Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-12-1813, 12-1-09-MeTC, MTJ-13-1836, MTJ-12-1815, OCA IPI No. 11-2398-MTJ, 11-2399-MTJ, 11-2378-MTJ, 12-2456-MTJ, A.M. No. MTJ-13-1821)
Key Dates and Controlling Constitutional/Regulatory Source
Principal administrative dates and documents appearing in the record: Administrative Order No. 19‑2011 (27 January 2011); Executive Judge memorandum (9 February 2011); Judge Yu’s letters (February–July 2011); OCA responses (May 2011); suspension (effective 1 February 2012); Supreme Court decision (November 22, 2016). Governing law and authorities applied by the Court: 1987 Constitution (Article VIII — Supreme Court administrative supervision over all courts); Administrative Order No. 19‑2011 and Administrative Circular No. 58‑2002; 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure and Rules of Court provisions (e.g., Rule 30 §9; Rule 110 §5; Rule 116 §6); New Code of Judicial Conduct; The New Civil Code; 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court; OCA memoranda/circulars (e.g., Memorandum Circular No. 5‑2003 / OCA Circular No. 111‑2005); CSC Memorandum Circular No. 06‑05; A.M. No. 02‑9‑02‑SC (automatic conversion considerations for disciplinary proceedings against judges who are lawyers).
Consolidation and Nature of Proceedings
The Court consolidated multiple related administrative complaints and OCA investigative matters concerning Judge Yu’s alleged misconduct, insubordination, abuse of authority, oppression, gross ignorance of the law, and conduct unbecoming of a judge. The complaints originated from OCA, fellow judges, court personnel, and private individuals; several matters were administratively consolidated and processed together for resolution by the Supreme Court En Banc.
Core Factual Background — Night Courts and A.O. No. 19‑2011
A.O. No. 19‑2011 directed establishment of night courts in Pasay and Makati MeTCs to hear nighttime apprehensions and special cases under the Rule on Summary Procedure. Executive Judge Colasito issued a Pasay MeTC memorandum assigning night court schedules. Judge Yu annotated that she dissented, asserting legal questions and practical concerns (constitutional and procedural), and sent letters to the Court Administrator, the Pasay City Prosecutor, and the DOT articulating objections ranging from asserted exposure of police/prosecutors to arbitrary detention liability to employee welfare, workload, and security.
Core Factual Background — Personnel Appointments (Tejero‑Lopez and Lagman)
Judge Yu objected to and actively resisted the OCA‑SPBLC appointment of Leilani A. Tejero‑Lopez as Branch Clerk of Court III (Branch 47) despite the Board’s recommendation and the Chief Justice’s approval. The resistance included threats and communications urging withdrawal, alleged coercion, and refusal to administer the appointee’s oath; Ms. Tejero‑Lopez eventually was appointed and alleged pressure caused an initial withdrawal attempt. Judge Yu also protested the appointment of Mariejoy P. Lagman (demoted legal researcher appointed Clerk III, RTC Branch 108) despite a pending administrative complaint against Ms. Lagman.
Core Factual Background — Internal Court Management and Staff Complaints
Court staff of Branch 47 and four MeTC judges filed complaints alleging Judge Yu: repeatedly threatened and harassed personnel; made intimidating remarks; required unusual documentary submissions and approvals; directed audits and allegations against OCA officials; and displayed disrespect to colleagues and Court officials. Staff alleged oppression, abusive conduct, and operational irregularities in the handling of court documents and processes.
Core Factual Background — Procedural Acts in Court (OIC, OJTs, receipt of evidence)
Complaints alleged Judge Yu designated an Officer‑in‑Charge (Mr. Ferdinand Santos) who lacked required qualifications; permitted or delegated court tasks to on‑the‑job trainees (OJTs); and authorized ex parte reception of evidence or other procedural acts before non‑bar personnel. Complaints further alleged she allowed criminal proceedings or arraignments and plea changes without actual participation of the public prosecutor.
Core Factual Background — Sick‑leave and Allegation of Oppression
Mrs. Josefina Labid complained that Judge Yu refused to sign or approve leave applications of her son Noel (utility worker diagnosed with advanced cancer), notwithstanding submission of medical certificates and clinical abstracts. The complaint asserted that Judge Yu’s refusal caused hardship, demonstrated vindictiveness for the son’s participation in complaints against her, and amounted to oppression and grave abuse in administrative supervision of staff leave.
Core Factual Background — Electronic Communications and Conduct Unbecoming
Judge Emily L. San Gaspar‑Gito alleged that Judge Yu sent repeated electronic messages (Yahoo and Facebook) containing sexual innuendoes and harassing content, created or used fake profiles, and otherwise stalked or vexed the complainant online. Judge Yu disputed authorship of some items, claimed messages were innocuous double entendres or originated from the complainant, but the MISO extracted and certified the messages from the complainant’s accounts; CA Justice Hakim S. Abdulwahid recommended a three‑month suspension for simple misconduct and conduct unbecoming.
OCA Evaluation and Recommendations
The OCA, after comprehensive evaluation, recommended that Judge Yu be found guilty of insubordination, gross ignorance of the law, refusal to perform official functions, gross misconduct violating the Code of Judicial Conduct, grave abuse of authority, oppression, and conduct unbecoming, and recommended dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all benefits (except accrued leave) and disqualification from future public appointments. The OCA specified which acts it considered proven (e.g., refusal to comply with A.O. No. 19‑2011, refusal to honor valid appointments, issuance of show‑cause orders against colleagues, improper handling of leave for Noel Labid, procedural irregularities) and noted certain allegations it did not sustain.
Court’s Legal Analysis — Administrative Supervision and Insubordination
Relying on the Court’s constitutional administrative supervision (Article VIII, Section 6, 1987 Constitution) and the administrative nature of A.O. No. 19‑2011, the Court concluded that a judge must obey valid administrative directives of the Supreme Court. Judge Yu’s public and persistent refusal to comply, her direct communications to the DOT and police, and her public dissent improperly undermined the Court’s authority and constituted gross insubordination and gross misconduct. The Court emphasized that judicial officers have reduced latitude to publicly oppose supervisory administrative directives once validly issued.
Court’s Legal Analysis — Refusal to Honor Appointments; Abuse of Authority and Oppression
The Court held the OCA‑SPBLC appointments of Tejero‑Lopez and Lagman were valid and that pendency of administrative complaints does not, by itself, disqualify an employee from promotion under applicable personnel rules. Judge Yu’s rejection of the appointments, her intemperate characterizations of the appointments as “void ab initio” and “a big joke,” and threats to file charges against appointees constituted gross insubordination, grave abuse of authority, and oppression (including coercion or intimidation toward a subordinate to withdraw). The Court applied prior administrative jurisprudence that a presiding judge’s endorsement is recommendatory and the OCA’s appointment authority is paramount.
Court’s Legal Analysis — Improper Use of Court Processes and Disqualification Duties
Judge Yu issued a show‑cause order directed at fellow judges and court personnel in relation to allegedly copied trial‑record items used in administrative complaints; the Court found this to be an abuse of the judicial process, an act of retaliation, and a failure to disqualify herself where impartiality and the appearance of impartiality required recusal under the New Code of Judicial Conduct (Canon 3 §5 and Canon 4 §8). The Court stressed that a respondent judge is not the appropriate adjudicative authority for allegations that serve as evidence in administrative complaints against her.
Court’s Legal Analysis — Procedural Violations (OJTs, OIC designation, ex parte evidence, prosecutor presence)
The Court sustained findings that: (a) Judge Yu’s November 2010 memorandum delegating encoding and court tasks to a student (Ms. Rosali) contravened OCA Circular No. 111‑2005 (which implements Memo Circular No. 5‑2003 prohibiting OJT/practicum in court offices); (b) designating a first‑level personnel (Mr. Santos) as acting Branch Clerk (OIC) violated CSC Memorandum Circular No. 06‑05 (designees must be within their level); (c) Section 9, Rule 30 requires any delegation to receive ex parte evidence to be made to the clerk of court who is a member of the Bar — allowing reception of such evidence before a non‑bar OIC breached mandatory procedural rules; and (d) Section 5, Rule 110 and Section 6, Rule 116 of the Rules of Court require prosecution under the direction and control of the public prosecutor and safeguards for arraignment where counsel is absent; Judge Yu’s allowance of prosecutions or plea changes without the public prosecutor or without clear voluntary, knowing waivers by accuseds constituted gross ignorance of elementary procedural law.
Court’s Legal Analysis — Leave Denial and Oppression; Compliance with Clerks’ Manual
The Court applied the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court provisions on sick leave (paragraphs 2.2.1 and 2.2.2) and concluded Noel Labid’s submitted medical certificates and clinical abstracts sufficed to support sick‑leave approval; Judge Yu’s insistence on additional or different documentation and denial of the leave were unjustified and demonstrated vindictiveness tied to the employee’s participation in complaints. This conduct a
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. MTJ-12-1813, 12-1-09-MeTC, MTJ-13-1836, MTJ-12-1815, OCA IPI No. 11-2398-MTJ, 11-2399-MTJ, 11-2378-MTJ, 12-2456-MTJ, A.M. No. MTJ-13-1821)
Case Caption, Dockets and Decision
- Full caption as reported: Office of the Court Administrator, Complainant, vs. Judge Eliza B. Yu, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch47, Pasay City, Respondent.
- Reported at 800 Phil. 307 EN BANC; principal docket A.M. No. MTJ-12-1813 (formerly A.M. No. 12-5-42-METC), decision dated November 22, 2016.
- Multiple related and consolidated matters listed and resolved together: A.M. No. 12-1-09-METC; A.M. No. MTJ-13-1836 (formerly A.M. No. 11-11-115-METC); A.M. No. MTJ-12-1815 (formerly OCA IPI No. 11-2401-MTJ); OCA IPI Nos. 11-2398-MTJ, 11-2399-MTJ, 11-2378-MTJ, 12-2456-MTJ; A.M. No. MTJ-13-1821; and A.M. No. MTJ-12-1823 cited in the ponencia.
- Decision: Per curiam. Court found respondent Judge Eliza B. Yu GUILTY of gross insubordination; gross ignorance of the law; gross misconduct; grave abuse of authority; oppression; and conduct unbecoming of a judicial official, and DISMISSED her from the service effective immediately with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave credits and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office. The Court directed Judge Yu to show cause within ten days why she should not be disbarred for violations of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Parties, Complainants and Principal Allegations
- Complainant: Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) and a wide array of private and institutional complainants including MeTC judges of Pasay City and numerous MeTC Branch 47 court personnel.
- Individual complainants and groups: Executive Judge Bibiano G. Colasito, Vice-Executive Judge Bonifacio S. Pascua, Judges Restituto V. Mangalindan, Jr. and Catherine P. Manodon; Clerk of Court Miguel C. Infante; staff and personnel of several MeTC branches; Leilani A. Tejero-Lopez (appointee/Clerk of Court III); Josefina G. Labid (mother of utility worker Noel Labid); Judge Emily L. San Gaspar-Gito (complainant re: online messages).
- Core administrative charges across consolidated matters: gross misconduct; gross ignorance of the law; gross insubordination; refusal to perform official functions; grave abuse of authority; oppression; conduct unbecoming of a judge; and related violations of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, Supreme Court issuances, Rules of Court and Civil Service rules.
Procedural History and Consolidation
- Administrative Order No. 19-2011 (Jan. 27, 2011) (establishing night courts in Pasay and Makati) served as the initial administrative catalyst; Executive Judge Colasito issued schedules (Memorandum Feb. 9, 2011) assigning MeTC Branch 47 (Judge Yu) to night duty every Friday effective Feb. 14, 2011.
- Judge Yu registered dissent in writing and by marginal note (e.g., “Pls. I dissent with the night court assignment. I have pending legal question before the Office of Court Administrator.”).
- Multiple complaints and letters (by fellow judges, court staff, private individuals, and the OCA) were docketed and eventually consolidated. On June 4, 2013 A.M. No. MTJ-12-1813 was consolidated with A.M. No. MTJ-12-1-09-MeTC; other related administrative complaints were also consolidated thereafter by Court order.
- The OCA conducted an evaluation and ultimately recommended dismissal; the Court thereafter issued the decision finding respondent guilty and imposing dismissal with forfeiture and disqualification, and ordered a show-cause on disbarment.
Administrative Order No. 19-2011 (Night Courts) — Facts, Judge Yu’s Responses and Consequences
- A.O. No. 19-2011 (Jan. 27, 2011) established night courts in MeTC Pasay and Makati to hear nighttime apprehensions and special cases under the Rule on Summary Procedure; operational hours set as 4:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.; directives included coordination with PNP and prosecutors and compliance with Administrative Circular No. 58-2002 on tourist-involved criminal cases.
- Implementation at Pasay: Executive Judge Bibiano G. Colasito issued a Feb. 9, 2011 Memorandum prescribing schedules; Branch 47 was assigned Fridays.
- Judge Yu’s actions and communications:
- Wrote the Court Administrator (Feb. 2, 2011) raising legal questions: argued potential arbitrary detention by police and claimed inquest limitation under Article 125 RPC; argued night courts in Pasay would not unclog dockets and would unduly burden prosecutors, defense counsel and court staff; sought docketing of her letter as administrative matter.
- Inscribed a marginal dissent on Executive Judge Colasito’s Feb. 9, 2011 Memorandum (Feb. 11, 2011).
- Wrote directly to Department of Tourism Secretary Alberto A. Lim (Mar. 22, 2011) criticizing the lack of statistical basis, alleging night courts impair rights of accused, raise labor and security problems, and requesting additional compensation and police security if night courts proceed.
- OCA response (May 5, 2011): OCA (via ACA Thelma C. Bahia) replied addressing her concerns — attached Pasay City Prosecutor explanation on apprehensions/inquests, explained prosecutors and public attorneys duties/schedules and allowances, reminded judges and court personnel that they are public officers and duty-bound to serve.
- Judge Yu persisted: replied to OCA, continued to press objections and threatened to seek relief; her refusal to render night duty affected the distribution of night court duties and prompted Executive Judge Colasito to assign additional night duties to other judges and personnel.
- OCA submitted memorandum to Court recommending that Judge Yu’s insubordination, gross misconduct and Code of Judicial Conduct violations be docketed as administrative complaints; Court required Judge Yu to comment.
Appointment Disputes — Ms. Leilani A. Tejero-Lopez (Clerk III, MeTC Branch 47) and Ms. Mariejoy P. Lagman (Clerk III, RTC Branch 108)
- Vacancy request and selection (Clerk of Court III, Branch 47):
- Judge Yu requested filling of Clerk III (July 9, 2010); three applicants applied: Ellen Serrano, Leilani Tejero-Lopez, Eloisa Bernardo.
- Judge Yu favored Ms. Bernardo; OCA-SPBLC evaluated applicants and recommended Ms. Tejero-Lopez (Board Resolution No. 12B-2011 dated April 4, 2011); Chief Justice Corona and Justices Carpio and Carpio-Morales approved appointment on April 12, 2011.
- Conduct surrounding appointment of Tejero-Lopez:
- Judge Yu requested temporary designation of Ms. Bernardo (Mar. 31, 2011) — OCA-SPBLC denied request due to availability of qualified applicant.
- According to Tejero-Lopez, Judge Yu pressured her to withdraw or threatened revocation and criminal charges; Tejero-Lopez allegedly signed an initial withdrawal after a hostile meeting (April 14, 2011) but later retracted withdrawal (May 10, 2011) and OCA-SPBLC proceeded to appoint her effective May 31, 2011.
- Judge Yu refused to administer oath (June 7, 2011), sent multiple letters to OCA officers protesting the appointment calling it “void ab initio” and “a big joke,” warned of possible criminal charges and threatened to assail the appointment before the Court and CSC; she sent a formal protest to Chief Justice (June 17, 2011) alleging unfitness, lack of personal endorsement, psych evaluation concerns, deceit and other alleged irregularities.
- Court dismissed Judge Yu’s protest (Sept. 12, 2011). Tejero-Lopez requested detail elsewhere; Tejero-Lopez executed sinumpaang salaysay charging Judge Yu with refusal to obey court order.
- OCA-SPBLC investigation found Tejero-Lopez did not voluntarily withdraw; appointment proceeded.
- Appointment of Ms. Mariejoy P. Lagman (RTC Br. 108):
- Ms. Lagman, previously Legal Researcher II at MeTC Branch 47, had been subject of a separate complaint initiated by Judge Yu (A.M. No. P-12-3033) alleging grave misconduct etc.; Lagman requested transfer due to workplace pressure and was appointed Clerk III of RTC Branch 108 effective Oct. 5, 2010 (a demotion from Legal Researcher).
- Judge Yu protested Lagman’s appointment as “fast appointment” despite pending administrative complaint; Judge Yu sought updates and threatened to file formal charges against members of OCA-SPBLC if irregularities found.
Staff Complaints, Workplace Conduct and Oppression Allegations (MeTC Branch 47)
- Collective allegations by Branch 47 staff (OCA IPI No. 11-2399-MTJ; OCA IPI No. 11-2378-MTJ):
- Accused Judge Yu of: constant threats to staff with administrative complaints; attributing malice and sowing intrigue; public berating and humiliation of staff (e.g., in hearing of Fabra v. Global Classe); threats, threats allegedly relating to possession of firearm and intimidation.
- Complaints about Judge Yu’s audit request to OCA regarding alleged unremitted fees for ex parte presentations causing demoralization.
- Allegations that Judge Yu made disrespectful and threatening utterances regarding Court Administrator Midas Marquez and SC Auditor Cielo Calonia (quotes alleging “[Midas Marquez] napaka-highly incompetent, kung lalaki lang ako sinuntok ko na iyan,” and suggestion re poisoning auditor), which complainants characterized as disrespectful and violating the New Code of Judicial Conduct.
- Specific operational and procedural complaints:
- Assigning on-the-job trainees (OJTs) to perform drafting/correcting of decisions/orders in violation of Memorandum Circular No. 5-2003 and OCA Circular No. 111-2005 (prohibiting OJTs in court offices).
- Designation of an Officer-in-Charge (OIC) for Branch 47 who lacked minimum qualifications (Ferdinand Santos, Clerk III) and was a first-level personnel—alleged violation of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 06-05 (designees can only be designated to positions within the level they are currently occupying).
- Ordering ex parte presentation/receipt of evidence to the OIC who was not a member of the Bar — alleged violation of Section 9, Rule 30, Rules of Court (which permits delegation to clerk of court only if clerk is a member of the Bar).
- Allowing prosecution/arraignment/plea changes in certain criminal cases without presence/endorsement of the public prosecutor — alleged violation of Section 5, Rule 110 and Section 6