Title
Spouses Rafols vs. Dizon
Case
A.M. No. RTJ-98-1426
Decision Date
Jan 31, 2006
Judge Teodoro Dizon was dismissed for demanding and receiving P150,000 in exchange for a favorable ruling, violating judicial integrity and ethics.
dismissal
permanently disqualified
demanding money
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 226138)

Initiation and Court Action on the Administrative Complaint

The Integrated Bar letter was referred by Ms. Erlinda C. Verzosa, then Deputy Clerk of Court and Bar Confidant, to then Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo for appropriate action. Thereafter, Senior Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez filed with the Court an administrative matter for agenda. The recommendations directed that (1) the letter-note and attachments be docketed as an administrative matter; (2) Judge Dizon be furnished copies of the attachments and be directed to answer within ten days; (3) Judge Dizon be preventively suspended pending the investigation; (4) Judge Abednage O. Adre, RTC Branch 22, General Santos City, be designated Acting Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 37; and (5) the Office of the Bar Confidant be furnished the letter-note and attachments so it could conduct its own investigation regarding Atty. Ricardo Barrios, Jr. The Court approved these recommendations in a resolution dated October 21, 1998.

Medical Developments and Subsequent Procedural Steps

Judge Dizon’s wife, Mrs. Aurora M. Dizon, wrote the Court on December 18, 1998 to inform the Court of Judge Dizon’s serious physical condition, describing that he had suffered an ischemic stroke. She explained why he could not file his comment and prayed that the investigation be held in abeyance until his recuperation, also appealing for the lifting of the preventive suspension. In a resolution dated February 8, 1999, the Court noted the letter and referred the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report, and recommendation. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended that the plea to lift the preventive suspension be denied for lack of merit, and it further directed that retirement-related forms be provided to facilitate possible total disability retirement. The Court approved these recommendations in a resolution dated March 17, 1999.

Judge Dizon filed a comment dated May 11, 1999 that categorically denied the allegations. In a resolution dated June 30, 1999, the Court noted the comment and referred the case to Associate Justice Wenceslao I. Agnir, Jr. of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report, and recommendation. Acting on a request by Justice Agnir—seeking investigation in Manila rather than Tagum City, or reassignment if Judge Dizon’s condition prevented travel—the Court granted the request and designated Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. to conduct the investigation.

The Investigating Proceedings and Evidence Presented

At the investigation, the first witness was Atty. Ricardo Barrios, Jr. The Court noted that Atty. Barrios presented two contradicting written statements. First, he executed an affidavit dated January 28, 1998, attached to the respondent’s comment, in which he exonerated Judge Dizon. In that affidavit, Atty. Barrios stated that Judge Dizon did not ask for money to settle the case, and that he used Judge Dizon’s name only to collect his acceptance fee and attorney’s fee for a previous case. Second, he later repudiated his affidavit through a letter dated February 24, 1998 addressed to the National Bureau of Investigation and the Philippine National Police, which was annexed to a letter to Justice Agnir dated September 27, 2000. In the annexed letter, Atty. Barrios declared that he had completely changed his position and asserted that Judge Dizon indeed asked for money to settle the case in favor of the complainants and that he actually received money from complainants.

Atty. Barrios testified to clarify the inconsistency. He stated that his services were engaged by the complainants in a civil case involving the cancellation of a deed of sale. He claimed that complainants did not pay his acceptance fee of P15,000, but he admitted that he eventually received a total of P71,000. He also admitted that on December 22, 1997 at 9:00 a.m., he visited the complainants’ residence to inform them that the judge wanted to talk to them. He testified that he introduced the complainants to Judge Dizon at the East Royal Hotel Coffee Shop, and he claimed he did not know about the alleged demand for P150,000 because he said he was seated far from complainants and Judge Dizon while they talked. Still, he admitted visiting the complainants with the driver of Judge Dizon to secure P100,000, and he testified that he was given P80,000, of which Judge Dizon instructed him to retain P30,000 for himself.

The second witness was Manuel C. Rafols, Jr., who identified Judge Dizon and affirmed the contents of the joint affidavit executed by him and his wife. The pertinent affidavit narrative accused Judge Dizon of demanding money as consideration for a favorable disposition of Civil Case No. 6209 for the cancellation of specified public documents, presided over by Judge Dizon. According to the affidavit, the complainants were told that if they could produce P150,000, Judge Dizon would resolve their case in their favor and assure victory even up to the Court of Appeals. The affidavit further alleged that after partial payments were arranged, Judge Dizon demanded additional amounts, including a balance of P100,000, and later a balance of P30,000, which he allegedly received personally. It also alleged that when payments were made, Judge Dizon emphasized the need for another RTC judge in Iloilo—where the perpetuation of testimony was heard—to be brought to General Santos as a witness, and he purportedly encouraged complainants to give money to that judge otherwise complainants would not blame him for the outcome. The affidavit stated that complainants feared bias due to the judge’s imposing authority. It further alleged that complainants consulted Larry Sevilla, and when an exposé was published, Judge Dizon and Atty. Barrios attempted to appease them with gifts and an offer to return part of the money, which they refused, leading to the execution of the joint affidavit.

The third witness, Engineer Allan Rafols, corroborated the complainants’ account and identified and affirmed his earlier affidavit. He asserted that he personally witnessed the giving of money to Atty. Barrios on December 24, 1997 at the complainants’ residence, and he stated that he brought P50,000 out of P80,000 that was given to Atty. Barrios, consistent with specific paragraphs in the joint affidavit.

The fourth witness, Daisy Rafols, corroborated the allegations as well. She affirmed her own affidavit stating that she was personally present when money was given at the East Asia Royal Hotel around 12:00 noon of December 22, 1997, and she identified the source of her portion as P20,000 from her savings, consistent with the joint affidavit’s narration.

The fifth witness, Larry Sevilla, corroborated complainants’ narrative and identified and affirmed his prior affidavit. He described his role as publisher/editor-in-chief of the NEWSMAKER, and explained that the series of articles about “the judge and the lawyer’s racket” came after the complainants narrated the story to him. He testified that on February 23, 1998 at about 9:45 a.m., a regional trial court judge identified as Judge Dizon visited the residence of the publisher to clear his name and during a conversation offered help in cash to impose a news blackout on the issue, which the publisher refused.

After these testimonies, the prosecution rested. The defense presented witnesses including Jaime Quizan, a utility worker at RTC Branch 37 who testified that he drove for respondent from 1997 to 1998 and that he did not drive the red Nissan pick-up on December 24, 1997, because both he and Judge Dizon were allegedly in the office in the morning and later proceeded to Tagum. He also denied the allegation that he drove the vehicle to secure money from complainants. The defense also presented Judge Dizon himself, who denied all accusations and responded that he did not know why complainants filed the complaint.

With leave of court, the complainant Manuel Rafols was recalled to rebut Quizan’s testimony. He contradicted the defense’s claim of identity, stating that the driver of respondent was a certain Dodong, about forty years old, and he would recognize him if he saw him again.

Recommendations of the Investigating Justice and the Office of the Court Administrator

Investigating Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. recommended dismissal from the service with disqualification from re-employment in government service and forfeiture of accrued retirement benefits and related privileges, based on the policy that a judge found guilty of serious misconduct should face the supreme penalty. However, he recommended a compassionate modification. He cited circumstances including the judge’s deteriorating physical condition, and he opined that extortion was not the original idea of the respondent and that counsel of complainants initiated the extortion scheme, with counsel allegedly also benefiting from the money extorted, in addition to amounts the judge extracted from clients. He also noted that there appeared to be no other complaints against Judge Dizon and that he had been under preventive suspension for more than two years without receiving emoluments. He thus recommended that Judge Dizon be allowed to retire, if qualified, or otherwise to undergo disability retirement, and that from any retirement benefits due him, restitution be made to complainants consisting of the extorted P150,000 plus P100,000 for expenses and damages. He also recommended that an investigation be made regarding the unethical conduct of Atty. Ricardo G. Barrios, Jr.

On evaluation by the Office of the Court Administrator, the same factual findings as the Investigating Justice were stated, but the Office recommended the supreme penalty without compassionate modification. It stressed that integrity in a judicial office was a necessity and that respondent’s corrupt practice demonstrated unfitness to remain in the judiciary. The Office recommended dismissal from the servic

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms