Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-02-1691)
Allegations Against the Respondent Judge
The complaint addresses multiple serious charges against Judge Pamintuan, including gross ignorance of law, violation of constitutional rights of the accused, arrogance, violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, oppression, and corruption. Specific instances of alleged misconduct include the incorrect application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, imposing fines on absent lawyers without due process, dismissing cases without allowing explanations for absent appearances, and limiting the time for appeals in criminal cases.
Issues of Gross Ignorance of the Law
Complainants assert that Judge Pamintuan displayed gross ignorance of the law through several rulings. For example, in Criminal Cases Nos. 14054-R and 14935-R, the imposition of penalties violated the Indeterminate Sentence Law, which requires judges to apply a minimum penalty within a prescribed range. The judge reportedly failed to account for mitigating factors, particularly with cases involving minors. It is claimed that this ignorance is evident in at least seventeen cases involving similar erroneous applications of the law.
Constitutional Violations
The judge is also accused of violating constitutional rights by delaying the resolution of motions, such as the preventive suspension motion in Criminal Case No. 13949-R, which took over a year to resolve. This delay infringes upon the constitutional right to a speedy trial and violates judicial conduct standards for resolving motions promptly.
Arrogance and Disrespectful Conduct
Complainants cite numerous instances of arrogance from Judge Pamintuan. These include berating lawyers in public, limiting the cross-examination time improperly, and instructing counsel to assume the accused's position during court proceedings, which was deemed humiliating. The judge's treatment of litigants, lawyers, and court personnel was alleged to reflect a pattern of impatience and disrespect contrary to the expected demeanor of a judicial officer.
Violations of the Judicial Code of Conduct
The judge is charged with violating several canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandate that judges should maintain decorum and avoid impropriety. Testimonies from several lawyers illustrate a broader pattern of disruptive behavior and lack of courtesy that undermines confidence in the judiciary and judicial integrity. Specific infractions include discourteous remarks to lawyers and failure to demonstrate the necessary professionalism expected from a judge.
Allegations of Corruption
While the allegations regarding graft and corruption were ultimately deemed insufficient, the complaint pointed to the improper appointment of a driver who lacked qualifications. The court's investigation indicated that this act did not necessarily reach the threshold for corrupt behavior but still raised concerns regarding the respondent's integrity and ethical standing.
Response of the Respondent Judge
Judge Pamintuan categorically denied all allegations, asserting that any issues raised should not be grounds for administrative action but rather should be addressed through appropriate legal channels, such as appeals or motions for reconsiderati
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-02-1691)
Introduction
- This case involves an administrative complaint filed by the officers and members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Baguio-Benguet Chapter against Judge Fernando Vil Pamintuan of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch III, Baguio City.
- The complaint accuses the respondent judge of multiple violations, including gross ignorance of the law, gross violation of constitutional rights of the accused, arrogance, violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, oppression, and graft and corruption.
Allegations of Gross Ignorance of Law
- The complainants assert that Judge Pamintuan demonstrates gross ignorance of the law in several instances:
- His decisions in multiple criminal cases indicate a lack of understanding of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
- He imposed fines on lawyers for non-appearance without allowing them to show cause for their absence.
- He dismissed cases for the first absence without giving the parties a chance to explain.
- He improperly limited the time for filing appeals in criminal cases.
- In cases involving young offenders, he failed to apply appropriate sentencing rules according to the Revised Penal Code.
Violations of Constitutional Rights of the Accused
- The complainants charge Judge Pamintuan with violating the constitutional rights of the accused:
- Delayed resolution of motions for preventive suspension, leading to a violation of the right to a speedy trial.
- Dismissal of cases based on minor delays from parties or counsel, without proper consideration of circumstances.
- Failure to furnish copies of decisions in a timely manner, impacting the right to appeal.
Allegations of Arrogance
- The complainants describe the judge's behavior as arrogant, detailing incidents such as:
- Insulting lawyers in front of litigants and the public.
- Requiring lawyers to prioritize his court over their other prof