CONTACT: |
Supreme Court of the Philippines Library Services, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000 |
(632) 8524-2706 |
libraryservices.sc@judiciary.gov.ph |
350 Phil. 1; 95 OG No. 14, 2134 (April 5, 1999)
SECOND DIVISION
[ A.M. No. RTJ-95-1332, February 24, 1998 ]
TERESITA O. ZAMUDIO, COMPLAINANT,
VS. JUDGE JOSE S. PEÑAS, JR., RESPONDENT.
[A.M. NO. RTJ-98-1398. FEBRUARY 24, 1998]
BENJAMIN R. AREJOLA, COMPLAINANT,
VS. JUDGE JOSE S. PEÑAS, JR., RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
REGALADO, J.:
These two
administrative matters concern former Judge Jose S. Peñas, Jr. of the Regional Trial
Court of Iriga City, Branch 34. Although respondent retired from the service on December 10, 1996, the
charges were instituted when he was still the presiding judge of said court.[1]
On August 9,
1994, Teresita O. Zamudio filed a complaint in the Office of the Ombudsman
alleging that respondent is guilty of neglecting to support her two
illegitimate daughters whom he sired several years before he was appointed to
the judiciary.[2] The complaint was referred to the
Office of the Court Administrator where it was docketed as Administrative
Matter No. RTJ-95-1332, and which this Court later assigned to Associate
Justice Eubolo G. Verzola of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and
recommendation.[3]
On July 31,
1995, the Court received a complaint from one Benjamin R. Arejola, a party in a
civil case then pending before respondent.[4] Arejola charged respondent with
dereliction of judicial duty, grave misconduct, oppression, and conduct
unbecoming a judge. The case was
accepted for informal preliminary investigation and initially identified as
Administrative Matter No. OCA IPI-95-74-RTJ. The corresponding action in the two aforesaid cases then proceeded
separately. After all the proceedings
involved had been completed and the requisite reports with recommendations were
duly submitted, with the second administrative matter having been given its
present docket number, both cases were consolidated for judgment by the Court.
The
circumstances which eventuated in A.M. No. RTJ-95-1332 date back to the year 1968
when Zamudio, then a naive fifteen year-old, met respondent who was in his
forties, a practicing lawyer and a married man. Respondent was the counsel of Zamudio’s mother in a criminal case
that was ultimately dismissed. Upon her
mother’s pleas, respondent extended financial support to Zamudio for several
years thereafter, enabling her to pursue her schooling.
An illicit
affair developed between Zamudio and respondent resulting in the birth of two
daughters, namely, Regina who was born on August 30, 1972, and Cherry who was
born on August 14, 1979. Although the
couple did not live together, respondent kept Zamudio as his mistress and
habitually gave to her financial support for his daughters, paying for their
lodging and school expenses.
On February 5, 1987,
respondent was appointed to the judiciary.[5] His relationship with Zamudio had
fizzled out by then although he continued to support his daughters. Later, however, he altogether stopped
sending money for their support, thereby prompting Zamudio to initiate the
instant administrative case to obtain relief for their sustenance and other
necessities.
On June 26,
1996, Zamudio filed a motion in the Court of Appeals to withdraw the case which
was still pending there.[6] The parties had allegedly arrived
at a compromise agreement based on a financial settlement.[7] On August 8, 1996, however,
complainant withdrew her said motion of desistance because respondent failed to
comply with his undertakings in that compromise agreement.[8]
In his answer
thereafter filed in the same appellate court on August 26, 1996, respondent
neither admitted nor denied any sexual relation with Zamudio and the allegation
that he fathered her daughters.[9] He did admit, however, that he
really entered into a compromise agreement with Zamudio which is why she
withdrew the case, but he later realized that he could not afford to pay the
amounts agreed upon, thus causing Zamudio to proceed with the same.
Nevertheless,
respondent made it clear that he did not mean to deprive Regina and Cherry Zamudio
of participation in his retirement benefits. He asserted that he intended to have them avail themselves of their
shares thereof after “assessing his needs principally for his own livelihood,
sufficient to prevent him from becoming a pauper.”[10]
Upon termination
of the investigation and hearings, a report was submitted by the investigating
Justice to this Court, and the case was referred to the Office of the Court
Administrator for recommendation.
Meanwhile, A.M.
No. RTJ-98-1398 was raffled to and handled by the Second Division of this
Court. This administrative matter
stemmed from Civil Case No. 270, an original action for mandamus instituted by
Arejola as one of the petitioners in Branch 34 of the Regional Trial Court of
Iriga City of which respondent was the presiding judge.[11] The case concerned a dispute over
the closure of a public road ordered by the then city mayor and city market
superintendent who were sued as the respondents therein.
Apparently, said
respondents ordered the closure of Camposano Road, a public thoroughfare in San
Francisco, Iriga City, so that it could be used as an extension of the city
market. Petitioners therein filed a
petition for mandamus with damages and injunction, praying for a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction and temporary restraining order (TRO) in
opposition to the closure. Arejola, by
reason of his being a co-petitioner in that case, initiated the instant
administrative matter against herein respondent.
Arejola alleges
that respondent exhibited partiality in favor of the respondent officials in
that special civil action, as shown by the fact that respondent allegedly
proceeded with the case without calling the court to order; conducted a hearing
for twenty minutes without a court stenographer to record the proceedings;
insisted that petitioners file an opposition to respondents’ motion to dismiss;
disregarded the omnibus motion filed by petitioners; acted as judge and counsel
for respondents; and remarked that “upon the take-over of the new
administration, who is now your respondents (sic)” and “walang personalan
ito,” or words to that effect.
Respondent
allegedly further gave political color to the petition; allowed the TRO to
lapse without being implemented; insisted on the hearing of the injunction
aspect in the first week of June, over therein petitioners’ objection and after
the lapse of the twenty-day period of the TRO; showed an attitude of being
beholden to therein respondents; and allowed the appearance and admitted the
arguments of the respondent city mayor who is neither a lawyer nor was
represented by one.[12]
Arejola had
earlier moved for the inhibition of respondent as the presiding judge in that
case, but to no avail.
In a resolution
dated November 15, 1995, this Court ordered respondent to comment on the
complaint,[13] but he failed to do so. Thus, on March 20, 1996, the Court required
respondent to show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held
in contempt for failing to comply with the previous order to file his comment.[14] Respondent defied the order and the
case was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator for investigation,
report and recommendation.
Up to this date,
or over two years after being ordered by this Court to file his comment in A.M.
No. RTJ-98-1398, respondent has neither filed such comment nor submitted any
explanation for his non-compliance with the order.
The Office of
the Court Administrator duly submitted its recommendations to the Court for
both A.M. Nos. RTJ-95-1332 and RTJ-98-1398. Being well presented and logically arrived at, the Court approves the
same but with some modifications.
In A.M. No.
RTJ-95-1332, it is undisputed that Regina and Cherry Zamudio are the
illegitimate children of respondent and that the latter begot them under
scandalous circumstances. Their mother,
Teresita O. Zamudio, was a minor when respondent commenced his immoral liaison
with her. He maintained their
extramarital affair for many years, abhorrently robbing Teresita of her youth
and taking advantage of her vulnerability. Ironically, her then hapless situation obviously merited and required
the protection of a guardian which should have been respondent’s mode of
conduct and attitude towards her.
We agree with
the investigating magistrate, Justice Verzola, that the instant case highlights
a weakness in the process of selection and appointment to the judiciary at the
time respondent was appointed, and that had the recommending authority or the
appointing power been aware of respondent’s character flaws, it was unlikely
that he would have been appointed as a judge.
During the
pendency of this case, respondent reached the compulsory age of retirement from
the government service. Consequently,
the penalty of either suspension from the service or dismissal therefrom can no
longer be imposed on him, and the complaint against him as a judge
should be dismissed.
Also, the fact
that his dishonorable conduct occurred several years before his appointment to
the judiciary may be appreciated as a mitigation of his failing to fully
achieve the moral standards required of a judge. His retirement from the judiciary and entitlement to the
corresponding benefits and other privileges earned by virtue of his service may
accordingly be considered and duly effected.
Nevertheless,
the dismissal of the complaint against him as a judge does not absolve
respondent from his legal responsibility to recognize and support his
illegitimate children, Regina and Cherry Zamudio. Furthermore, as correctly submitted by the Office of the Court
Administrator - -
x x x Even as an ordinary lawyer, respondent has to conform to the strict standard of conduct demanded of members of the profession. Certainly, fathering (children) by a woman other than his lawful wife fails to meet these standards x x x.[15]
The jurisdiction
of the Court over this case was, therefore, not lost when respondent retired
from the judiciary[16] and, in the exercise of its power
over respondent as a member of the bar, the Court may require him to comply
with his obligation to support his illegitimate daughters.
It appears,
however, that Regina is already 25 years old, a college graduate, married and
with a child. Cherry, on the other
hand, is 18 years old, single, and is still a student. Based only on the facts appearing on record,
Regina is no longer entitled to receive present and future support from
respondent, as the duty therefor primarily devolves upon her husband, unless it
shall be proven in the proper proceedings that recourse may be had against the
other persons provided by law to be successively liable to support her.[17]
Cherry, on her
part, is entitled to receive support from respondent for the period, purposes
and in the amount provided by law.[18] Under the factual ambience of this
case, a monthly support of P5,000.00 would be reasonable and should be
paid to her by respondent upon the finality of the judgment herein. Both Regina and Cherry Zamudio may also seek
the payment of support in arrears but in the appropriate proceedings and in the
proper forum.
With respect to
A.M. No. RTJ-98-1398, we likewise adopt the conclusion of the Office of the
Court Administrator on the charges of bias and partiality filed against
respondent, to wit:
Ordinarily, the failure of respondent to comment means a tacit admission of the charges leveled against him. In this case, however, the allegation of bias and partiality are not substantiated by evidence. Bias and partiality cannot be presumed from the circumstances enumerated by the complainant. Apart from these bare allegations, there must be convincing proof to show that respondent judge is indeed bias(ed) and partial. In administrative proceedings, the burden of proof that respondent committed the act complained of rests on the complainant. Failing in this, the complaint must be dismissed.
However, we found respondent judge’s failure to comment on the charges as constituting gross insubordination. x x x The non-compliance of respondent with the several directives of this Court is a clear manifestation of his continued defiance and disrespect to a lawful order of a superior court x x x.[19]
Mere suspicion
that a judge was partial to a party is not enough as there should be adequate
evidence to prove the charge.[20] This Court finds that there is insufficient
evidence to hold respondent liable for the charges and we are thus constrained
to dismiss the complaint filed by Arejola.
There was no
showing that respondent had an interest, personal or otherwise, in the
prosecution of the case before him. The
bare allegations of complainant cannot overturn the presumption that respondent
acted regularly and with impartiality.[21]
Withal, the
dismissal of the complaint does not prevent the Court from penalizing
respondent for his contumacious conduct in repeatedly disobeying the orders for
the filing of a comment. His failure to
file the same and explain his omission, despite several opportunities for him
to do so, is reprehensible and tantamount to gross misconduct and insubordination.[22]
A judge should
uphold the integrity of the judiciary[23] and respondent cannot expect others
to respect the law when he himself cannot obey simple orders such as that
directing him to file a comment, as well as the explanation required by
show-cause resolution.[24] The Court will not tolerate
recalcitrance by a party to a case, more so where he is a member of the
judiciary and is expected to be the embodiment of adherence to the law and the
institution to which he belongs.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as
follows:
1. In A.M. No. RTJ-95-1332, the complaint against respondent as a judge is hereby DISMISSED. Respondent is, however, ORDERED to fulfill and settle his legal obligation of support in favor of his two illegitimate daughters, Regina and Cherry Zamudio. The corresponding finance authorities of the Office of the Court Administrator shall deduct the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) every month from respondent’s monthly pension and pay the same to Cherry Zamudio as and for present and future support until the obligation is extinguished in accordance with law. This is understood to be without prejudice to such remedies as Regina and Cherry Zamudio may avail themselves of for the recovery of support in arrears and the enforcement of such other rights provided by the law on support as hereinbefore discussed.
2. The complaint against respondent in A.M. No. RTJ-98-1398 is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. However, respondent is declared guilty of serious misconduct and insubordination for his failure to comply with the lawful orders of this Court. He is hereby ORDERED to pay a FINE of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), likewise to be deducted from his retirement benefits, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or any similar conduct, as a member of the bar, will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
[1]
The subject cases were not the
only administrative matters filed against respondent in this Court. A.M. No. RTJ-95-33 entitled, “Banaria vs.
Judge Peñas, Jr.,” where respondent is charged with incompetence, gross
ignorance of the law and falsification of certificates of service, is currently
pending in the First Division of the Court. Although said case is still under investigation, the Court deems it fit
that the instant cases be resolved without awaiting the results of the
investigation and decision therein considering the nature of the relief sought
in A.M. No. RTJ-95-1332.
[2]
Rollo I, A.M. No. RTJ-95-1332, 2-4. The case was docketed as OMB-ADM-1-94-1127.
[3]
Ibid., id., 5-9.
[4]
Rollo, A.M. No. RTJ-98-1398, 3-4.
[5]
Rollo II, A.M. No. RTJ-95-1332, 237-238.
[6]
Ibid., id., 69-70.
[7]
Ibid., id., 118-121.
[8]
Ibid., id., 94.
[9]
Ibid., id., 132-145.
[10]
Ibid., id., 143.
[11]
Rollo, A.M. No. RTJ-98-1398, 5-11.
[12]
Ibid., id., 3-4.
[13]
Ibid., id., 15.
[14]
Ibid., id., 16-17. The postmaster of Iriga City informed the
Office of the Court Administrator that the resolution was delivered to and
received by respondent’s authorized agent, Noli A. Barra, on May 3, 1996.
[15]
Rollo 1, A.M. No. RTJ-95-1332, 26, citing the En Banc
Resolution in Nicolas vs. Judge Yuzon, A.M. No. RTJ-89-303, August 15,
1990.
[16]
People vs. Valenzuela, et al., G.R. Nos. 63950-60, April
19, 1985, 135 SCRA 712.
[17]
Articles 195 and 199, Family Code.
[18]
Articles 194 and 201, id.
[19]
Rollo, A.M. No. RTJ-98-1398, 23-24.
[20]
Abad vs. Belen, A.M. No. RTJ-92-813, January 30, 1995, 240 SCRA
733; People vs. Serrano, etc., et al., G.R. No. 44712, October 28, 1991,
203 SCRA 171; Beltran, et al. vs. Garcia, etc., et al., L-30868, September
30, 1971, 41 SCRA 158.
[21]
See People vs. Tabarno, et al., G.R. No. 101338, March 20,
1995, 242 SCRA 456.
[22]
See Guintu vs. Lucero, A.M. No. MTJ-93-794, August 23, 1996, 261 SCRA 1.
[23]
Canon 1, Code of Judicial Conduct.
[24]
Guintu vs. Lucero, ante.,
8-9, citing Longboan vs. Polig, A.M. No. R-704-RTJ, June 14, 1990, 186
SCRA 557.