A.M. No. RTJ-03-1799 - Pertierra vs. Lerma

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-03-1799)

Factual Background

In September 1999, Arturo B. Pertierra, husband of Maria Cristina Olondriz Pertierra, filed a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage, docketed as Civil Case No. 99-266, which was raffled to Branch 256 of the RTC, presided over by Judge Alberto L. Lerma. The husband moved urgently to allow disposition of the complainant’s alleged share in a Manila Polo Club share valued at P3.15 million. The respondent issued a Resolution granting that urgent motion. The complainant asserted that the Manila Polo Club share was her inheritance and not conjugal property, that the respondent failed to order an accounting of sale proceeds, and that the respondent granted the motion without referring the case to the prosecuting attorney as required by Article 48, Family Code. The complainant filed a motion for reconsideration on August 8, 2000, which remained unresolved for more than a year. On June 19, 2002, the complainant observed the respondent eating lunch in the courtroom with the petitioner’s counsel, Atty. Felisberto L. Verano, Jr.

Procedural History

The complainant filed two administrative complaints against Judge Alberto L. Lerma, the first on September 27, 2001, accusing the respondent of gross ignorance of the law and failure to refer the annulment case to the prosecuting attorney, and the second on June 20, 2002, alleging conduct unbecoming a judge, bias, partiality, impropriety, and lack of integrity. The Office of the Court Administrator investigated and recommended action. By Resolution dated July 31, 2002, the Court admonished the respondent for failure to act on the motion for reconsideration, directed him to resolve it within ten days, required steps to ensure compliance with Article 48, and considered the gross-ignorance charge premature. The Court also required a comment on the June 20, 2002 complaint.

The Parties' Contentions

The complainant contended that Judge Alberto L. Lerma erred in granting the urgent motion because the Manila Polo Club share was her inheritance and not part of conjugal property, that he failed to require an accounting of proceeds, and that he should have referred the case to the prosecuting attorney under Article 48, Family Code prior to disposition; she further alleged bias and impropriety because the respondent was a "close golfmate" of petitioner’s counsel. The respondent denied irregularity, asserting that he considered pleadings and evidence, that the share was in the husband’s name and that disposition would benefit the children, and that the complainant offered no evidence of inheritance or to pay rehabilitation expenses. He explained the delay in resolving the motion for reconsideration by the complainant’s failure to secure substitute counsel after her counsel withdrew, denied close social ties with Atty. Verano, Jr., and explained that Atty. Verano, Jr. had been in the courtroom on June 19, 2002 at the invitation of the Branch Clerk of Court for a staff birthday celebration.

Office of the Court Administrator Recommendation

The OCA, through Deputy Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock, recommended a finding of guilt for the light offense of fraternizing with lawyers and the imposition of a fine of P1,000 with warning against recurrence. The OCA acknowledged that the respondent had been seen lunching with counsel who had a pending case in his court and treated that fraternization as conduct unbecoming a judge under Rule 140, but nonetheless recommended the minimal fine.

Issues Presented

The salient issues were whether Judge Alberto L. Lerma (1) committed gross ignorance of the law by granting the urgent motion and by failing to refer the annulment case to the prosecuting attorney under Article 48, Family Code, and (2) engaged in conduct unbecoming a judge by fraternizing with counsel who had a pending case in his sala, thereby giving rise to reasonable suspicion of bias or partiality.

Supreme Court Resolution

The Court found that the administrative charge of gross ignorance of the law was premature because there was no appellate determination that the respondent had erred or gravely abused his discretion in issuing the challenged Resolution. The Court, however, found that there was no dispute that Judge Alberto L. Lerma had lunch with Atty. Felisberto L. Verano, Jr., counsel for a party in a pending case before him, and that such conduct constituted fraternizing with lawyers and litigants with pending cases in his court.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court invoked Canon 30, Canons of Judicial Ethics, which permits reasonable social intercourse but cautions judges to avoid action that may awaken suspicion that social relations might influence judicial conduct. The Court held that joining counsel for lunch in the courtroom, knowing that counsel had a pending matter in the judge’s court, created a reasonable ground for suspicion and that the respondent, having been previously notified by the complainant’s first administrative charge, should have been more scrupulous. The Court found no evidence of malice or bad faith

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-03-1799)

Parties and Posture

Maria Cristina Olondriz Pertierra filed two administrative complaints on September 27, 2001 and June 20, 2002 against Judge Alberto L. Lerma, Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 256, Muntinlupa City.
The first complaint charged Judge Alberto L. Lerma with gross ignorance of the law for granting an urgent motion in Civil Case No. 99-266 and for failing to require an accounting.
The second complaint charged Judge Alberto L. Lerma with conduct unbecoming a judge, bias, partiality, impropriety, and lack of integrity for socializing with counsel who had a pending case before him.
The Office of the Court Administrator recommended action on the complaints and this Court resolved the matter after receiving the OCA memorandum.

Key Facts

Arturo B. Pertierra filed a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage on September 14, 1999, docketed as Civil Case No. 99-266, which was raffled to Branch 256 presided by Judge Alberto L. Lerma.
Judge Alberto L. Lerma granted an urgent motion allowing the disposition of the complainant's share in the Manila Polo Club, valued at P3.15 million, despite the complainant's claim that the share was an inheritance from her late father.
The complainant filed a motion for reconsideration on August 8, 2000, which remained unresolved for over a year while the respondent set the case for pre-trial on September 5, 2001.
The complainant alleged that Judge Alberto L. Lerma failed to refer the annulment case to the prosecuting attorney or the Office of the Solicitor General as required by Art. 48 of the Family Code.
The complainant alleged bias arising from a claimed close personal relationship between the respondent and petitioner’s counsel, Atty. Felisberto L. Verano, Jr.
On June 19, 2002, the complainant observed Judge Alberto L. Lerma having lunch and conversing with Atty. Felisberto L. Verano, Jr. in the courtroom shortly before a scheduled hearing.
Judge Alberto L. Lerma explained that Atty. Felisberto L. Verano, Jr. attended a birthday celebration for court personnel by invitation of the Branch Clerk of Court and that their conversation was trivial.
Judge Alberto L. Lerma maintained that he granted the urgent motion after considering pleadings and evidence and that the complainant offered no proof of inheritance nor willingness to shoulder children’s rehabilitation expenses.
Judge Alberto L. Lerma later filed an Order dated August 7, 2002 granting the complainant's motion to inhibit and transmitted the records for re-raffle, which he said deprived him of authority to resolve the motion for reconsideration.

Procedural History

The respondent filed a letter-comment dated December 20, 2001 addressing the first complaint.
The Court, upon OCA recommendation, resolved on July 31, 2002 to admonish the respondent for his failure to act on the motion for reconsideration and to require resolution within ten days and compliance with Art. 48.
The Court considered the administrative charge for gross ignorance of the law premature and dismissed it for lack of cause of action in the July 31, 2002 resolution.
The respondent filed comments and later reported his inhibition by Order dated August 7, 2002 and the re-raffle of case records.
The OCA issued a memorandum dated January 7, 2003 recommending a finding of guilt for the light offense of fraternizing with lawyers and a fine of P1,000 with warning.
This Court rendered its final resolution finding the respond