SECOND DIVISION
JUDGE
DONATO
SOTERO
A. NAVARRO,
Petitioner,
A.M.
No.
MTJ-00-1337
April 27, 2004
-versus-
JUDGE
ROSABELLA
M. TORMIS,
Respondent.
R
E S O L U
T I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:
Complainant Judge Donato
Sotero A. Navarro of MTCC, Cebu City, Branch 6, sent a letter dated
September
15, 2000 to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), requesting for
an opinion on the propriety of the alleged conduct of respondent
Executive
Judge Rosabella M. Tormis, MTCC of Cebu City in the following instances:
1.
Finding
Criminal Case No. 106436-R, entitled, People vs. Comparativo, to be
covered
by the Rule on Summary Procedure, Judge Tormis removed the Order of
Commitment
issued by Judge Navarro[1]
from the records of the case and substituted it with her own order
directing
the release of the accused;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. Judge
Tormis
uttered derogatory remarks against Judge Navarro and his court, to
wit:
“for me, Branch 6 does not exist”;
3. Judge
Tormis
rendered an opinion in a case pending before Judge Grace Orma E. Ypil,
MTCC of Cebu City, Branch 8, in violation of Rule 2.04 of Canon 2 of
the
Code of Judicial Ethics.
Upon recommendation of
the OCA, the Court, in a Resolution dated December 13, 2000,[2]
resolved to treat the letter as an administrative complaint against
Judge
Tormis, directing Judge Navarro to have his letter verified and Judge
Tormis
to comment thereon.
Meanwhile, in a Motion
dated 24 April 2001, Judge Navarro informed the Court that Judge Tormis
personally posted on the door of her courtroom, a copy of the Court’s
Resolution
dated 14 February 2001 which reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Administrative
Matter No. MTJ-00-1337 (Judge Donato Sotero A. Navarro vs. Executive
Judge
Rosabella M. Tormis) – The manifestation of compliance with the
resolution
of December 13, 2000 filed by Judge Donato Sotero A. Navarro is NOTED.
Very truly yours,
VIRGINIA
ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
First Division
By:
ENRIQUETA
ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Asst. Clerk of Court
First Division[3]
with a handwritten note
“Please Read,” to call the attention of the lawyers and the
public.
A similar notice was also posted at the door of the office of MTCC,
Branch
8, which some court personnel removed, but another copy was again
posted.
For this reason, he asked the Acting Clerk of Court Evelyn Bacalla to
explain
the matter but instead, the latter handed to him another copy of the
Resolution.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In a Resolution dated
July 2001,[4]
the Court directed Evelyn Bacalla to desist from committing further
acts
which may tend to unduly publicize the instant case, to immediately
remove
copies of the notices posted on the doors, and to explain within ten
days
how these notices came to be posted thereat. In a Resolution
dated
September 10, 2001, the Court noted the compliance/explanation of
Evelyn
Bacalla saying that she had no hand in or knowledge about the posting
of
the papers.cralaw:red
In her Comment,[5]
respondent explains that:
1. Anent Criminal
Case No. 106436-R (People vs. Comparativo) -
a) she never removed
nor substituted any order of Judge Navarro from the records since the
latter
had not issued any order at all. What was in the records was an
order
issued by his Clerk of Court, Prospero M. Sincero;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
b) the said criminal
case was referred to her for raffle when the accused had already been
in
jail for two days. She admitted having ordered the release of the
accused considering the value of the article stolen was even less than
P52.45, and as such, fell within the coverage of the Rule on Summary
Procedure.cralaw:red
2. If ever she
made the statement that MTCC, Branch 6, did not exist, this should not
be taken seriously as this can only be interpreted in the context of
“light
banter” and did not at all place Branch 6 in disrepute.cralaw:red
3. As to the issue
that she rendered an opinion on a criminal case raffled to another sala
-
a) as the Executive
Judge, she immediately conducted an investigation on Evelyn
Bacalla.
In the process, she discovered “grave injustice committed against an
urban
poor family” charged with “illegal squatting” in Criminal Case No.
99796-12-R
(People vs. Garduque), so she called the attention of Presiding Judge
Ypil,
in a letter dated January 5, 2000, regarding the legal and factual
circumstances
of the case which she believed justified a dismissal of the case since
the act complained of had already been decriminalized by virtue of R.A.
No. 7276.cralaw:red
b) Complainant’s
intervention in said case is not only unethical but oppressively
unjust,
he being the former private prosecutor of the case together with his
mother,
retired Judge Exaltacion Navarro and that according to some
of his staff, complainant was angry at those whom he perceived thwarted
his entitlement to attorney’s fees of not less that P100,000.00 should
he successfully eject the accused from the premises.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
c) this administrative
complaint is part of complainant’s obsession to compel her to
relinquish
her position as Executive Judge and to fulfill his ambition to replace
her as such.cralaw:red
In his Reply, complainant
reiterated that respondent had been making derogatory remarks about him
both in print and on television which were not only damaging to him and
his family but also to the entire Judiciary. Complainant asserts
that the fact that the order of commitment removed by respondent from
the
records of the case was signed by the Clerk of Court is of no
significance
since it is likewise her practice that her commitment orders are signed
by her Clerk of Court Reynaldo S. Teves; that he has not intervened in
the case because his letter to Evelyn Bacalla was dated 25 November
1999
when he was not yet a judge; and thereafter, he refrained from pursuing
the case to its conclusion.cralaw:red
As the matter involves
members of the bench accusing each other and finding that it cannot be
resolved satisfactorily on the basis alone of the documents submitted,
the Court, upon recommendation of the OCA, issued a Resolution dated
December
9, 2002, referring the instant administrative matter to Executive Judge
Galicano C. Arriesgado, RTC, Cebu City for investigation, report and
recommendation.
Upon retirement of Judge Arriesgado, the case was inherited by
Executive
Judge Pampio A. Abarintos who formed a panel, composed of three
members,
namely: himself, First Vice Executive Judge Isaias P. Dicdican and
Second
Vice Executive Judge Simeon K. Dumdum, Jr., to continue with the
investigation.cralaw:red
In their Report dated
August 25, 2003, the Investigating Panel submitted the following
findings,
portions of which are reproduced hereunder:
FINDINGS:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The rift between the
two judges started sometime immediately after January 5, 2000 when then
Acting Executive Judge Tormis issued a letter to Judge Ypil (Annex “I”)
in reply to the 1st Endorsement (Annex “H”) of Judge Ypil (judge
designate
of MTCC 8 Cebu) on the letter-complaint of Atty. Donato Navarro (now
Judge
Navarro) against Legal Researcher (then acting Branch Clerk of Court
MTCC
8 Cebu City) Evelyn Bacalla (now Branch Clerk of Court MTCC 8 Cebu
City).cralaw:red
On (sic) November 1999,
while Judge Donato Navarro was still a practicing lawyer, he was the
private
prosecutor in the criminal case entitled Pp vs. Garduque, et al.
CBU-99796-R pending at MTCC Branch 8 Cebu City, involving the issue on
professional squatters. Atty. Navarro wrote a letter addressed to
the Branch Clerk of Court, MTCC Branch 8 Cebu City, asking for a
written
explanation from Evelyn Bacalla why she set the Motion to Quash for
hearing
without the authority of the Judge and when the accused had not yet
been
arrested. Acting on the letter-complaint of Atty. Navarro, Judge
Ypil endorsed the same to the Office of the Executive Judge. The
controversy now starts on the letter reply of Executive Judge Tormis,
copy
furnished to Judge Navarro, as the latter was already appointed as
Judge
sometime on (sic) December, 2000.cralaw:red
Executive Judge Tormis,
in reply to the 1st Endorsement, stated that “while there might have
been
a transgression committed by Evelyn Bacalla with respect to some
procedural
matter, the motion to quash for hearing without order from the judge,
the
same is not of such grave nature as would necessitate such a drastic
action.”
In addition, however, Executive Judge Tormis made a comment that the
case
ought to be dismissed as the act complained of had already been
decriminalized
under R.A. No. 8368.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This additional comment
irked Judge Navarro. As a result, he came barging into the office
of Judge Tormis, bringing along certain books on the matter, splashing
the same to the latter’s staff, saying: “Tell your Judge, she
does
not know her law!”. Naturally, upon learning of said incident,
Judge
Tormis flared up especially because it was only a month or two that
Judge
Navarro was appointed as judge.cralaw:red
Judge Navarro complains
that Judge Tormis had been downgrading him and his Court, stating the
words:
“For me, Branch 6 does not exist!” Instead of patching things up
with the Executive Judge, who is supposed to be his superior, on
September
15, 2000, he sent a letter to then Hon. Court Administrator Alfredo L.
Benipayo entitled “Request for an Opinion about the Propriety of
Certain
Acts of the Executive Judge”. In turn, Executive Judge Tormis
filed
a Complaint against Judge Sotero Navarro docketed as Adm. Matter No.
01-6-188
MTCC accusing him of his alleged failure to timely dispose of the cases
pending before his court and of his wife’s interference with the
judicial
functions of her husband and with the duties of the court
personnel.
Judge Navarro then accused Judge Tormis to have expressed derogatory
remarks
against him both in television and in print.cralaw:red
On the first issue:
Acting in her capacity
as Executive Judge, she carefully reviewed the case involving theft of
an Eskinol. After careful scrutiny, she discovered that the
amount
involved was less then P50.00. Since the case falls under the
Rules
on Summary Procedure, Executive Judge Tormis ordered for the release of
the accused and had the case raffled. .chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the second issue:
As testified by Executive
Judge Tormis, she may have uttered those words but the same were never
meant to downgrade Branch 6, they were only made in a light banter or
in
jest. The panel believes that while Executive Judge Tormis might
have uttered the words, “FOR ME, BRANCH 6 DOES NOT EXIST!” against
Judge
Navarro’s Court, the same was only a result of the arrogance and
demeaning
words which Judge Navarro uttered against her: “TELL YOUR JUDGE, SHE
DOES
NOT KNOW HER LAW!” The panel finds it understandable to have
uttered
those words especially because of the words previously uttered by
complainant.cralaw:red
On the third issue:
Judge Navarro insists
that Executive Judge Tormis may have committed acts of
impropriety.
The panel finds that Judge Tormis was just acting within her duties as
Executive Judge when she made a letter reply to the 1st Endorsement
issued
by Judge Ypil.cralaw:red
Based on the foregoing,
the Investigating Panel recommends the dismissal of the administrative
complaint against Judge Tormis. Court Administrator Presbitero J.
Velasco,
Jr., in his Memorandum dated January 20, 2004, agrees with the findings
and recommendation of the Investigating Panel.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court does not fully
agree.cralaw:red
As to the first issue
– Respondent reviewed Criminal Case No. 106436-R when it was referred
to
her by the Clerk of Court of Branch 4, MTCC, Cebu City. She
testified
that when the record was forwarded to her, there was no previous order
that was attached to it so she had the impression she was acting on the
case for the first time as Executive Judge; that she even interviewed
the
representative of the complainant who said that it only involves the
amount
of less than P52.45; and that in the exercise of her discretion, the
case
should be covered by the Rules of Summary Procedure.[6]
When asked further by the Investigating Panel if it is true that she
replaced
the commitment order which is attached to the record with her order,
she
answered that she was not aware of it[7]
which is consistent with her assertion that she saw no previous order
attached
to the records. Complainant failed to demonstrate that respondent
had acted on this matter in bad faith or with malice.cralaw:red
Anent the second issue
– Indeed, the Court agrees with the Investigating Panel and Court
Administrator
that the alleged derogatory remarks uttered by respondent against
Branch
6, MTCC, Cebu City could have been uttered in a sudden burst of emotion
when complainant uttered demeaning words against her and that her
action
was not intentional and in bad faith.cralaw:red
As to the third issue
– The act of respondent in giving an opinion in a criminal case raffled
to Judge Ypil was in response to an indorsement made by the
latter.
Respondent claims that she rendered an opinion because the case was
referred
to her in her capacity as executive judge. However, a perusal of
the said indorsement shows that Judge Ypil merely referred to
respondent
the letter of complainant, filed when he was still a practicing lawyer,
seeking explanation why legal researcher Evelyn Bacalla set the Motion
to Quash for hearing despite the fact that the accused had not been
arrested
and Judge Ypil had not issued a verbal or written order to set the
motion
for hearing.[8]
Clearly, Judge Ypil did not seek the opinion of respondent about the
merits
of the case, but the latter delved thereon and “advised” Judge Ypil, as
follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
All the foregoing considered,
the undersigned believes that it would be a better part of your
discretion
if you order the dismissal of the case, as the act complained of has
been
decriminalized under RA 8368.[9]
Respondent may not have
any ulterior motive nor was there any showing that she was after
monetary
consideration still it is beyond her authority to render such an
opinion.
Wittingly or unwittingly, respondent violated Rule 2.04, Canon 2 of the
Code of Judicial Conduct, which provides:
Rule 2.04 – A judge
shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation
or dispute pending before another court or administrative agency.cralaw:red
In the absence of any
showing that respondent’s interference was in bad faith or with malice
and considering that this is the first time on record that he committed
such infraction of the Code of Judicial Conduct, a mere reprimand is
just
and reasonable.cralaw:red
It is imperative that
we call the attention of both complainant and respondent judges
regarding
their unbecoming conduct. It is very apparent that the rift
between
them transcended the professional level to a personal one. Worse,
their fight was picked up by the local media and for a while they were
an item in the local newspapers.[10]
This is very unfortunate for it puts the judiciary in a bad
light.
Certainly, when judges of the same court in the same place fight, the
image
of the judiciary is impaired rather than enhanced.[11]
Their positions as judges demand utmost caution and circumspection to
avoid
poor public impression on the Judiciary.[12]
Magistracy is after all about character.[13]
It is incumbent upon them to so behave at all times as to promote
public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
Being
the dispensers of justice, judges should not act in a way that would
cast
suspicion in order to preserve faith in the administration of
justice.
They should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all
activities.[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Judge Navarro and Judge
Tormis should bear in mind that no position is more demanding than a
seat
in the Bench. Occupying as they do, an exalted position in the
administration
of justice, as judges, they must pay a high price for the honor
bestowed
upon them.[15]
A judge must comport himself at all times in such a manner that his
conduct,
can bear the most searching scrutiny of the public that looks up to him
as the epitome of integrity and justice.[16]
Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or
improper
conduct of judges.[17]
As the visible representation of law and justice, judges are expected
to
conduct themselves in a manner that would enhance the respect and
confidence
of our people in the judicial system.[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, Judge Rosabelle
M. Tormis is found guilty of improper conduct for trying to influence
the
course of litigation in Criminal Case No. 99796-12. Accordingly,
Judge Tormis is hereby REPRIMANDED with a stern warning that a
repetition
of the same will be dealt with more severely.cralaw:red
Both Judge Rosabelle
M. Tormis and Judge Donato Sotero A. Navarro are ADMONISHED for their
unbecoming
conduct as dispensers of justice with a stern warning that a repetition
of the same shall be dealt with more severely.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman), Quisumbing,
Callejo, Sr., and Tinga, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Judge Navarro’s sala was designated as a bail court for persons
arrested
in flagrante and in the custody of arresting officers, Rollo, p. 4.
[2]
Rollo, p. 33.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id., p. 66.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Rollo, p. 109.
[5]
Id., p. 93.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
TSN, August 22, 2003, p. 10.
[7]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Rollo, pp.17 and 170.
[9]
Rollo, p. 19.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Rollo, pp. 148-151; 164- 166.
[11]
Bravo vs. Merdegia, 317 SCRA 160, 165 (1999).
[12]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
OCA vs. Judge de Guzman, Jr., 267 SCRA 291, 293 (1997).
[14]
Id., p. 301.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Jugueta vs. Boncaros, 60 SCRA 27, 31 (1974).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Association of Court Employees of Panabo, Davao vs. Tupas, 175 SCRA
292,
296 (1989).
[17]
Dela Cruz vs. Bersamira, 349 SCRA 626, 632 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Capuno vs. Jaramillo, July 20, 1994. |