FACTS:

The administrative complaint was filed against Presiding Judge Victoria Villalon-Pornillos by the "Concerned Lawyers of Bulacan" for various violations including graft and corruption, improper conduct, and violation of rules and laws. The complainants alleged that the respondent accepted bribes, maintained illicit relationships, borrowed money from court personnel, and boasted about connections in the judiciary. They also claimed that she displayed ill-gotten wealth and had poor attendance in court due to mental illness and personal issues.

The Office of the Court Administrator conducted an investigation and found that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations of corruption and illicit relationships. However, it was confirmed that the respondent obtained loans from court personnel and lawyers and had poor attendance in court.

As a result, the Court ordered a judicial audit to determine if the respondent could be held liable for habitual tardiness, failure to report to court regularly, and poor records management. The audit focused on 354 cases assigned to Branch 10 of the Malolos RTC. The Court also directed the respondent to respond to specific issues concerning the audit report, including failure to present case records, delays in acting on motions, delegation of tasks, and inaction on certain cases.

In her response, the respondent denied the allegations and provided explanations for the delayed resolutions in some cases. She claimed to have always timely resolved motions and explained the reasons for the delays. The respondent also provided updates on the status of each case mentioned in the complaint, stating that some were already dismissed or provisionally dismissed, while others were submitted for decision.

The respondent narrated various incidents in different cases, including granting motions, denying motions, setting pre-trial conferences, rendering judgments, dismissing cases for failure to prosecute, and admitting amended information. She further emphasized that despite suffering from health issues, she arrived early for work, filed leaves of absence for absences, and operated the court efficiently despite being understaffed.

The respondent argued that there was no substantial evidence to support the allegations of corruption and immorality, stating that the burden of proof falls on the complainant in administrative proceedings against court officials. She emphasized that allegations should not override the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended the dismissal of the charges against the respondent, considering the lack of evidence.

ISSUES:

1. Whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain the charges of corruption and immorality against the respondent.

2. Whether there is proper monitoring of cases in Branch 10.

3. Whether the respondent failed to act on certain incidents and cases within a reasonable period of time.

4. Whether the respondent failed to make a complete report to the audit team regarding the docket inventory.

5. Whether or not the respondent judge's failure to take appropriate disciplinary measures against her court personnel constitutes a violation of judicial canon.

6. Whether or not the respondent judge's lack of initiative in seeking additional staff for her court and her failure to find suitable and qualified replacements for her detail personnel constitutes a violation of proper court management.

7. Whether the respondent judge violated the required working hours for judges.

8. Whether the respondent judge violated the rules on the reception of evidence ex-parte.

9. Whether the respondent judge violated the prohibition on borrowing money from court personnel, lawyers, and litigants.

10. Whether the impropriety of the respondent judge's actions reflects adversely on the court's impartiality.

11. Whether the respondent judge is guilty of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Rules of Court.

12. What penalty should be imposed on the respondent judge.

RULING:

1. The Court finds no evidence to sustain the charges of corruption and immorality against the respondent. The burden of substantiating the charges in an administrative proceeding lies on the complainant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent regularly performed her duties prevails. Bare allegations of misconduct cannot prevail over the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions.

2. The Court finds that Branch 10 lacks proper monitoring of cases, based on the audit team's observation.

3. The respondent failed to act on certain incidents and cases within a reasonable period of time. She provided the latest issued orders in most of the listed cases but failed to justify her failure to act on the incidents. She did not explain the delay in the resolution of the incidents and allowed a significant hiatus in certain cases.

4. The respondent failed to make a complete report to the audit team regarding the docket inventory. She only presented a docket inventory for a specific period, contrary to the clear mandate of conducting a docket inventory for a given semester.

5. The respondent judge's failure to initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against her court personnel is a violation of judicial canon. She cannot simply detail them without initiating an administrative proceeding. The judge has a responsibility to control and discipline her staff, and her failure to do so demonstrates weakness in administrative supervision.

6. The respondent judge's lack of initiative in seeking additional staff for her court and her failure to find suitable replacements for her detailed personnel is a violation of proper court management. The judge is responsible for organizing the court for the prompt and convenient dispatch of its business. Adhering to her own preferred management style without actively seeking additional personnel is unacceptable.

7. Yes, the respondent judge violated the required working hours for judges, which is a less serious offense punishable by suspension from office without salary and other benefits ranging from one to three months, or a fine of more than P10,000 but not exceeding P20,000.

8. Yes, the respondent judge violated the rules on the reception of evidence ex-parte. A violation of the basic rule on reception of evidence ex-parte or any of its related circulars merits the imposition of an administrative sanction.

9. Yes, the respondent judge violated the prohibition on borrowing money from court personnel, lawyers, and litigants. The violation of such prohibition is punishable by reprimand, suspension ranging from one to 30 days, and dismissal from service, for the first, second and third offense respectively.

10. Yes, the impropriety of the respondent judge's actions reflects adversely on the court's impartiality as it violates the Code of Judicial Conduct.

11. The respondent judge is found guilty of violating paragraph 7, Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, which is also a gross misconduct constituting violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The respondent is also found guilty of undue delay in rendering decisions or orders and violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars. As a result, the respondent judge is dismissed from service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency or instrumentality.

PRINCIPLES:

• The burden of proof in administrative proceedings against court officials and employees falls on the complainant.

• Bare allegations of misconduct cannot prevail over the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions.

• Judges are mandated to dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.

• Proper and efficient court management is the responsibility of the presiding judge.

• Judges should adopt a system of record management and organization of dockets to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business.

• Proper court management for the effective discharge of official functions is the direct responsibility of judges, who cannot take refuge behind the inefficiency of court personnel.

• A judge's duties and responsibilities are not strictly confined to judicial functions. A judge is also an administrator who must organize the court with a view to prompt and convenient dispatch of its business.

• Undue delay in rendering a decision or order is a less serious offense punishable by suspension from office without salary and other benefits or a fine.

• Judges must adhere to guidelines for the faithful observance of court sessions, punctuality, compliance with the calendar of cases, and strict adherence to policies on avoiding postponements and unnecessary delay.

• Lawyers are expected to cooperate with judges to ensure the swift disposition of cases.

• Court officials and employees must strictly observe official time. Punctuality is required, and absenteeism and tardiness are impermissible.

• Judges are duty-bound to comply with the required working hours to ensure the maximum efficiency of trial courts for the speedy administration of justice.

• Circulars prescribing hours of work are not empty pronouncements and require prompt and faithful compliance.

• Only clerks of court who are members of the bar can be delegated to receive evidence ex-parte.

• Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars is a less serious offense punishable by suspension from office without salary and other benefits or a fine.

• There is a standing legal proscription on borrowing money by superior officers from subordinates, and borrowing money or property from lawyers and litigants in a case pending before the court.

• Judges should refrain from financial and business dealings that reflect adversely on the court's impartiality or interfere with the proper performance of judicial activities.

• A judge may obtain a loan if no law prohibits such loan, but a judge is prohibited from engaging in financial transactions with a party-litigant.

• Civil service rules and jurisprudence provide that when the respondent is guilty of multiple charges, the penalty imposed should correspond to the most serious charge. The other charges shall be considered aggravating circumstances.

• Judges are expected to meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity. Those who do not meet these standards have no place in the judiciary.

• The administration of justice is a mission, and judges are the embodiments of what is right, just, and proper. They are considered the ultimate weapons against injustice and oppression.

• The violation of various judicial ethics by the respondent reflects a totality of transgressions and justifies the dismissal from service.

• The penalty imposed should uphold the people's faith in the judiciary.