EN BANC
[ A.M. No. 14-10-339-RTC, March 07, 2017 ]RE: FINDINGS ON JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN RTC v. JUDGE MARYBELLE L. DEMOTÂMARIÑAS +
RE: FINDINGS ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 8, LA TRINIDAD, BENGUET.
[A.M. No. RTJ-16-2446 [FORMERLY A.M. No. 14-3-53-RTC]]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MARYBELLE L. DEMOTMARIÑAS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 8, LA TRINIDAD, BENGUET, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
RE: FINDINGS ON JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN RTC v. JUDGE MARYBELLE L. DEMOTÂMARIÑAS +
RE: FINDINGS ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 8, LA TRINIDAD, BENGUET.
[A.M. No. RTJ-16-2446 [FORMERLY A.M. No. 14-3-53-RTC]]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MARYBELLE L. DEMOTMARIÑAS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 8, LA TRINIDAD, BENGUET, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
This is a consolidated administrative complaint against Judge Marybelle L. Demot-Mariñas (Judge Demot-Mariñas), Presiding Judge, Branch 8, Regional Trial Court, La Trinidad, Benguet, which stemmed from (1) the judicial audit of the RTC-Branch 8 from March 30 to April 12, 2014, conducted by the Audit Team of the Court Management Office (Team); and (2) the Indorsement from the Office of the Chief Justice regarding the Letter from Ms. Lilia Nugal-Koh wherein the latter sought the intercession of the Court for the speedy disposition of her case.
A.M No. 14-10-339-RTC
Pursuant to Travel Order No. 32-2014 dated March 20, 2014, the judicial audit team conducted a judicial audit in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 8, La Trinidad, Benguet, from March 30 to April 12, 2014. The Court is presided by herein respondent Judge Marybelle Demot-Mariñas.
On the basis of the records presented and actually audited by the Team, the subject court had a total caseload of 309 cases (135 criminal cases and 174 civil cases), with 157 cases submitted for decision (47 criminal cases and 110 civil cases) which are already beyond the reglementary period to decide.
In a Memoradum dated October 3, 2014, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended to the Honorable Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno the following, to wit:
In compliance with the Court's Resolution, in a Letter Transmittal dated June 4, 2015, Judge Demot-Mariñas apologized to the Court for her failure to decide the cases within the reglementary period. She, however, offered no explanation to such delay but nevertheless admitted her fault in the said delay. She signified her intention to resign as she felt that she was no longer an effective member of the judiciary. Attached with the Letter Compliance is the Letter of Atty. Maribel Brillantes Macario Pedro (Atty. Macario Pedro), Clerk of Court V, Branch 8, RTC, La Trinidad, Benguet showing the partial compliance to the court directives, to wit:
A.M. RTJ-16-2446
On February 27, 2013, the Office of the Deputy Court Administrator Raul Villanueva (DCA Villanueva) received an indorsement from the Office of the Chief Justice regarding the letter of Ms. Nugal-Koh wherein the latter sought the intercession of the Court for the speedy disposition of her case docketed as Special Proceedings Case No. 95-SP-0086 entitled "Pedro Nugal, et al. v. Lilia Nugal-Koh, et al.," which allegedly had been submitted for resolution for more than ten (10) years already at the time of the complaint.
Acting on the said Letter, a 1st Indorsement dated March 4, 2013 was sent directing Judge Demot-Mariñas to comment thereon. On June 5, 2013, another Letter from Ms. Nugal-Koh, addressed to the Office of the Chief Justice, was received by DCA Villanueva's office again seeking assistance for the immediate resolution of her case. Attached to the said Letter were the (1) Certification dated April 23, 2013 from Atty. Maribel B. Macario, Clerk of Court V, Branch 8, RTC, La Trinidad, Benguet, attesting that no decision was rendered yet in the subject case; and (2) another Letter from the Office of the Chief Justice dated April 12, 2013, referring the letter dated February 13, 2013 of Ms. Nugal-Koh to Judge Demot-Mariñas wherein the latter was requested to submit a feedback on the matter within fifteen (15) days from the receipt thereof.
Consequently, a 2nd Indorsement dated June 5, 2013 was sent to Judge Demot-Mariñas, reiterating the earlier directive for her to comment on the status of Ms. Nugal-Koh's case, with a stem warning that appropriate proceedings may be initiated against her for her inaction.
On September 17, 2013, the Office of DCA Villanueva again received a Letter dated September 11, 2013 from Ms. Nugal-Koh repeating her request regarding her case and appending a new certification dated September 2, 2013 attesting that her case remained undecided. Thus, a 3rd Indorsement was sent to respondent judge regarding the matter with the information that initiation of administrative proceedings against her was already being considered for her apparent delay in deciding the subject case and her blatant disregard of directives relative thereto despite repeated orders.
In an Agenda Report dated February 18, 2014, the OCA found that Judge Demot-Mariñas indeed failed to comply with the repeated directives from the Office of DCA Villanueva, and with the letter from the Office of the Chief Justice requiring her to comment on the status of the subject case. Thus, the OCA recommended that the report be treated as a formal administrative complaint against Judge Demot-Mariñas for insubordination, inefficiency and neglect of duty.
In a Resolution dated June 2, 2014, the Court resolved to treat the OCA's Agenda Report dated February 18, 2014 as a formal administrtive complaint against Judge Demot-Mariñas for Inefficiency and Neglect of Duty. In addition, the Court also required respondent to explain why she should not be held administratively liable for her failure to comply with the repeated directives to comment on the status of Special Proceedings Case No. 95-SP-0086. The Court, likewise, directed respondent to comment and submit a report on the status of the above-mentioned case.
In a Resolution dated November 26, 2014, the Court referred the Letter dated September 11, 2014 of Ms. Nugal-Koh to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation. As contained therein, Ms. Nugal Koh said that as of July 9, 2014, no decision has been rendered by respondent Judge Demot-Mariñas in her case as certified by Atty. Macario Pedro, Branch Clerk of Court.
In a Memorandum dated December 1, 2015, the OCA recommended that: (1) the two (2) instant administrative matters be consolidated; and (2) respondent Judge Marybelle L. Demot-Mariñas be found guilty of grave misconduct, insubordination and gross inefficiency and be dismissed from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits.
On February 17, 2016, as per recommendation of the OCA, considering the similarity of the issues of both cases, the Court resolved to consolidate the instant administrative complaints against respondent Judge Demot-Mariñas.
RULING
We adopt the findings and recommendation of the OCA.
The Court has consistently impressed upon judges the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously under the time-honored precept that justice delayed is justice denied. Every judge should decide cases with dispatch and should be careful, punctual, and observant in the performance of his functions for delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it into disrepute. Failure to decide a case within the reglementary period is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency warranting the imposition of administrative sanctions on the defaultingjudge.[1]
Here, there is no question as to the guilt of Judge Demot-Mariñas. As shown by the records, she has been remiss in the performance of her responsibilities. She failed to decide cases and resolve pending incidents within the reglementary period, without any authorized extension from this Court. Respondent judge failed to: (1) decide 150 cases submitted for decision [45 criminal cases and 105 civil case] which are beyond the period to decide, and to (2) resolve the pending motions/incidents in 17 cases [2 criminal cases and 15 civil cases].[2] Some of the cases were already submitted for decision since 2002, particularly Civil Case No. 2831 and Civil Case No. 2217.[3] More appalling is that she did not give any reason/explanation for her failure to comply with the reglementary period for deciding cases. There were, likewise, no previous requests by her for extension of time to decide said cases. Thus, in the instant case, Judge Demot-Mariñas' gross inefficiency is, therefore, evident in her undue delay deciding 150 cases within the reglementary period and her failure to resolve pending motions/incidents in 17 cases.
Article VIII, Section 15(l) of the 1987 Constitution provides that lower courts have three months within which to decide cases or resolve matters submitted to them for resolution. Moreover, Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins judges to dispose of their business promptly and decide cases within the required period. In addition, this Court laid down the guidelines in SC Administrative Circular No. 13[4] which provides, inter alia, that "[j]udges shall observe scrupulously the periods prescribed by Article VIII, Section 15, of the Constitution for the adjudication and resolution of all cases or matters submitted in their courts. Thus, all cases or matters must be decided or resolved within twelve months from date of submission by all lower collegiate courts, while all other lower courts are given a period of three months to do so." The Court has reiterated this admonition in SC Administrative Circular No. 3-99[5] which requires all judges to scrupulously observe the periods prescribed in the Constitution for deciding cases and the failure to comply therewith is considered a serious violation of the constitutional right of the parties to speedy disposition of their cases.[6]
This Court has consistently held that failure to decide cases and other matters within the reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative sanction against the erring magistrate. Respondent judge failed to live up to the exacting standards of duty and responsibility that her position required. As a trial judge, Judge Demot-Mariñas is a frontline official of the judiciary and should have at all times acted with efficiency and with probity.[7]
A.M. RTJ-16-2446
We likewise find similarly concerning is Judge Demot-Mariñas' indifference to the indorsements requiring her to comment on the accusations against her. In all three (3) indorsements issued by the OCA, as well as one (1) Letter from the Office of the Chief Justice, Judge Demot-Mariñas ignored the directives for her to file the required comment since no comment or compliance has been submitted despite several opportunities given to her which ran in a span of more than three (3) years. Also, as per verification by the OCA of the status of Special Proceedings No. 95-SP-0086, as of December 2015, Judge Demot-Mariñas has yet to decide the case which was already submitted for decision since May 12, 2003. It is then apparent that failure to comment despite several directives, as well as the failure to comply with the immediate resolution of Ms. Nugal-Koh's letter, show her propensity to disregard and disobey lawful orders of her superior.
We would like to further stress that all directives coming from the Court Administrator and his deputies are issued in the exercise of this Court's administrative supervision of trial courts and their personnel, hence, should be respected. These directives are not mere requests, but should be complied with promptly and completely. Clearly, Judge Demot-Mariñas' unexplained disregard of the orders of the OCA for her to comment on the complaint shows her disrespect for and contempt, not just for the OCA, but also for the Court, which exercises direct administrative supervision over trial court officers and employees through the OCA. Her indifference to, and disregard of, the directives issued to her clearly constituted insubordination which this Court will not tolerate.[8]
We cannot overemphasize that compliance with the rules, directives and circulars issued by the Court is one of the foremost duties that a judge accepts upon assumption to office. This duty is verbalized in Canon 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct:[9]
Under the circumstances, We can thus conclude that the conduct exhibited by Judge Demot-Mariñas constitutes no less than clear acts of defiance against the Court's authority. Her conduct also reveals her deliberate disrespect and indifference to the authority of the Court, shown by her failure to heed our warnings and directives.
We cannot tolerate this type of behavior especially on a judge. Public confidence in the judiciary can only be achieved when the court personnel conduct themselves in a dignified manner befitting the public office they are holding. Judges should avoid conduct or any demeanor that may tarnish or diminish the authority of the Supreme Court.[10] Clearly, Judge Demot-Mariñas' attitude, as shown by her unexplained failure to decide 150 cases as well as motions and incidents, and her failure to respond to any of the court's directives despite several reminders, betray her lack of concern for her office. In sum, Judge Demot-Mariñas has been remiss in the performance of her official duties exacerbated by her audacious stance in defying this Court's orders. We cannot tolerate the attitude of respondent judge m defying this Court's authority and undermining its integrity.
Penalty
The rules and jurisprudence are clear on the matter of delay. Failure to decide cases and other matters within the reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative sanction against the erring magistrate.[11] Further, Judge Demot-Mariñas' deliberate and repeated failure to comply with the directives of the OCA constitutes Gross Misconduct which is a serious offense under Section 8,[12] Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.
In Re: Audit Report in Attendance of Court Personnel of RTC, Branch 32, Manila,[13] We held that it is gross misconduct, even outright disrespect for the Court, for respondent judge to exhibit indifference to the resolution requiring him to comment on the accusations in the complaint thoroughly and substantially. Such failure to comply accordingly betrays not only a recalcitrant streak in character, but also disrespect for the Court's lawful order and directive.
Likewise, in Alonto-Frayna v. Astih,[14] a judge who deliberately and continuously fails and refuses to comply with the resolution of this Court is guilty of gross misconduct and insubordination, and was dismissed from service.
Judging by the foregoing circumstances, the Court can only conclude that Judge Demot-Mariñas is guilty of gross inefficiency resulting in her unexplained failure to resolve pending cases and motions within the reglementary period despite several reminders and follow-ups, and gross misconduct for her non-compliance with the directives/orders of the OCA and this Court.
In this scenario, Section 17 of the Omnibus Rules implementing the Civil Service Law states that if the respondent judge is found guilty of two or more charges or counts, the penalty imposed should be that corresponding to the most serious charge or counts and the rest may be considered aggravating circumstances.[15] The most serious of the charges against respondent judge is her gross misconduct, and her gross inefficiency is considered an aggravating circumstance.
We would have imposed the penalty of dismissal from service on Judge Demot-Mariñas, however, considering that on December 10, 2015, she has filed her certificate of candidacy to run for public office, she is now deemed resigned from judicial office. Nevertheless, cessation from office by reason of resignation, death or retirement is not a ground to dismiss the case filed against her at the time that she was still in the public service.[16] Thus, in lieu of the penalty of dismissal for her unethical conduct and gross inefficiency in performing her duties as a member of the bench, We, however, impose instead the accessory penalty of forfeiture of all her retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits. Furthermore, she is barred from re-employment in any branch or service of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Judge Marybelle L. Demot-Mariñas, former Presiding Judge of Branch 8, Regional Trial Court, La Trinidad, Benguet is found GUILTY of Gross Misconduct and Gross Inefficiency. Her retirement benefits, if any, are declared FORFEITED as penalty for her offenses, except accrued leave credits, in lieu of dismissal from service which the Court can no longer impose. She is likewise barred from re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
This Decision is immediately EXECUTORY.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C. J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Jardeleza, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that on March 7, 2017 a Decision/Resolution, copy attached herewith, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled administrative matter, the original of which was received by this Office on May 8, 2017 at 10:43 a.m.
[1] Re: Cases Submitted For Decision Before Hon. Teofilo D. Baluma, Former Judge, Branch 1, Regional Trial Court, Tagbilaran City, Bohol, 717 Phil. 11, 17 (2013).
[2] Rollo, pp. 56-70.
[3] See Memorandum for the Chief Justice from DCA Villanueva dated December 1, 2005, p. 143.
[4] Promulgated on July 1, 1987.
[5] Promulgated on January 15, 1999.
[6] Re: Cases Submitted For Decision Before Hon. Teofilo D. Baluma, Former Judge, Branch 1, Regional Trial Court, Tagbilaran City, Bohol, supra note 1, at 16-17.
[7] Angelia v. Judge Grageda, 656 Phil. 570, 573 (2011).
[8] Clemente v. Bautista, 710 Phil. 10, 16 (2013).
[9] Promulgated on April 27, 2004.
[10] See Tormis v. Paredes, A.M. No. RTJ-13-2366, February 4, 2015, 749 SCRA 505, 520.
[11] Rubin v. Judge Corpus-Cabochon, 715 Phil. 318, 334 (2013); OCA v. Judge Santos, 697 Phil. 292, 299 (2012); Re: Cases Submitted for Decision before Han. Meliton G. Emuslan, Former Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 47, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, 630 Phil. 269, 272 (2010); Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Branch 22, Kabacan, North Cotabato, 468 Phil. 338, 345 (2004).
[12] Rule 140, Section 8 of the Revised Rules of Court, and penalized under Rule 140, Section 11(a) of the same Rules by: 1) Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits; 2) Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or 3) A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.
[13] 532 Phil. 51, 63-64 (2006).
[14] 360 Phil. 385 (1998).
[15] Dr. Hipe v. Judge Literato, 686 Phil. 723, 735 (2012).
[16] See OCA v. Grageda, 706 Phil. 15, 21 (2013).
A.M No. 14-10-339-RTC
Pursuant to Travel Order No. 32-2014 dated March 20, 2014, the judicial audit team conducted a judicial audit in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 8, La Trinidad, Benguet, from March 30 to April 12, 2014. The Court is presided by herein respondent Judge Marybelle Demot-Mariñas.
On the basis of the records presented and actually audited by the Team, the subject court had a total caseload of 309 cases (135 criminal cases and 174 civil cases), with 157 cases submitted for decision (47 criminal cases and 110 civil cases) which are already beyond the reglementary period to decide.
In a Memoradum dated October 3, 2014, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended to the Honorable Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno the following, to wit:
A. Hon. Marybelle Demot-Mariñas, Presiding Judge, Branch 8, Regional Trial Court, La Trinidad, Benguet, be DIRECTED to:On April 7, 2015, as per recommendation of the OCA, the Court resolved to adopt the findings and recommendations of the OCA.
(1) CEASE and DESIST from trying/hearing cases in her court, and to DEVOTE her time to (1a) DECIDE the one hundred fifty (150) cases [45 criminal cases and 105 civil cases] submitted for decision, which are beyond the period to decide as provided by law, to wit:
CRIMINAL CASES
Maria Gloria
Angelica SabadoGrave Coercion Maria Gloria
Angelica SabadoMalicious Mischief Flor Raposas, et al. Malicious Mischief Wilfredo Pio Alan Homicide John Miguel Ananayo Frustrated Homicide Laruan Quilito
Rogelio Andres (AL)Murder Sunny Aglibot
Lorenzo Adato, Jr.
Michael RamirezTheft Arleth Buenconsejo, et al. Illegal Recruitment Arleth Buenconsejo, et al. Illegal Recruitment Arleth Buenconsejo, et al. Illegal Recruitment Arleth Buenconsejo, et al. Illegal Recruitment Narda Balinag Albert Coliado PD 1602 as amended by RA 9287 Christopher Patiag RA 9165 Avalon Allan Murder Avalon Allan Frustrated Murder James Bagtang Sec. 5. Art. II, RA 9165 Dorico Yeno Endeniro Sec. 5, Art. II, RA 9165 Santos Balabal Sec. 5 Art. II, RA 9165
(appealed case)Walden Revelar Grave Threats Christopher Patiag RA 9165 Roel Nabus PD 1602 as amended by RA 9287 Jay Boteng Murder Jack Bahingawan Frustrated Murder
(appealed case)Antonio Coyupan
Rey Coyupan
Joker MirandaMalicious Mischief Fred Bilog Sec. 5, Art. II, RA 9165 Hilton Pulacan Sec. 5, Art. II, RA 9165 Hilton Pulacan Sec. 5, Art. II, RA 9165 Sps. Florendo and
Josephine LupanteEstafa thru Falisification of Public Documents A. Empil Qualified Theft H. Soriano Sec. 5, Art. II, RA 9165 Rowela Delfin Sec. 5, Art. II, RA 9165 Sonny Dolinen Estafa John Naboye
E.Malicdan
E. Daniel
E. RonesPD 1602 as Amended by RA 9287
(appealed case)Eleanor Sebiano, et al. Qualified Trespass to Dwelling
(appealed case)Uriel Delos Reyes Serious Physical Injuries
(appealed case)Uriel Delos Reyes Serious Physical Injuries Alex Abinon
Romel Balarote
Dan Morial
Julius CasaalanFrustrated Murder Jessie Bernal Estafa
(appealed case)Regina Samidan BP 22
(appealed case)Regina Samidan BP 22 Regina Samidan BP 22
(appealed case)Regina Samidan BP 22
(appealed case)Regina Samidan BP 22
(appealed case)Fernando Asunsion BP 22
(appealed case)Fernando Asunsion BP 22
CIVIL CASES
Joseph Tanacio, et al. v. Angelita Narzabal, et al. Damages Lorna Aquino v. Sps. Antonio Abyado, et al. Specific Performance, Injunction and Reconveyance
(appealed case)Belino Tam v. Milagros Vidal and George Vidal Reconveyance and Damages Aniceto Acop & Shirley Acop v. Register of Deeds, Benguet Petition under Section 108 of PD 1529 for amendment of entries in the Registration Book
(appealed case)Sps. Marcial Florida v. Mario Otto & Delio Otto Recovery of Possession with Damages Elvira Laoyan v. Mike Leo, Jr. Recovery of Possession with Damages Catalina Villena v. Sps. Marcos Gayaso, et al. Annulment of Deed of Sale, Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate Emilia Buyagoa v. Minda Colansong Rescission of Contract with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction
(appealed case)Macaria Molitas, et al. v. Cordillera Homeowners Cooperative Forcible Entry and Damages Anthony Wakefiled v. Rafael Tenenan, et al. Annulment of Documents Placido Carantes v. Benguet Corporation Recovery of Possession with Preliminary Injunction Placido Carantes Application for Registration of Title George Sanchez v. Edith Batore Walker, et al. Annulment of Affidavit of Adjudication Heirs of Empiso Caiso, et al. v. The Barangay Government of Poblacion, La Trinidad, Benguet, et al. Cancelllation of Tax Declartion Mario Nishiyama v. Megalopolis Properties Inc. Rescission of Contracts with Damages Manuel Cuilan v. Mauricio Ambanloc Violation of Section 194 and 195 of the Local Code/Injunction with Damages Feliciano Balakwid v. Victoria Leano Judicial Foreclosure of Mortgage
(appealed case)Dionisia Palaci v. Simeon and Manuel Basilio Recovery of Possession with Prayer for Issuance of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction and TRO Angela Begnaen, et al. v. The Heirs of Angelita Begnaen Ananayo, et al. Reconveryance and Damages Saturnino Diaz v. Manuel Liu Recovery of Possession with Damages Sps. Marcial & Imelda Tayab v. Henry Longay Jr. in his capacity as Deputy Sheriff IV, Cesar Macagne and Stephen Tolding Injunction and Damages with application for TRO with Writ of Preliminary Injunction Cesar Macagne and Stephen Tolding v. Sps. Marcial & Imelda Tayab & Atty. Inglay Fokno Indirect Contempt Jeffrey Garoy v. Cecilia Morales, et al. Annulment of Title; Affidavit of Loss & Affidavit of Self Adjudication with Simultaneous Sale with Damages Maximo Macli-ing v. Pedro Isican Damages Fibertex Corp. v. Elizabeth Lagyop and Darwin Dominong Recovery of Possession with Damages Constancio Olsim and Gregorio Afidchao v. La Trinidad Balikatan Homeowners Assn., et al. Specific Performance Teresita Banggao, rep. by Francis Salis v. Sps. Marcelo & Lolita Geston & the Municipal Trial Court of La Trinidad Annulment of Judgment with Prayer for the Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction Sps. Alejandro and Feliza Carbonell v. Ricky Alangsab, et al. Injunction with Payer for TRO & Preliminary Injunction, Reduction of Interest Rate of Loan & Damages Rural Bank of La Trinidad, represented by Ricardo Salis v. Sps. Candido & Florence Radion Collection of Sum of Money with Damages Eugenia Zafra Edapes, et al. v. Solomon Alilao,et al. Annulment of Deeds of Absolute Sale, TCT, Sheriffs Certificates of Sale, Reconveyance and Damages Heirs of Larry Ogas v. Benguet State University, et al. Annulment of Sale & TCT with Damages Sps. Cobulan v. Josephine Alasio Forcible Entry
(appealed case)Heirs of Dagiw-a Baca, et al. v. Heirs of Bahanio Atelba, et al. Recovery of Ownership, et al.
(appealed case)Heirs of Alipio Ballesteros, et al. v. Cristina Gorio Forcible Entry Camilo Quinio v. Duray Veloso de Erasmo, et al. Recovery of Possession and Ownership Itogon-Suyoc Mines, Inc. v. James Brett Recovery of Personal Property, etc. Abanga Cossel, et al. v. Director of Lands Land Registration Vicente Lubos v. Smart Communications Inc. Breach of Contract with Damages Gudelia Domingo v. Emmanuel Mariano Damages
(appealed case)Heirs of Toato Bugnay, et al. v. Cristina Gorio Forcible Entry with Damages
(appealed case)Heirs of Cuidno Tapio v. Camilo Madadsic Accion Publiciana,et al.
(appealed case)Aurea Benito, et al. v. Joseph Aquilet, et al. Reconveyance, Cancelllation of Bad Title, Tax Declaration
(appealed case)Samuel Bordon v. Lin Ling Sheng Collection of Sum of Money Frankie Domingo v. Michael Sy Quieting of Title, Damages with Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction Sonia Catarroja, et al. v. Damian Jimenez, et al. Reconveyance, et al. Sps. Gerald and Josephine Alejo v. Samahan ng Buong Lahing Pilipino & Nelia Bulahaw Annulment of Deeds, Damages et al. Amada Eraña v. Jane Ferrer & Registry of Deeds Recovery of Possession of a parcel of land and Damages Pedro Nugal, et al. (Petitioners) In the Matter of the Settlement of the Intestate Estate of the late Basilio Nugal Heirs of Rosalia Quintino v. Arlene Lubos, et al. Petition for the Surrender of the Owner's Duplicate Copies of Title Belen Tacay, et al. v. Ponciano So and Val Nolasco Injunction, Damages with Prayer for TRO Heirs of Jose Tumpao v. Sps. Noel and Jessie Alos Recovery of Possession Heirs of Bido Sabado v. Domingo Bestre and Miller Bestre Quieting of Title & Ownership Jimmy Mateo, et al. v. Miguel Bato, et al. Annulment of Deed of Sale, etc. Mary Jane Alican v. Alvin Soriano Quo Warranto, Application for Writ of Preliminary Injunction and TRO Lolita Velasco v. Charlie Lingbanan, et al. Quieting of Title; Annulment of Title; Specific Performance or Reconveyance Patricio Ciano v. Lutheran Church of the Philippines, et al. Quieting of Title with Prayer for the Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction
(appealed case)Telesforo Amiao & Angela Angon v. Heirs of Patricio Gabao Unlawful Detainer Heirs of Rufo Sotelo, Jr. v. Melchor Tican, et al. Injunction Ricardo Acop, et al. v. Sps. Ricardo & Juliet Galvez Cancellation of Title with Damages Sps. Jaime & Mary Leo v. Arlene Leo, et al. Annulment of Documents, Injunction & Damages Lourdes Maglaya & Feliza Pil-o v. Ruben Guzman & Hydro Electric Dev't. Corp. Annulment of Contracts Marck Floyd Ambos & Eden Ambos v. LCR of Bokod, Benguet Petition for Correction of Entries in the Certificate of Live Birth of Mark Floyd Ambos Ismael Paatan v. Amado Cortez Damages Trinibank-Rural Bank of La Trinidad, Benguet v. Sps. Juanito & Zenaida Co, et al. Recovery of Possession and Ownership with Damages Leonardo del Rosario, et al. v. Conchita Lucero Reconveyance, Accounting and Damages Benjamin Dampac v. Sps. Victor & Frances Laoyan Abatement of Nuisance & Damages Heirs of Victor Alejandro Sr., et al. v. Andrea Balictan Declaration of Nullity of Deed of Donation Pilando Fernandez, et al. v. Philex Mining Corp. Enforcement of Contract
(appealed case)Carmen Amboy & Florencio Amboy v. Sps. Antonio & Rosita Calado Forcible Entry Albert Caoili v. Congyu Marcelino, et al. Quieting of Tile Heirs of Gregorio Abalos v. Peter Sukil-ap, et al. Recovery of Possession Benguet Electric Cooperative v. National Transmission Corp. et al. Injunction Heirs of Violeta Baccay, et al. v. Erasmo Aquiapao, et al. Annulment of Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate Patricia Buenafe v. Sps. Mario Bastian, et al. Annulment of Real Estate Mortgage Heirs of Carlos Amos et al. v. Delilah Asuncion & Sps. Basilio David, et al. Annulment of Judgment Alma Contada v. Allan Maliones Damages David Dominang v.
Hon. Jose Encarnacion et al.Certiorari Agosto Domerez v. Hon. Adolfo Malingan and Marcela Torren Certiorari Esteban v. Gardose Annulment and/or Cancellation of Deed of Assignment Cosme v. Piay, et al. Cancellation of Real Estate Estate of De Guia v. Sps. Fernandez Reconveyance of Property, Damages Benguet Electric Coop. v. Tacio Collection of Sum of Money M. Cadiogan v. A. Cadiogan Settlement of Estate with Prayer
for Issuance of a Restraining OrderCestona v. Tulio Reformation of Instrument and Damages Calawa, et al. v. Mayor Abalos Certiorari Donato v. Balingan Declaration of Nullity of Documents Esnara v. Tenefrancia, et al. Declaration of Nullity of Documents Sps. Og-oget v. Luis Annulment of Compromise Settlement Kidweng v. Aguilar Damages
(appealed case)Acop v. Municipality of Tublay, Benguet Recovery of Possession and Damages Ambros v. Matias Annulment of Tax Declaration Sps. De Leon v. Dulay Constitution of Easement of Right of Way Ackiapat v. Berto Cancellation of Tax Declaration and Damages Nixon Guzman, et al. v. Helen Abilao and Feliza Pilo-o Judicial Partition Apolonio, Sr. v. Benguet State University Accion Publiciana and Quieting of Tile Yolanda Daliones v. Sps. Marcelo Agdasi and Ana Agdasi Conveyance and Damages Heirs of Rosalina Lacamen, et al. v. Erlinda Lacamen and Abdel Lacamen Ejectment and Damages
(appealed case)Saturnino Ciano v. Francisco Kiwang, Jr. Forcible Entry Maria Usana v. Severo Alvarez Jr. and Estrella Alavarez Collection of Sum of Money Edwin Zamora v. Rainbow Mission Church Damages
(appealed case)Heirs of Patricia Teofilo v. Sps. Cesar and Virginia Singao, et al. Forcible Entry Province of Benguet v. National Power corporation Collection of Franchise Tax Philex Mining Corporation v. The Province of Benguet Petition under Section 195 of the Local Gov't. Code with Prayer for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction or TRO Desiree Dolin-Sawac v. LCR of Kapangan, Benguet Petition for Correction & to Supply the entries in the Certificate of Live Birth of Desiree Dolin Toquero, et al. Heirs of Santiago Lictag, et al. Judicial Partition
(1-b) DECIDE the eight (8) cases submitted for decision although still within the reglementary period to resolve, as of audit, to wit:
CRIMINAL CASES
CIVIL CASES
Domingo v. Registry of Deeds-Benguet Issuance of New Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title Heirs of Mendoza v. Sps.Mendoza Annulment of Judgment Cosme v. Piay, et al. Cancellation of Real Estate Apolonio, Sr. v. Benguet State University Accion Publiciana and Quieting of Title Heirs of Busco v. Bulso, et al. Annulment of Affidavit of Adjudication
(appealed case)Tiongsan Realty Development v. Jimmy Yu, et al. Unlawful Detainer
(1-c) RESOLVE the pending motions/incidents in the following seventeen (17) cases [2 criminal cases and 15 civil cases], to wit:
CRIMINAL CASES
No comment/opposition filed by prosecution despite directive in Order dated 9-17-13
CIVIL CASES
CASE COUNT
CASE NUMBER
TITLE
NATUREDATE SUBMITTED FOR RESOLUTION
Bangonan Livelihood Association Inc. v. Benedict Pineda Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction and TRO
Rosenia Langbis, et al. v. Sps. Juliana and Bosleng Arcita Specific Performance Virginia Dompiles v. Hon. Jose Encarnacion, MTC of Itogon and Atok Big Wedge Corporation Annulment of the Orders of the MTC with Prayer for TRO and Writ of Preliminary Injunction Gregorio Abalos, Jr. v. Sum of Money & Damages The Province of Benguet rep. by Gov. Nestor Fongwan v. Sps. Maray & Brado Moltio Cancellation of ARP No. 99-016-03588 and Annulment of Deed of Sale with Damages Fermin Sernal v. Sps. Esteban Gayados, Jr., et al. Annulment of Foreclosure Sale, Sheriffs Certificate of Sale, and Certificate of Title
-Supplemental Motion to Dismiss filed by defendants on 02-12-14
Heirs of Nuepe Lamsis, et al. v. Pelagia Velasco, et al. Injunction, et al. Sps. Bandola v. Rural Bank of San Luis, Pampanga, et al. Declaration of Nullity of Real Estate Mortgage Heirs of the Late Olecio v. Sps. Bugtong Annulment of Documents Semon v. Carmak Motors Corp.
Rescission of Contract Benguet Electric Coop. v. Equitable PCI Bank, et al. Reformation of Instrument Hermenegildo Heiras, Jr. v. Sps. William and Jennifer Gan-gan, et al. Specific Performance and Damages Cristina Noepe and Lester Noepe v. Christian Spiritista of the Philippines Declaration of Nullity of Public Instrument Christian Chuang v. Celevina Baylon et al.
Declaration of Nullity of Deed of Absolute Sale Petition for Probate/Allowance of the Holographic will of Saturnino Ebusca v. Rafael Ebusca, et al. Probate of Will
(2) FURNISH this Court copies of the decisions and/or resolutions related to the enumerated cases. This Cease-and-Desist directive shall continue until the aforementioned 157 cases submitted for decision and pending motions/incidents in the 17 cases shall have been finally decided/resolved by Judge Marinas;
(3) EXPLAIN in writing, within fifteen (15) dqays from notice, why no administrative sanction should be taken against her for her failure to decide the aforementioned one hundred fifty (150) cases within the mandatory period to decide.
B) The Financial Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator be directed to WITHHOLD the salaries, allowances and other benefits of Judge Marybelle Demot Marinas, pending full compliance with these directives; and
C) The Court Management Office be DIRECTED to prepare the necessary Administrative Order for approval relative to the designation of an assisting judge in Branch 8, Regional Trial Court, La Trinidad, Benguet, to specifically conduct hearings on all cases and attend to all interlocutory matters thereat, but without prejudice to disposing of the same when circumstance/s warrant, such designation to continue until further orders from this Court.
In compliance with the Court's Resolution, in a Letter Transmittal dated June 4, 2015, Judge Demot-Mariñas apologized to the Court for her failure to decide the cases within the reglementary period. She, however, offered no explanation to such delay but nevertheless admitted her fault in the said delay. She signified her intention to resign as she felt that she was no longer an effective member of the judiciary. Attached with the Letter Compliance is the Letter of Atty. Maribel Brillantes Macario Pedro (Atty. Macario Pedro), Clerk of Court V, Branch 8, RTC, La Trinidad, Benguet showing the partial compliance to the court directives, to wit:
CRIMINAL CASESIn a Resolution dated August 4, 2015, the Court referred the Letter dated June 4, 2015 of Presiding Judge Demot-Mariñas to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation.
No comment/ opposition filed by prosecution despite directive in Order dated 9-17-13
Prosecution's comment filed on 3-11-14
CIVIL CASES
Heirs of Nuepe Lamsis, et al. v. Heirs of Pelagia Lamsis Recovery of Possession, etc.
Heirs of the Late Gloria Luis Olecio v. Sps. Rosalino Luis Bugtong Annulment of Documents, Cancellation of TCT, Reconveyance, Damages with Prayer for a TRO and WPI Hermenigildo Hieras, Jr. v. Sps. William and Jennifer Gangan, et al. Specific Performance with Damages Virginia Dompiles v. Hon. Jose S. Encarnacion, Presiding Judge, MTC of Itogon, Benguet and Atok Big Wedge Corporation Annulment of the Orders of the MTC with Prayer for TRO and Writ of Preliminary Injunction Fermina O. Bernal v. Sps. Esteban T. Gayados, Jr., et al. Annulment of Foreclosure Sale, Sheriffs Certificate of Sale, and Certificate of Title
- Supplemental Motion to Dismiss filed by defendants on 02-12-14Benguet Electric Coop. v. Equitable PCI Bank, et al. Reformation of Instrument with Prayer for Payment of Sum of Money and Damages Sps. Freddie H. Bandola and Celia Bandola v. Rural Bank of San Luis, Pampanga, et al. Declaration of Nullity of Real Estate Mortgage, etc.
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE
Petition for Probate/Allowance of the Holographic will of Saturnino Ebusca v. Rafael Ebusca et al.
A.M. RTJ-16-2446
On February 27, 2013, the Office of the Deputy Court Administrator Raul Villanueva (DCA Villanueva) received an indorsement from the Office of the Chief Justice regarding the letter of Ms. Nugal-Koh wherein the latter sought the intercession of the Court for the speedy disposition of her case docketed as Special Proceedings Case No. 95-SP-0086 entitled "Pedro Nugal, et al. v. Lilia Nugal-Koh, et al.," which allegedly had been submitted for resolution for more than ten (10) years already at the time of the complaint.
Acting on the said Letter, a 1st Indorsement dated March 4, 2013 was sent directing Judge Demot-Mariñas to comment thereon. On June 5, 2013, another Letter from Ms. Nugal-Koh, addressed to the Office of the Chief Justice, was received by DCA Villanueva's office again seeking assistance for the immediate resolution of her case. Attached to the said Letter were the (1) Certification dated April 23, 2013 from Atty. Maribel B. Macario, Clerk of Court V, Branch 8, RTC, La Trinidad, Benguet, attesting that no decision was rendered yet in the subject case; and (2) another Letter from the Office of the Chief Justice dated April 12, 2013, referring the letter dated February 13, 2013 of Ms. Nugal-Koh to Judge Demot-Mariñas wherein the latter was requested to submit a feedback on the matter within fifteen (15) days from the receipt thereof.
Consequently, a 2nd Indorsement dated June 5, 2013 was sent to Judge Demot-Mariñas, reiterating the earlier directive for her to comment on the status of Ms. Nugal-Koh's case, with a stem warning that appropriate proceedings may be initiated against her for her inaction.
On September 17, 2013, the Office of DCA Villanueva again received a Letter dated September 11, 2013 from Ms. Nugal-Koh repeating her request regarding her case and appending a new certification dated September 2, 2013 attesting that her case remained undecided. Thus, a 3rd Indorsement was sent to respondent judge regarding the matter with the information that initiation of administrative proceedings against her was already being considered for her apparent delay in deciding the subject case and her blatant disregard of directives relative thereto despite repeated orders.
In an Agenda Report dated February 18, 2014, the OCA found that Judge Demot-Mariñas indeed failed to comply with the repeated directives from the Office of DCA Villanueva, and with the letter from the Office of the Chief Justice requiring her to comment on the status of the subject case. Thus, the OCA recommended that the report be treated as a formal administrative complaint against Judge Demot-Mariñas for insubordination, inefficiency and neglect of duty.
In a Resolution dated June 2, 2014, the Court resolved to treat the OCA's Agenda Report dated February 18, 2014 as a formal administrtive complaint against Judge Demot-Mariñas for Inefficiency and Neglect of Duty. In addition, the Court also required respondent to explain why she should not be held administratively liable for her failure to comply with the repeated directives to comment on the status of Special Proceedings Case No. 95-SP-0086. The Court, likewise, directed respondent to comment and submit a report on the status of the above-mentioned case.
In a Resolution dated November 26, 2014, the Court referred the Letter dated September 11, 2014 of Ms. Nugal-Koh to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation. As contained therein, Ms. Nugal Koh said that as of July 9, 2014, no decision has been rendered by respondent Judge Demot-Mariñas in her case as certified by Atty. Macario Pedro, Branch Clerk of Court.
In a Memorandum dated December 1, 2015, the OCA recommended that: (1) the two (2) instant administrative matters be consolidated; and (2) respondent Judge Marybelle L. Demot-Mariñas be found guilty of grave misconduct, insubordination and gross inefficiency and be dismissed from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits.
On February 17, 2016, as per recommendation of the OCA, considering the similarity of the issues of both cases, the Court resolved to consolidate the instant administrative complaints against respondent Judge Demot-Mariñas.
We adopt the findings and recommendation of the OCA.
The Court has consistently impressed upon judges the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously under the time-honored precept that justice delayed is justice denied. Every judge should decide cases with dispatch and should be careful, punctual, and observant in the performance of his functions for delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it into disrepute. Failure to decide a case within the reglementary period is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency warranting the imposition of administrative sanctions on the defaultingjudge.[1]
Here, there is no question as to the guilt of Judge Demot-Mariñas. As shown by the records, she has been remiss in the performance of her responsibilities. She failed to decide cases and resolve pending incidents within the reglementary period, without any authorized extension from this Court. Respondent judge failed to: (1) decide 150 cases submitted for decision [45 criminal cases and 105 civil case] which are beyond the period to decide, and to (2) resolve the pending motions/incidents in 17 cases [2 criminal cases and 15 civil cases].[2] Some of the cases were already submitted for decision since 2002, particularly Civil Case No. 2831 and Civil Case No. 2217.[3] More appalling is that she did not give any reason/explanation for her failure to comply with the reglementary period for deciding cases. There were, likewise, no previous requests by her for extension of time to decide said cases. Thus, in the instant case, Judge Demot-Mariñas' gross inefficiency is, therefore, evident in her undue delay deciding 150 cases within the reglementary period and her failure to resolve pending motions/incidents in 17 cases.
Article VIII, Section 15(l) of the 1987 Constitution provides that lower courts have three months within which to decide cases or resolve matters submitted to them for resolution. Moreover, Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins judges to dispose of their business promptly and decide cases within the required period. In addition, this Court laid down the guidelines in SC Administrative Circular No. 13[4] which provides, inter alia, that "[j]udges shall observe scrupulously the periods prescribed by Article VIII, Section 15, of the Constitution for the adjudication and resolution of all cases or matters submitted in their courts. Thus, all cases or matters must be decided or resolved within twelve months from date of submission by all lower collegiate courts, while all other lower courts are given a period of three months to do so." The Court has reiterated this admonition in SC Administrative Circular No. 3-99[5] which requires all judges to scrupulously observe the periods prescribed in the Constitution for deciding cases and the failure to comply therewith is considered a serious violation of the constitutional right of the parties to speedy disposition of their cases.[6]
This Court has consistently held that failure to decide cases and other matters within the reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative sanction against the erring magistrate. Respondent judge failed to live up to the exacting standards of duty and responsibility that her position required. As a trial judge, Judge Demot-Mariñas is a frontline official of the judiciary and should have at all times acted with efficiency and with probity.[7]
A.M. RTJ-16-2446
We likewise find similarly concerning is Judge Demot-Mariñas' indifference to the indorsements requiring her to comment on the accusations against her. In all three (3) indorsements issued by the OCA, as well as one (1) Letter from the Office of the Chief Justice, Judge Demot-Mariñas ignored the directives for her to file the required comment since no comment or compliance has been submitted despite several opportunities given to her which ran in a span of more than three (3) years. Also, as per verification by the OCA of the status of Special Proceedings No. 95-SP-0086, as of December 2015, Judge Demot-Mariñas has yet to decide the case which was already submitted for decision since May 12, 2003. It is then apparent that failure to comment despite several directives, as well as the failure to comply with the immediate resolution of Ms. Nugal-Koh's letter, show her propensity to disregard and disobey lawful orders of her superior.
We would like to further stress that all directives coming from the Court Administrator and his deputies are issued in the exercise of this Court's administrative supervision of trial courts and their personnel, hence, should be respected. These directives are not mere requests, but should be complied with promptly and completely. Clearly, Judge Demot-Mariñas' unexplained disregard of the orders of the OCA for her to comment on the complaint shows her disrespect for and contempt, not just for the OCA, but also for the Court, which exercises direct administrative supervision over trial court officers and employees through the OCA. Her indifference to, and disregard of, the directives issued to her clearly constituted insubordination which this Court will not tolerate.[8]
We cannot overemphasize that compliance with the rules, directives and circulars issued by the Court is one of the foremost duties that a judge accepts upon assumption to office. This duty is verbalized in Canon 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct:[9]
SECTION 7. Judges shall encourage and uphold safeguards for the discharge of judicial duties in order to maintain and enhance the institutional and operational independence of the Judiciary.The obligation to uphold the dignity of her office and the institution which she belongs to is also found in Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct under Rule 2.01, which mandates a judge to behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
SECTION 8. Judges shall exhibit and promote high standards of judicial conduct in order to reinforce public confidence in the Judiciary, which is fundamental to the maintenance of judicial independence.
Under the circumstances, We can thus conclude that the conduct exhibited by Judge Demot-Mariñas constitutes no less than clear acts of defiance against the Court's authority. Her conduct also reveals her deliberate disrespect and indifference to the authority of the Court, shown by her failure to heed our warnings and directives.
We cannot tolerate this type of behavior especially on a judge. Public confidence in the judiciary can only be achieved when the court personnel conduct themselves in a dignified manner befitting the public office they are holding. Judges should avoid conduct or any demeanor that may tarnish or diminish the authority of the Supreme Court.[10] Clearly, Judge Demot-Mariñas' attitude, as shown by her unexplained failure to decide 150 cases as well as motions and incidents, and her failure to respond to any of the court's directives despite several reminders, betray her lack of concern for her office. In sum, Judge Demot-Mariñas has been remiss in the performance of her official duties exacerbated by her audacious stance in defying this Court's orders. We cannot tolerate the attitude of respondent judge m defying this Court's authority and undermining its integrity.
The rules and jurisprudence are clear on the matter of delay. Failure to decide cases and other matters within the reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative sanction against the erring magistrate.[11] Further, Judge Demot-Mariñas' deliberate and repeated failure to comply with the directives of the OCA constitutes Gross Misconduct which is a serious offense under Section 8,[12] Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.
In Re: Audit Report in Attendance of Court Personnel of RTC, Branch 32, Manila,[13] We held that it is gross misconduct, even outright disrespect for the Court, for respondent judge to exhibit indifference to the resolution requiring him to comment on the accusations in the complaint thoroughly and substantially. Such failure to comply accordingly betrays not only a recalcitrant streak in character, but also disrespect for the Court's lawful order and directive.
Likewise, in Alonto-Frayna v. Astih,[14] a judge who deliberately and continuously fails and refuses to comply with the resolution of this Court is guilty of gross misconduct and insubordination, and was dismissed from service.
Judging by the foregoing circumstances, the Court can only conclude that Judge Demot-Mariñas is guilty of gross inefficiency resulting in her unexplained failure to resolve pending cases and motions within the reglementary period despite several reminders and follow-ups, and gross misconduct for her non-compliance with the directives/orders of the OCA and this Court.
In this scenario, Section 17 of the Omnibus Rules implementing the Civil Service Law states that if the respondent judge is found guilty of two or more charges or counts, the penalty imposed should be that corresponding to the most serious charge or counts and the rest may be considered aggravating circumstances.[15] The most serious of the charges against respondent judge is her gross misconduct, and her gross inefficiency is considered an aggravating circumstance.
We would have imposed the penalty of dismissal from service on Judge Demot-Mariñas, however, considering that on December 10, 2015, she has filed her certificate of candidacy to run for public office, she is now deemed resigned from judicial office. Nevertheless, cessation from office by reason of resignation, death or retirement is not a ground to dismiss the case filed against her at the time that she was still in the public service.[16] Thus, in lieu of the penalty of dismissal for her unethical conduct and gross inefficiency in performing her duties as a member of the bench, We, however, impose instead the accessory penalty of forfeiture of all her retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits. Furthermore, she is barred from re-employment in any branch or service of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Judge Marybelle L. Demot-Mariñas, former Presiding Judge of Branch 8, Regional Trial Court, La Trinidad, Benguet is found GUILTY of Gross Misconduct and Gross Inefficiency. Her retirement benefits, if any, are declared FORFEITED as penalty for her offenses, except accrued leave credits, in lieu of dismissal from service which the Court can no longer impose. She is likewise barred from re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
This Decision is immediately EXECUTORY.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C. J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Jardeleza, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that on March 7, 2017 a Decision/Resolution, copy attached herewith, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled administrative matter, the original of which was received by this Office on May 8, 2017 at 10:43 a.m.
| | Very truly yours, |
(SGD) | |
FELIPA G. BORLONGAN-ANAMA | |
Clerk of Court |
[1] Re: Cases Submitted For Decision Before Hon. Teofilo D. Baluma, Former Judge, Branch 1, Regional Trial Court, Tagbilaran City, Bohol, 717 Phil. 11, 17 (2013).
[2] Rollo, pp. 56-70.
[3] See Memorandum for the Chief Justice from DCA Villanueva dated December 1, 2005, p. 143.
[4] Promulgated on July 1, 1987.
[5] Promulgated on January 15, 1999.
[6] Re: Cases Submitted For Decision Before Hon. Teofilo D. Baluma, Former Judge, Branch 1, Regional Trial Court, Tagbilaran City, Bohol, supra note 1, at 16-17.
[7] Angelia v. Judge Grageda, 656 Phil. 570, 573 (2011).
[8] Clemente v. Bautista, 710 Phil. 10, 16 (2013).
[9] Promulgated on April 27, 2004.
[10] See Tormis v. Paredes, A.M. No. RTJ-13-2366, February 4, 2015, 749 SCRA 505, 520.
[11] Rubin v. Judge Corpus-Cabochon, 715 Phil. 318, 334 (2013); OCA v. Judge Santos, 697 Phil. 292, 299 (2012); Re: Cases Submitted for Decision before Han. Meliton G. Emuslan, Former Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 47, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, 630 Phil. 269, 272 (2010); Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Branch 22, Kabacan, North Cotabato, 468 Phil. 338, 345 (2004).
[12] Rule 140, Section 8 of the Revised Rules of Court, and penalized under Rule 140, Section 11(a) of the same Rules by: 1) Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits; 2) Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or 3) A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.
[13] 532 Phil. 51, 63-64 (2006).
[14] 360 Phil. 385 (1998).
[15] Dr. Hipe v. Judge Literato, 686 Phil. 723, 735 (2012).
[16] See OCA v. Grageda, 706 Phil. 15, 21 (2013).