A.M. No. RTJ-17-2507 - Re: Dinah Evangeline B. Bandong

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-17-2507)

Factual Background: The Letters-Complainants and the Allegations

On April 16, 2013, the OCA received two letters-complaints concerning Judge Bandong. The first was from an anonymous sender and alleged, among others, that Judge Bandong relied heavily on a legal researcher rather than studying cases; did not acquaint herself with case status and instead asked counsels; admitted an inability to resolve cases and forced mediation through staff; spent substantial time watching television inside her chambers, including calling for recess so she could watch telenovelas; and demanded immediate delivery of checks covering her salaries and allowances. It also alleged that Judge Bandong allegedly favored Febrer, who allegedly stayed out of the office, delegated tasks to co-workers, and looked for records or processed bail bonds only when given money by bonding companies or litigants.

The second letter-complaint, under the pseudonym “Shirley Gomez,” substantially reiterated the same pattern. It alleged that Judge Bandong failed to study cases and directed staff to talk to parties to settle at the outset; if parties did not agree, she would repeatedly postpone hearings until settlement was pursued; she even pursued settlement in a rape case already submitted for decision, ordering the accused to plead guilty to a lesser offense and appointing counsel after the Public Attorney’s Office refused to assist the accused, to the prejudice of the private complainant. It further alleged that Judge Bandong refrained from reading voluminous records and instead ordered staff to make digests or narrate case circumstances to her, causing backlog in stenographic transcription. The letter-complaint also alleged that she tolerated money demands connected to her relationship with Febrer, including food visits by Febrer’s wife.

On April 18, 2013, the OCA received another anonymous letter-complaint, this time against Febrer and the Court Interpreter, Francisco Mendioro. That letter repeated the allegation that Judge Bandong assigned duties beyond the staff’s roles, leaving Febrer idle. It also alleged that Febrer demanded money from litigants before attending to follow-ups of cases, and it pointed to Mendioro as responsible for missing records that would re-surface shortly afterward. The OCA then indorsed the letters to the Executive Judge for discreet investigation and report.

Judicial Audit and the Executive Judge’s Discreet Investigation Reports

While these administrative matters were pending, on November 20, 2013, the Court approved Judge Bandong’s application for optional retirement, effective the close of office hours of September 30, 2013. Nonetheless, her retirement benefits, except for the money value of accrued leave credits, were ordered withheld pending resolution of the two administrative complaints against her and two other administrative complaints then pending against her: OCA IPI No. 12-3944-RTJ and OCA IPI No. 12-3963-RTJ.

On February 26, 2014, OCA received the separate reports of Executive Judge De Leon-Diaz after her discreet investigation. She recommended dismissal of charges against Febrer and Mendioro for lack of concrete evidence. However, she recommended that charges against Judge Bandong be filed for gross ignorance of the law, incompetence, and conduct unbecoming. She described that even before her investigation, staff already sought detail to other branches due to difficulties in dealing with Judge Bandong. She further recounted that Judge Bandong refused to heed the Executive Judge’s advice and scolded staff for discussing their problems with her. De Leon-Diaz reported that when Judge Bandong assumed office, prosecutors, lawyers, and litigants complained that she failed to conduct formal hearings, compelled parties to conciliate even in criminal cases, and admitted inability to conduct hearings and write decisions and resolutions. She also stated that this allegedly caused frustration such that the assigned prosecutor requested detail to another station.

Executive Judge De Leon-Diaz further confirmed that she observed no hearings in Judge Bandong’s sala during court observation. When De Leon-Diaz entered, she found Judge Bandong watching television in her chambers with feet on the table, and Judge Bandong even invited her to watch. De Leon-Diaz warned her to attend to cases. The Executive Judge’s report also included confirmations of allegations that Judge Bandong assigned duties not commensurate with plantilla positions; that her legal researcher resolved cases; that Judge Bandong demanded priority in delivery of checks and money even for small amounts; and that she exhibited eccentricities and attitude problems. The Executive Judge also described incidents such as restricting staff from talking to other court personnel, instructing them not to allow entry to outsiders even for legitimate business, and at one point padlocking their office and bringing the keys away, forcing a locksmith to gain entry.

These findings led Executive Judge De Leon-Diaz to recommend filing administrative charges against Judge Bandong.

Court Proceedings: Resolution on the Charges and Dismissal as to Other Respondents

In its Resolution dated October 15, 2014, the Court considered the two anonymous complaints and De Leon-Diaz’s reports as an administrative complaint against former Presiding Judge Bandong, required her to comment, dismissed the charges against Febrer and Mendioro for lack of merit, and directed the OCA to conduct a judicial audit of RTC Branch 59.

Judge Bandong filed her Compliance dated February 18, 2015, where she denied the charges and alleged that the Executive Judge’s report involved sinister motive. She insinuated that the Executive Judge might have been responsible for the anonymous complaints. In her comment, she denied that staff grievances were exaggerated, denied that she would spend time watching television in the manner alleged, denied any wrongdoing concerning the conciliation or settlement of criminal cases, and explained that her working system involved drafting decisions and resolutions herself, with the legal researcher only checking citations and assisting in reduction to typed form. She also contested the factual basis for the allegation of her “favorite” relationship with Febrer and sought to justify organizational assignments by reference to workload and prior appointment history.

Subsequently, the OCA reported that, pursuant to the Court’s directive, it dispatched a team to conduct a judicial audit and conducted a parallel investigation. The team obtained sworn statements from OIC-Legal Researcher Shiela May Amandy, Court Interpreter Francisco Mendioro, Clerk III Eduardo Febrer, and Process Server Eric Atienza. Amandy confirmed alleged belatedness of hearings linked to the Judge’s habit of watching Korean telenovelas and described a practice of giving the judge detailed updates on missed scenes. She also stated that Judge Bandong delegated much of decision-preparation work. Mendioro corroborated the telenovela habit and described the Judge’s eccentric manner of dressing in public. Febrer denied pet-employee allegations and denied particular wrongdoing connected to record-searching, though he validated that Atienza’s loitering prompted the judge to delegate to Atienza functions connected to releasing orders and notices. Atienza confirmed the allegations against Judge Bandong and Febrer but did not give specific details, asserting rather that he was overloaded with tasks outside his job description, including mediation to the detriment of his workload.

The OCA further described additional evidence connected to mediation. It found a handwritten receipt purportedly issued and signed by a Stenographer, Teodora Parfan, dated November 27, 2014, stating: “Received the amount of P5,000.00 from Rowel Abella as partial settlement of case.” The investigating team traced the related criminal case, Criminal Case No. 2005-1127 for frustrated homicide, and obtained confirmations from the accused and private complainant’s father that after a scheduled hearing Judge Bandong referred the parties to Parfan for mediation.

OCA’s Evaluation and the Court’s Selective Adoption of Findings

The OCA assessed that many charges in the anonymous letters and the Executive Judge’s report did not meet the substantial evidence threshold. It noted that certain allegations were uncorroborated, derived from second-hand information, too inconsequential, or unsupported by sufficient proof. In particular, it found insufficient basis to support several allegations, including alleged favoritism as such, alleged public admissions of inability, alleged failure to conduct trials in general, alleged excessive demand for priority delivery of pay items, and certain eccentricities not supported by adequate evidence.

However, the OCA found substantial evidence for three charges against Judge Bandong: (1) habit of watching television programs during court trials and hearings; (2) predeliction to delegate mediation of cases to court personnel; and (3) designation of Process Server Atienza to perform functions and duties pertaining to Clerk III Febrer. The OCA treated the watching-television practice as conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and found violations of Sections 1 and 2, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. It treated the mediation practice as grave misconduct for erroneously referring cases for mediation to persons who were not accredited mediators, and for failing to refer mediatable cases to the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) in accordance with A.M. No. 01-10-05-SC-PHILJA. It also found that wrongfully assigning Clerk III functions to a process server violated Section 7, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, which prohibits requiring court personnel to perform work outside the scope of their assigned job description.

On the question of sanctions, the OCA treated gross misconduct as the most seri

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-17-2507)

This administrative proceeding stemmed from anonymous letters-complaints received by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) against former Presiding Judge Dinah Evangeline B. Bandong of RTC Branch 59, Lucena City, Quezon Province.
The Court treated the complaints as an administrative matter and ultimately found retired Judge Bandong liable for Gross Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and Violation of Supreme Court Rules, Directives and Circulars.
The OCA recommended, in view of optional retirement, the forfeiture of benefits and bar from re-employment, while the Court modified the penalty into a fine to be deducted from retirement benefits.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The complainants were anonymous letter-senders and an anonymous letter later indorsed and relayed through appropriate court channels.
The respondent was retired Judge Dinah Evangeline B. Bandong, formerly the Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 59 in Lucena City.
The OCA initially processed separate complaints, including complaints against Clerk III Eduardo Febrer and Court Interpreter Francisco Mendioro, later dismissed for lack of merit by the Court.
The Court’s October 15, 2014 Resolution required Judge Bandong to comment within ten (10) days and directed the furnishing of the complaints and reports.
Judge Bandong submitted a Compliance/Comment dated February 18, 2015, denying the charges and attacking the credibility and motives of Executive Judge Eloida R De Leon-Diaz.
After a judicial audit and parallel fact-finding, the OCA issued findings focusing on three charges supported by substantial evidence.
The Court partly adopted the OCA’s findings and recommendations, ultimately imposing a monetary penalty and directing the release of retirement benefits after deduction.

Key Factual Allegations

The first anonymous letter-complaint alleged that Judge Bandong relied heavily on a legal researcher, did not familiarize herself with case status, and admitted in open court inability to resolve cases, supposedly forcing staff to mediate instead.
The first letter-complaint further alleged that Judge Bandong watched television extensively during office hours, called for recess to watch telenovelas, and demanded immediate priority delivery of her salary-related checks and allowances.
The first letter-complaint alleged undue favor toward Clerk-in-Charge Eduardo Febrer, asserting that Febrer avoided office tasks, delegated work to co-workers, and attended to records or bail bonds only when given money by bonding companies or litigants.
The second anonymous letter-complaint alleged that Judge Bandong was not keen on studying cases and directed staff to persuade parties to settle early, repeatedly postponing hearings until parties would opt to settle.
The second letter-complaint alleged that Judge Bandong pursued settlement even in a rape case already submitted for decision, ordered the accused to plead guilty to a lesser offense, and, after refusal by the Public Attorney’s Office lawyer, appointed another lawyer to the prejudice of the private complainant.
The second letter-complaint alleged that Judge Bandong refrained from reading voluminous records and ordered stenographers and clerks to summarize or orally narrate circumstances, supposedly causing transcription backlog.
The second letter-complaint also alleged that Judge Bandong tolerated Febrer’s alleged acceptance of money because of her favor toward him, including alleged frequent presence of Febrer’s wife bringing food.
A subsequent anonymous letter-complaint alleged against Febrer and Court Interpreter Francisco Mendioro that duties were reassigned leaving Febrer with nothing to do and that Febrer demanded money before follow-ups of cases.
The same letter-complaint alleged that missing records re-surfaced shortly later as part of a money-making scheme involving Mendioro.
During the judicial audit, the OCA obtained sworn statements from multiple court personnel and uncovered a handwritten receipt signed by Stenographer Teodora Parfan evidencing money received as partial settlement in a frustrated homicide case.
Abella and de Ocampo confirmed that Judge Bandong referred their case to Parfan for mediation after a scheduled hearing, and that installment payments were routed through Parfan.

Disputed Issues Presented

The Court had to determine whether the anonymous complaints and the reports of the Executive Judge met the substantial evidence threshold required in administrative cases.
The Court had to assess whether allegations regarding judicial competence and work habits, including watching television during hearings, were sufficiently supported.
The Court had to decide whether Judge Bandong’s practice of referring cases for mediation to court personnel constituted improper procedure under A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA and amounted to misconduct.
The Court had to determine whether Judge Bandong improperly assigned the duties of Clerk III to Process Server Eric Atienza, violating rules governing court personnel work descriptions.
The Court had to calibrate the penalty considering that Judge Bandong had already retired optionally, while still ensuring compliance with administrative sanctions and constitutional standards of judicial conduct.

Statutory And Ethical Framework

The Court applied the substantial evidence standard in administrative cases, defining it as relevant evidence a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
The Court relied on Sections 1 and 2, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, requiring judges to devote judicial duties to judicial office and prioritizing performance of judicial functions and court operations.
The Court used Section 7, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges not to engage in conduct incompatible with diligent discharge of judicial duties.
The Court treated Judge Bandong’s television habit as a violation of judicial discipline and diligence under Canon 6.
For mediation practice, the Court applied A.M. No. 01-10-5-SC-PHILJA, emphasizing that certain cases are referable and certa