108 OG No. 3, 267 (January 16, 2012)
Before us are two (2) consolidated cases filed
against Judge Manuel Q. Limsiaco, Jr. as the Presiding Judge of the
Municipal Circuit Trial Court (
MCTC) of Valladolid, San
Enrique-Pulupandan, Negros Occidental. The first case involves the
failure of Judge Limsiaco to comply with the directives of the Court.
The second case involves the failure of Judge Limsiaco to decide a case
within the 90-day reglementary period.
A.M. No. MTJ-01-1362On
September 25, 1998, a complaint was filed against Judge Limsiaco for
his issuance of a Release Order in favor of an accused in a criminal
case before him.
[1] After
considering the evidence, we then found Judge Limsiaco guilty of
ignorance of the law and procedure and of violating the Code of Judicial
Conduct. In the decretal portion of our May 6, 2005 Decision, we ruled:
WHEREFORE, Judge Manuel Q. Limsiaco, Jr. is found GUILTY of ignorance of the law and procedure and violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. He is hereby ordered to pay a FINE in the amount of Forty Thousand pesos (P40,000.00) upon notice, and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar infractions will be dealt with more severely.
Respondent Judge is DIRECTED to
explain, within ten (10) days from notice, why he should not be
administratively charged for approving the applications for bail of the
accused and ordering their release in the following Criminal Cases filed
with other courts: Criminal Cases Nos. 1331,1342,1362,1366 and 1368
filed with the RTC, Branch 59, San Carlos City; 67322, 69055-69058 filed
with the MTCC, Branch 3, Bacolod City; 67192-67193 filed with the MTCC,
Branch 4, Bacolod City; 72866 filed with the MTCC, Branch 5, Bacolod
City; 70249, 82897 to 82903, 831542, 83260 to 83268 filed with the MTCC,
Branch 6, Bacolod City; and 95-17340 filed with the RTC, Branch 50,
Bacolod City, as reported by Executive Judge Edgardo G. Garvilles.
SO ORDERED.
Judge
Limsiaco twice moved for an extension of time to file a motion for
reconsideration of the above decision and to comply with the Court's
directive requiring him to submit an explanation. Despite the extension
of time given however,
Judge Limsiaco failed to file his motion for reconsideration and the required explanation.
In
the Resolution dated January 24, 2006, we issued a show cause
resolution for contempt and required Judge Limsiaco to explain his
failure to comply with the Decision dated May 6, 2005. In the Resolution
dated December 12, 2006, after noting the failure of Judge Limsiaco to
comply with the Resolution dated January 24, 2006, we resolved to impose
a fine in the amount of P1,000.00 against Judge Limsiaco and to
reiterate our earlier directive for him to file an explanation to the
show cause resolution.
On February 1, 2007, Judge Limsiaco filed a
Manifestation and Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to File Explanation
wherein he apologized to the Court and paid the P1,000.00 fine. He
cited poor health as the reason for his failure to comply with the
Resolution dated January 24, 2006. On February 6, 2007, we resolved to
grant the motion for extension filed by Judge Limsiaco and gave him ten
(10) days from January 15, 2007 within which to file his explanation.
Despite the grant of the extension of time, no explanation for the show cause resolution was ever filed.
Per Resolution dated December 15, 2009, we again required Judge
Limsiaco to comply with the show cause resolution within ten (10) days
from receipt under pain of imposing a stiffer penalty. Verification made
from the postmaster showed that a copy of the December 15, 2009
Resolution was received by Judge Limsiaco on February 1, 2010.
In addition, a Report (as of August 31, 2010) from the Documentation Division, Office of the Court Administrator (
OCA) showed that the directives in
our Decision dated May 6, 2005 have not been complied with by Judge Limsiaco. A.M. No. MTJ-11-1785
On
September 24, 2007, Judge Limsiaco was charged with Delay in the
Disposition of a Case by complainant Sancho E. Guinanao, a plaintiff in
an ejectment case pending before Judge Limsiaco. Guinanao claimed that
Judge Limsiaco failed to seasonably decide the subject ejectment case
which had been submitted for resolution as early as April 25, 2005. The
OCA referred the matter to us when Judge Limsiaco failed to file his
comment to the administrative complaint. Under the pain of a show cause
order for contempt for failure to heed the OCA directives to file a
comment, Judge Limsiaco informed us that he had already decided the case
on February 4, 2008. Subsequently, we resolved
[2]
to declare Judge Limsiaco in contempt and to impose a fine of P1,000.00
for his continued failure to file the required comment to the
administrative complaint.
The records show that Judge Limsiaco paid the P1,000.00 fine but did not submit the required comment.Per
Resolution dated November 23, 2010, we ordered the consolidation of the
above cases, together with A.M. No. MTJ-09-1734, entitled
Florenda V. Tobias v. Judge Manuel Q. Limsiaco, Jr., which case was separately decided on January 19, 2011.
The Court's Ruling
We
shall consider in this ruling not merely Judge Limsiaco's conduct in
connection with the discharge of judicial functions within his
territorial jurisdiction, but also the performance of his legal duties
before this Court as a member of the bench. We shall then take both
matters into account in scrutinizing his conduct as a judge and in
determining whether proper disciplinary measures should be imposed
against him under the circumstances.
A judge's duties to the CourtCase
law teaches us that a judge is the visible representation of the law,
and more importantly of justice; he or she must, therefore, be the first
to follow the law and weave an example for the others to follow.
[3] Interestingly, in
Julianito M. Salvador v. Judge Manuel Q. Limsiaco, Jr., etc.,[4]
a case where Judge Limsiaco was also the respondent, we already had the
occasion to impress upon him the clear import of the directives of the
Court, thus:
For a judge to exhibit indifference to a
resolution requiring him to comment on the accusations in the complaint
thoroughly and substantially is gross misconduct, and may even be
considered as outright disrespect for the Court. The office of the judge
requires him to obey all the lawful orders of his superiors. After all,
a resolution of the Supreme Court is not a mere request and should be
complied with promptly and completely. Such failure to comply
accordingly betrays not only a recalcitrant streak in character, but has
likewise been considered as an utter lack of interest to remain with,
if not contempt of the judicial system.
We also cited in that case our ruling in
Josephine C. Martinez v. Judge Cesar N. Zoleta[5] and emphasized that obedience to our lawful orders and directives should not be merely selective obedience, but must be full:
[A]
resolution of the Supreme Court requiring comment on an administrative
complaint against officials and employees of the judiciary should not be
construed as a mere request from the Court. Nor should it be complied
with partially, inadequately or selectively.
Respondents in
administrative complaints should comment on all accusations or
allegations against them in the administrative complaints because it is
their duty to preserve the integrity of the judiciary. Moreover, the
Court should not and will not tolerate future indifference of
respondents to administrative complaints and to resolutions requiring
comment on such administrative complaints.
As
demonstrated by his present acts, we find it clear that Judge Limsiaco
failed to heed the above pronouncements. We observe that in A.M. No.
MTJ-01-1362, Judge Limsiaco did not fully obey our directives. Judge
Limsiaco failed to file the required comment to our show cause
resolution despite several opportunities given to him by the Court. His
disobedience was aggravated by his insincere representations in his
motions for extension of time that he would file the required comments.
The
records also show Judge Limsiaco's failure to comply with our decision
and orders. In A.M. No. MTJ-01-1362, Judge Limsiaco failed to file his
comment/answer to the charge of irregularity pertaining to his approval
of applications for bail in several criminal cases before him. He also
failed to pay the P40,000.00 fine which we imposed by way of
administrative penalty for his gross ignorance of the law and procedure
and violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Incidentally, in A.M.
No. MTJ-11-1785, Judge Limsiaco failed to file his comment on the
verified complaint despite several orders issued by the Court.
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:
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.
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.
The
obligation to uphold the dignity of his office and the institution
which he 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.
Under the circumstances, the conduct exhibited by
Judge Limsiaco constitutes no less than clear acts of defiance against
the Court's authority. His conduct also reveals his deliberate
disrespect and indifference to the authority of the Court, shown by his
failure to heed our warnings and directives. Judge Limsiaco's actions
further disclose his inability to accept our instructions. Moreover,
his conduct failed to provide a good example for other court personnel,
and the public as well, in placing significance to the Court's
directives and the importance of complying with them.
We cannot
allow 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. They should avoid conduct or any demeanor that may tarnish or
diminish the authority of the Supreme Court.
Under existing
jurisprudence, we have held judges administratively liable for failing
to comply with our directives and circulars.
In
Sinaon, Sr.,[6]
we penalized a judge for his deliberate failure to comply with our
directive requiring him to file a comment. We disciplined another judge
in
Noe Cangco Zarate v. Judge Isauro M. Balderian[7] for
his refusal to comply with the Court's resolution requiring him to file
a comment on the administrative charge against him. In
Request of Judge Eduardo F. Cartagena, etc.,[8] we
dismissed the judge for his repeated violation of a circular of the
Supreme Court. In fact, we have already reprimanded and warned Judge
Limsiaco for his failure to timely heed the Court's directives in
Salvador.
[9]A judge's duty to his public officeGiven
the factual circumstances in A.M. No. MTJ-11-1785, the considerable
delay Judge Limsiaco incurred in deciding the subject ejectment case has
been clearly established by the records and by his own admission. Judge
Limsiaco admitted that he decided the ejectment case only on February
4, 2008. In turn, the records show that Judge Limsiaco did not deny
Guinanao's claim that the ejectment case was submitted for resolution as
early as April 25, 2005. Thus, it took Judge Limsiaco more than two (2)
years to decide the subject ejectment case after it was declared
submitted for resolution.
The delay in deciding a case within the
reglementary period constitutes a violation of Section 5, Canon 6 of
the New Code of Judicial Conduct
[10]
which mandates judges to perform all judicial duties, including the
delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with promptness.
In line with jurisprudence, Judge Limsiaco is also liable for gross
inefficiency for his failure to decide a case within the reglementary
period.
[11]The Penalty
Under
Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC dated
September 11, 2001, violation of Supreme Court rules, directives and
circulars, and gross inefficiency are categorized as less serious
charges with the following sanctions: (a) suspension from office without
salary and other benefits for not less than one or more than three
months; or (b) a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding
P20,000.00.
[12]In
determining the proper imposable penalty, we also consider Judge
Limsiaco's work history which reflects how he performed his judicial
functions as a judge. We observed that there are several administrative
cases already decided against Judge Limsiaco that show his inability to
properly discharge his judicial duties.
In
Salvador,
[13] we penalized Judge Limsiaco for having been found guilty of
undue delay in rendering a decision,
imposing on him a P20,000.00 fine, with a warning that a repetition of
the same or similar infraction in the future shall be dealt with more
severely.
In
Helen Gamboa-Mijares v. Judge Manuel Q. Limsiaco,
Jr.,[14] we found Judge Limsiaco guilty of
gross misconduct
and imposed on him a P20,000.00 fine, with a warning that a more severe
penalty would be imposed in case of the same of similar act in the
future.
In
Atty. Adoniram P. Pamplona v. Judge Manuel Q. Limsiaco,
Jr.,[15] we resolved to impose a P20,000.00 fine on Judge Limsiaco for
gross ignorance of the law and procedure,
with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense
would be dealt with more severely. The Court also resolved in the said
case to re-docket, as a regular administrative case, the charge for
oppression and grave abuse of authority relative to Judge Limsiaco's
handling of two criminal cases.
In
Re: Withholding of Salary of Judge Manuel Q. Limsiaco, Jr., etc.,
[16] we imposed a P5,000.00 fine, with warning, against Judge Limsiaco for his
delay in the submission of the monthly report of cases and for twice ignoring the OCA's directive to explain the delay.
Moreover, in the recent case of
Florenda Tobias v. Judge Manuel Q. Limsiaco, Jr.,[17] where Judge Limsiaco was charged with corruption, the Court found him liable for
gross misconduct and imposed a fine in the amount of P25,000.00.
Lastly,
we also note the existence of two other administrative cases filed
against Judge Limsiaco that are presently pending with the Court. The
first case is
Mario B. Tapinco v. Judge Manuel Q. Limsiaco, Jr.,[18]
where Judge Limsiaco is charged with grave misconduct, obstruction of
justice, and abuse of authority in connection with his invalid issuance
of an order for the provisional release of an accused. The second case
entitled
Unauthorized Hearings Conducted by Judge Manuel Q. Limsiaco, Jr., MCTC, et al.,[19]
is a complaint charging Judge Limsiaco of violating the Court's
Administrative Circular No. 3, dated July 14, 1978 which prohibits the
conduct of hearings in another station without any authority from the
Court.
We find that his conduct as a repeat offender exhibits his
unworthiness to don the judicial robes and merits a sanction heavier
than what is provided by our rules and jurisprudence. Under the
circumstances, Judge Limsiaco should be dismissed from the service. We,
however, note that on May 17, 2009, Judge Limsiaco has retired from
judicial service. We also note that Judge Limsiaco has not yet applied
for his retirement benefits. Thus, in lieu of the penalty of dismissal
for his unethical conduct and gross inefficiency in performing his
duties as a member of the bench, we declare all his retirement benefits,
except accrued leave credits, forfeited. Furthermore, he is barred from
re-employment in any branch or service of the government, including
government-owned and controlled corporations.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, we find Judge Manuel Q. Limsiaco, Jr.
administratively liable for unethical conduct and gross inefficiency
under the provisions of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically,
Sections 7 and 8 of Canon 1, and Section 5 of Canon 6. For these
infractions, we
DECLARE all his retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits if any,
FORFEITED.
He is likewise barred from re-employment in any branch or service of
the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.
SO ORDERED.Corona, C.J., Carpio, Nachura, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Mendoza, and
Sereno, JJ., concur.
Carpio Morales, J., on wellness leave.
Velasco, Jr., J., no part due to prior action in OCA.
Leonardo-De Castro, J., on official leave.
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-2.
[2] Resolution dated November 17, 2010.
[3] Yu-Asensi v. Villanueva, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1245, January 19, 2000, 322 SCRA 255.
[4] A.M. No. MTJ-06-1626, March 17, 2006, 485 SCRA 1, 6-7; also see
Sinaon, Sr. v. Dumlao, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1519, March 4, 2008, 547 SCRA 531.
[5] A.M. No. MTJ-94-904, September 29, 1999, 315 SCRA 438, 448-449..
[6] Supra note 4.
[7] A.M. No. MTJ-00-1261, April 3, 2000, 329 SCRA 558.
[8] A.M. No. 95-9-98-MCTC, December 4, 1997, 282 SCRA 370.
[9] Supra note 4.
[10] Which took effect on June 1, 2004.
[11] Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Cebu City, A.M. No. 05-2-101-RTC, April 26, 2005, 457 SCRA 1.
[12] Sinaon, Sr. v. Dumlao, supra note 4.
[13] Supra note 4.
[14] A.M. No. MTJ-03-1509, September 23, 2003, 411 SCRA 412.
[15] Resolution in A.M. No. MTJ-08-1726, December 8, 2008.
[16]
Resolution, dated July 22, 2009, in A.M. No. MTJ-06-1654 entitled Re:
Withholding of Salary of Judge Manuel Q. Limsiaco, Jr. and Clerk of
Court John O. Negroprado, both of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court,
Valladolid-San Enrique-Pulupandan, Negros Occidental.
[17] MTJ-08-1726 (07-1917-MTJ), January 19, 2011.
[18] A.M. No. MTJ-10-1757 (05-1718-MTJ).
[19] A.M. No. 08-9-291-MCTC.