — PHP 3,025.00
- March 16–31, 2021 — PHP 2,400.00
- (Total shown for these periods: PHP 19,650.00)
- Other periods were signed by others with listed amounts totaling PHP 22,200.00 for periods identified in the record.
- Payroll registers reflected multiple periods where Judge Alamada certified “Certified Correct” and cash payments were shown. The Register entries with amounts (as alleged) for the periods where Judge Alamada signed include:
- Judge Abad’s claims as to legal character of acts:
- Asserted impression of falsification of documents based on Judge Alamada’s certifications that Eraga rendered services when he had already left and was employed elsewhere.
- Alleged administrative offenses: Gross Misconduct, Gross Dishonesty, Violations of New Code of Judicial Conduct (NCJC).
- Requested preventive suspension given custody/control of records by Judge Alamada and involvement of her court personnel whose signatures resembled other documents.
- Judge Alamada’s responses and defenses:
- Contended Judge Abad’s initial Letter-Complaint was unverified and circumvented Rule 140 of the Rules of Court; challenged the notarizations and the acts of Judge Sakkam in administering oaths.
- Admitted signing payroll registers but argued she did not know Eraga was no longer reporting and blamed pandemic effects and communication lapses; denied personal misappropriation and denied ever seeing the cash card.
- Stated Eraga was her driver who received compensation apart from ATM deposits and that she had reported the matter to LGU and requested removal.
- OED and JIB procedural history:
- OED recommended referral to OCA for investigation and inclusion of Worwor-Miguel and De Jesus as respondents to comment; later JIB recommended formal investigation and, on finding prima facie weight and substantial factual issues, ordered re-docketing as a regular administrative matter and formal hearings; JIB recommended preventive suspension of Judge Alamada, Worwor-Miguel, and De Jesus pending resolution for 90 calendar days.
- Evidence and testimonial highlights from formal hearings:
- Testimony included Judge Abad, Eraga, LBP Branch Manager (Mundin), Hunter Security Operations Manager (Mateo), City Resource Management Officer (Lapastora), Judge Alamada, Worwor-Miguel, De Jesus, and Alona Agoncillo (court stenographer).
- Agoncillo’s testimony: stated that withdrawals from Eraga’s ATM were made when Judge Alamada asked her to withdraw; she invariably gave money and the ATM back to Judge Alamada; indicated that Judge Alamada gave her Eraga’s ATM and PIN; she denied ever keeping the money for herself and stated she returned both money and card to Judge Alamada.
- Cash Card Account History (LBP) showed repeated deposits and withdrawals from October 2020 through July 4, 2021, with specific ATM withdrawals and mass top-up entries (dates and amounts recorded in the record).
- Judge Alamada admitted signing multiple payroll registers and admitted instructing staff to inform LGU to remove Eraga, but claimed she was unaware of his non-reporting status personally and denied holding the cash card; acknowledged a November 17, 2020 letter to Office of the Mayor requesting removal of Eraga.
- Worwor-Miguel and De Jesus admitted signing payroll registers on Judge Alamada’s instruction and claimed good faith and lack of personal benefit.