January 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > January 2009 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. RTJ-05-1922 : January 12, 2009] ATTY. PLARIDEL D. BOHOL V. JUDGE SIBANAH E. USMAN, RTC, BRANCH 28, CATBALOGAN, SAMAR :
[A.M. No. RTJ-05-1922 : January 12, 2009]
ATTY. PLARIDEL D. BOHOL V. JUDGE SIBANAH E. USMAN, RTC, BRANCH 28, CATBALOGAN, SAMAR
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 12 January 2009:
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1922 [Formerly A.M. No. 02-12-18-SC] - (Atty. Plaridel D. Bohol v. Judge Sibanah E. Usman, RTC, Branch 28, Catbalogan, Samar); A.M. No. RTJ-05-1923 [Formerly A.M. No. 03-3-157-RTC] - (Atty. Plaridel D. Bohol v. Judge Sibanah E. Usman, RTC, Branch 28, Catbalogan, Samar); A.M. No. RTJ-02-1713 - (Romulo D. Jabon v. Judge Sibanah E. Usman); and A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1744-RTJ - (Atty. Plaridel D. Bohol v. Judge Sibanah E, Usman)
On October 25, 2005, the Second Division of the Court issued a Resolution in A.M. No. RTJ-02-1713 entitled Romulo D. Jabon v. Judge Sibanah E. Usman, Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Catbalogan, Samar, and A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1744-RTJ, entitled Plaridel D. Bohol v. Sibanah E. Usman, finding Sibanah E. Usman (respondent) guilty of one count of vulgar and unbecoming conduct under Section 10, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court for uttering grave threats, and two counts of violation of Supreme Court rules and circulars under Section 9, Rule 140 of the same rules for trying to influence the outcome of the case and teaching law without the required permit. Respondent Usman was suspended from office without salary and other benefits for a period of two months and was imposed a fine of P10,000.00.[1] The other charges of graft and corruption, incompetence, ignorance of the law, dishonesty, partiality, scandalous bias in the conduct of his judicial proceedings, fraternization with law practitioners and absenteeism were dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence.[2]
It appears however that complainant Plaridel D. Bohol (Bohol) had filed a letter-complaint before the Court dated October 1, 2002 charging respondent of absenteeism, teaching law at the University of the East, forcing Bohol's client to buy pieces of jewelry from respondent, and asking favors from litigants. Bohol likewise asked that a judicial audit be conducted in respondent's sala.[3] The case was docketed as A.M. No. RTJ-05-1922 [4]
Respondent also filed a letter dated January 30, 2003 and Bohol, a letter-reply staring that respondent threatened Bohol's son, and respondent is engaged in the grocery business while serving as a judge in violation of the Canon of Judicial Ethics.[5] The case was docketed as A.M. No. RTJ-05-1923[6] and consolidated with AM. No.RTJ-05-1922 on March 18,2003.[7]
On December 14, 2004, the Court en banc in its Resolution dated June 21, 2005 referred A.M. Nos. RTJ-05-1922 and RTJ-05-1923 to Court of Appeals Justice Renato C. Dacudao for investigation, report and recommendation.[8] Justice Dacudao recused however stating that the matters involved in A.M. Nos. RTJ-05-1922 and RTJ-05-1923 are already covered by his Investigation Report in A.M. No. RTJ-02-1713, and should there still be matters not covered by his previous report, he believes that he may no longer be equipped with the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.[9]
On November 22,2005, the Court en banc revoked its Resolution dated June 21, 2005 and consolidated A.M. Nos. RTJ-05-1922 and RTJ-05-1923 with AM. No. RTJ-02-1713 and AM. OCAIPINo. 03-1744-RTJ.[10]
Records show that the charges against respondent in A.M. No. RTJ-05-1922 were already covered by the Court's Resolution dated October 25, 2005. The issue of respondent's failure to secure a prior permission from the Court in order to teach was already resolved and dealt with in the .aforesaid Resolution. The Court in the same Resolution also held that the report on the judicial audit conducted in respondent's sala as requested by Bohol in A.M. No. RTJ-05-1922 cannot be given any probative value as it has not yet been reported, nor its approval recommended by the Court Administrator to the Court. Respondent Usman filed a motion for reconsideration of the October 25, 2005 Resolution but it was denied with finality on February l,2006.[11]
As to A.M. No. RTJ-05-1923, the only matter that was not covered by the October 25,2005 Resolution is complainant's allegation that respondent "is engaged in Grocery and Space Lessor of a supermart while presiding as RTC judge."[12] Such charge however should be dismissed for lack of merit since complainant failed to allege and prove the elements that would constitute violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct particularly Rules 5.02 and 5.03 which state:
WHEREFORE, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1922 is DEEMED to have been resolved by the Second Division of the Court in its Resolution dated October 25, 2005 in AM. No. RTJ-02-1713 entitled Romulo D. Jabon v. Judge Sibanah E. Usrnan, Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Catbalogan, Samar, and AM. OCA IPI No. 03-1744-RTJ, entitled PlaridelD. Bohol v. Sibanah E. Usman, while A.M. No. RTJ-05-1923 is dismissed for lack of merit.
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1922 [Formerly A.M. No. 02-12-18-SC] - (Atty. Plaridel D. Bohol v. Judge Sibanah E. Usman, RTC, Branch 28, Catbalogan, Samar); A.M. No. RTJ-05-1923 [Formerly A.M. No. 03-3-157-RTC] - (Atty. Plaridel D. Bohol v. Judge Sibanah E. Usman, RTC, Branch 28, Catbalogan, Samar); A.M. No. RTJ-02-1713 - (Romulo D. Jabon v. Judge Sibanah E. Usman); and A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1744-RTJ - (Atty. Plaridel D. Bohol v. Judge Sibanah E, Usman)
On October 25, 2005, the Second Division of the Court issued a Resolution in A.M. No. RTJ-02-1713 entitled Romulo D. Jabon v. Judge Sibanah E. Usman, Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Catbalogan, Samar, and A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1744-RTJ, entitled Plaridel D. Bohol v. Sibanah E. Usman, finding Sibanah E. Usman (respondent) guilty of one count of vulgar and unbecoming conduct under Section 10, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court for uttering grave threats, and two counts of violation of Supreme Court rules and circulars under Section 9, Rule 140 of the same rules for trying to influence the outcome of the case and teaching law without the required permit. Respondent Usman was suspended from office without salary and other benefits for a period of two months and was imposed a fine of P10,000.00.[1] The other charges of graft and corruption, incompetence, ignorance of the law, dishonesty, partiality, scandalous bias in the conduct of his judicial proceedings, fraternization with law practitioners and absenteeism were dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence.[2]
It appears however that complainant Plaridel D. Bohol (Bohol) had filed a letter-complaint before the Court dated October 1, 2002 charging respondent of absenteeism, teaching law at the University of the East, forcing Bohol's client to buy pieces of jewelry from respondent, and asking favors from litigants. Bohol likewise asked that a judicial audit be conducted in respondent's sala.[3] The case was docketed as A.M. No. RTJ-05-1922 [4]
Respondent also filed a letter dated January 30, 2003 and Bohol, a letter-reply staring that respondent threatened Bohol's son, and respondent is engaged in the grocery business while serving as a judge in violation of the Canon of Judicial Ethics.[5] The case was docketed as A.M. No. RTJ-05-1923[6] and consolidated with AM. No.RTJ-05-1922 on March 18,2003.[7]
On December 14, 2004, the Court en banc in its Resolution dated June 21, 2005 referred A.M. Nos. RTJ-05-1922 and RTJ-05-1923 to Court of Appeals Justice Renato C. Dacudao for investigation, report and recommendation.[8] Justice Dacudao recused however stating that the matters involved in A.M. Nos. RTJ-05-1922 and RTJ-05-1923 are already covered by his Investigation Report in A.M. No. RTJ-02-1713, and should there still be matters not covered by his previous report, he believes that he may no longer be equipped with the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.[9]
On November 22,2005, the Court en banc revoked its Resolution dated June 21, 2005 and consolidated A.M. Nos. RTJ-05-1922 and RTJ-05-1923 with AM. No. RTJ-02-1713 and AM. OCAIPINo. 03-1744-RTJ.[10]
Records show that the charges against respondent in A.M. No. RTJ-05-1922 were already covered by the Court's Resolution dated October 25, 2005. The issue of respondent's failure to secure a prior permission from the Court in order to teach was already resolved and dealt with in the .aforesaid Resolution. The Court in the same Resolution also held that the report on the judicial audit conducted in respondent's sala as requested by Bohol in A.M. No. RTJ-05-1922 cannot be given any probative value as it has not yet been reported, nor its approval recommended by the Court Administrator to the Court. Respondent Usman filed a motion for reconsideration of the October 25, 2005 Resolution but it was denied with finality on February l,2006.[11]
As to A.M. No. RTJ-05-1923, the only matter that was not covered by the October 25,2005 Resolution is complainant's allegation that respondent "is engaged in Grocery and Space Lessor of a supermart while presiding as RTC judge."[12] Such charge however should be dismissed for lack of merit since complainant failed to allege and prove the elements that would constitute violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct particularly Rules 5.02 and 5.03 which state:
Rule 5.02. - A judge shall refrain from financial and business dealings that tend to reflect adversely on the court's impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of judicial activities, or increase involvement with lawyers or persons likely to come before the court. A judge should so manage investments and other financial interests as to minimize the number of cases giving grounds for disqualification
Rule 5.03. - Subject to the provisions of the preceding rule, a judge may hold and manage investments but should not serve as an officer, director, manager, advisor, or employee of any business except as director of a family business of the judge.
WHEREFORE, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1922 is DEEMED to have been resolved by the Second Division of the Court in its Resolution dated October 25, 2005 in AM. No. RTJ-02-1713 entitled Romulo D. Jabon v. Judge Sibanah E. Usrnan, Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Catbalogan, Samar, and AM. OCA IPI No. 03-1744-RTJ, entitled PlaridelD. Bohol v. Sibanah E. Usman, while A.M. No. RTJ-05-1923 is dismissed for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours.
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Very truly yours.
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Jabon v. Usman, AM No. RTJ-02-1713, October 25,2005,474 SCRA 36,64.
[2] Id. at 62.
[3] Rollo, AM No. RTJ-05-1922, pp. 17-19.
[4] Id at 111.
[5] Rollo, AM. No. RTJ-05-1923, pp. 1-3.
[6] Rollo, AM. No. RTJ-05-1922, p. 111.
[7] Rollo, A.M No. RTJ-05-1923, p. 18.
[8] Rollo, AM. No. RTJ-05-1922, p. 114.
[9] Id at 108,125.
[10] Id at 161.
[11] Rollo, AM. OCA IPI No. 03-1744-RTJ, p.181.
[12] Rollo, AM. No. RTJ-05-1923, p. 3.
