Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-16-2424)
Antecedents
By virtue of A.O. No. 12-2010, respondent was designated Assisting Judge of Branch 66, RTC of Barotac Viejo to take cognizance of cases previously heard by Judge Amular while retaining his duties as Presiding Judge of Branch 32, Iloilo City, with newly filed cases raffled between him and Judge Amador at a ratio of two-to-one.
Judicial Audit Findings at Barotac Viejo (April–May 2015)
The audit team observed an unusual swiftness in the disposition of nullity of marriage cases and numerous procedural irregularities, including the failure to furnish the Office of the Solicitor General with copies of orders and notices, continuance of proceedings despite the nonappearance of the OSG, absence of collusion reports in some cases, issuance of orders directing collusion investigation and collusion reports on the same or almost the same day, issuance of collusion reports and pre-trial orders on the same day, issuance of collusion investigation orders prior to the return of service, absence of affidavits or proof of publication despite orders for publication, issuance of publication orders dated after the asserted dates of publication, transcription of Transcripts of Stenographic Notes by a stenographer from Branch 32, returns of summons asserting receipt without signatures on summons, returns of service antedating pre-trial notices and collusion orders, admission of exhibits before the lapse of the period for comment by respondents, rendition of decisions in the absence of pretrial orders or rulings on formal offers of evidence, decisions rendered despite missing answers, collusion reports or formal offers, and petitions alleging venue in Barotac Viejo though the parties and the marriage were outside Iloilo.
Judicial Audit Findings at Branch 32 (August 2015)
A subsequent discreet audit of Branch 32 confirmed that respondent rendered decisions with extreme promptness, often one to three days after memoranda were filed, and at times in the absence of answers or collusion reports. The audit noted that respondent granted a motion to take deposition one day after filing, that returns of service were issued after substituted service allegedly occurred, and that despite sitting at Barotac Viejo only on Fridays he decided 26 nullity cases in 2014 as Assisting Judge while deciding only 11 such cases in Branch 32 during the same period.
Solemnization Irregularities
The audit also called attention to respondent’s solemnization of marriages at Barotac Viejo which the audit deemed without proper authority. The number and timing of marriages were suspect given respondent’s once-a-week schedule; in many instances marriage certificates were registered on the day of solemnization; twenty-six out of fifty marriages from January to July 2015 were claimed under Article 34 of the Family Code; almost all affidavits of cohabitation attached to marriage certificates were notarized by respondent without requiring competent proof of identity, and a court stenographer executed affidavits for delayed registration.
OCA Recommendations and Preventive Measures
The Office of the Court Administrator issued a Memorandum dated November 23, 2015 recommending respondent’s preventive suspension as Presiding Judge of Branch 32, designation of an Acting Presiding Judge, revocation of his designation as Assisting Judge of Branch 66, reassignment of his pending cases in Branch 66, and that he be required to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken. This Court adopted those recommendations and preventively suspended respondent and revoked his designation by Resolution dated January 20, 2016.
Respondent’s Explanation
In his Explanation filed March 15, 2016 respondent stated that he enforced continuous trials, discouraged postponements, and sought speedy disposition of cases, claiming substantial prior docket reduction and higher output at Barotac Viejo because it was the sole court in the Fifth District. He contended that missing records remained with the Clerk of Court, that preparation and service of summons were functions of the Clerk and Sheriff, and that irregularities in collusion reports were matters for the public prosecutors. He asserted that he was not prohibited from deciding cases prior to the lapse of a 30-day period from filing of memoranda, that parties could object in open court under the Judicial Affidavit Rule, and that it had been customary for assisting judges to solemnize marriages and to notarize affidavits in an ex-officio capacity.
OCA Formal Complaint and Charges
The Office of the Court Administrator elevated the matter as a formal administrative complaint recommending dismissal for gross ignorance of the law and procedure, gross misconduct, and incompetency, analogizing respondent’s actions to those in A.M. No. RTJ-12-2316, and pointing to failures to comply with the family court rules, unusual rapidity in dispositions, and an extraordinary number of nullity cases decided as aggravating circumstances.
Issue Presented
The sole issue before the Court was whether respondent Globert J. Justalero should be held administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and procedure, gross misconduct, and incompetency.
Legal Standards Applied
The Court reiterated that the Code of Judicial Conduct requires fidelity to the law and professional competence and that a judge’s unfamiliarity with elementary procedural rules constituted gross ignorance of the law. The Court applied Section 4 and Section 5(4) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC concerning venue and the furnishing of petitions to the Office of the Solicitor General, the Guidelines to Validate Compliance with Jurisdictional Requirements, and prior jurisprudence including Re: Raphiel F. Alzate, Office of the Court Administrator v. Tuazon-Pinto, Tupal v. Judge Rojo, Fuentes v. Judge Buno, and Keuppers v. Murcia on notarial practice and solemnization rules.
Court’s Findings: Jurisdiction and Procedural Violations
The Court found by clear and convincing evidence that respondent disregarded the procedural rules governing nullity and annulment proceedings. He did not verify residency or venue as required by A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, thereby deciding petitions over which Branch 66 lacked jurisdiction. He failed to ensure that the Office of the Solicitor General received pleadings, admitted formal offers before awaiting prosecutor comments, issued orders out of sequence, and rendered decisions despite missing answers, collusion reports, pretrial orders, or other essential records. The Court concluded that these persistent and u
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-16-2424)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Office of the Court Administrator filed an administrative complaint based on the findings of judicial audits and recommended disciplinary action against Hon. Globert J. Justalero, Presiding Judge, Branch 32, RTC, Iloilo City, and designated Assisting Judge, Branch 66, RTC, Barotac Viejo.
- Hon. Globert J. Justalero was designated as Assisting Judge of Branch 66 under A.O. No. 12-2010 while retaining his duties as Presiding Judge of Branch 32, RTC, Iloilo City.
- The Office of the Court Administrator conducted judicial audits in April–May 2015 and August 2015 which formed the basis of its November 23, 2015 Memorandum recommending preventive suspension, revocation of designation, and disciplinary charges.
- This Court, Second Division, adopted the Office of the Court Administrator’s recommendations in a Resolution dated January 20, 2016, and ordered the preventive suspension and revocation of the Assisting Judge designation.
- Hon. Globert J. Justalero filed an Explanation on March 15, 2016, and the Office of the Court Administrator later recommended dismissal in its April 18, 2018 Memorandum.
- The Court rendered its decision finding Hon. Globert J. Justalero administratively liable and imposing a penalty after adjudication.
Key Factual Allegations
- The audit teams observed an unusual swiftness in the disposition of numerous nullity of marriage petitions decided by Hon. Globert J. Justalero within short periods.
- The audits documented repeated failures to furnish the Office of the Solicitor General with copies of pleadings and notices in nullity cases.
- The audits reported continuance of proceedings despite non-appearance of the Office of the Solicitor General and absence of collusion investigation reports or answers in several cases.
- The audits found procedural anomalies including collusion investigation orders issued before returns of service, collusion reports and pre-trial orders issued on the same day, and pretrial and formal-offer irregularities.
- The audits noted returns of service asserting receipt by respondents without signatures on the summons and instances where return of service predated pre-trial notices or collusion orders.
- The audits recorded that Transcripts of Stenographic Notes in at least one case were transcribed by Janette Juaneza Coloma, a stenographer of Branch 32, RTC Iloilo City.
- The audits identified an extraordinary number of nullity cases decided while Hon. Globert J. Justalero sat at Branch 66 only once a week.
- The audits also observed irregularities in marriage solemnizations purportedly performed by Hon. Globert J. Justalero, including immediate registration of marriage certificates, notarization by the judge of affidavits of cohabitation, and referral of marriage requests to him.
Audit Findings
- The April–May 2015 audit listed multiple procedural defects in nullity cases, including missing collusion reports, missing entries of appearance by the Office of the Solicitor General, and premature issuance of orders admitting exhibits.
- The August 2015 audit confirmed the speed of dispositions and added findings that motions and depositions were granted within implausibly short intervals and that many nullity decisions occurred despite a once-weekly schedule at Branch 66.
- The audits detailed that twenty-six of the marriages solemnized by Hon. Globert J. Justalero from January to July 2015 were allegedly registered the same day as the solemnization and that most affidavits of cohabitation were notarized by him.
- The audits observed that affidavits and delayed registration documents were executed or notarized by court personnel from Branch 32, raising concerns about propriety and chain of custody.
- The audit teams inferred from the volume and timing of dispositions and solemnizations that the sala under Hon. Globert J. Justalero had become a potential forum for expedited favorable outcomes.
Procedural History
- The Office of the Court Administrator’s November 23, 2015 Memorandum recommended preventive suspension, revocation of designation, reassignment of pending cases, and formal charges against Hon. Globert J. Justalero.
- This Court’s January 20, 2016 Resolution adopted the Office of the Court Administrator’s recommendations as a formal administrative complaint and implemented preventive measures against Hon. Globert J. Justalero.
- Hon. Globert J. Justalero submitted a written Explanation on March 15, 2016 contesting the audit findings and asserting good-f