SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. RTJ-14-2389. September 30, 2015.][Formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3747-RTJ]
ARLENE GUERRERO-PEREZ, complainant, vs. JUDGE ANGELO C. PEREZ, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 27, CABANATUAN CITY, NUEVA ECIJA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 30 September 2015 which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. RTJ-14-2389 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3747-RTJ] ARLENE GUERRERO-PEREZ v. JUDGE ANGELO C. PEREZ, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 27, CABANATUAN CITY, NUEVA ECIJA
This court resolves the Complaint of Arlene Guerrero-Perez dated September 3, 2011 charging Judge Angelo C. Perez with Immorality, Dishonesty, and Violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Respondent Judge Angelo C. Perez was appointed Presiding Judge of Branch 27 of the Regional Trial Court, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija on January 12, 2010. 1 Complainant Arlene Guerrero-Perez principally based her Complaint against respondent on his August 20, 2009 JBC Form 1 (Personal Data Sheet), which respondent submitted when he applied for judgeship. 2
For the allegations of dishonesty and immorality, 3 complainant claimed that Item no. 16 of the Personal Data Sheet listed the names of respondent's four (4) children. She then pointed out that the children did not have middle initials and that their respective mothers were not mentioned. She opined that "a member of the courts [sic] whose civil status is SINGLE but has four children with dissimilar mother [sic] is considered IMMORAL." 4
Complainant claimed that this "immorality" was supported by respondent having an "on and off 'live-in' partner" with whom "he built a house of their own without the benefit of marriage," which complainant considers as "clear proof of immorality, as a person living together without the sanctity of marriage is and will always be immoral." 5
Complainant also alleged that the Personal Data Sheet did not reflect cases involving respondent, which included: (a) a civil case for Annulment of Title; 6 (b) a criminal case for two (2) counts of falsification of public documents; 7 and (c) a contempt of court charge. 8 She also pointed out that respondent had failed to disclose the disbarment case filed against him by her husband before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. 9
Complainant further alleged that respondent's assertion in his Personal Data Sheet that he graduated First Honors in elementary school was not supported by Cabanatuan East Central School's records. 10
As for the allegation of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct, complainant alleged that respondent violated the following Canons:
(a) Canon 1, Rule 1.01, 11 for using "his competence as a lawyer to serve his own benefit to the prejudice of others, especially his own flesh and blood";
(b) Canon 1, Rule 1.02, 12 for committing injustice against his own family; and
(c) Canon 2, Rule 2.01, 13 for not having the "highest ethical standards" when he lied while he was applying as a judge and used his knowledge of the law to oppress and harass members of his own family. 14
In defense, respondent alleged that he filled out his Personal Data Sheet to the best of his knowledge and belief at the time of execution. 15 He also stated that the allegations of immorality did not deserve to be dignified as they were simply complainant's attempt to insult and embarrass him. 16
On September 12, 2012, respondent sent the Office of the Court Administrator a letter 17 attached with a copy of complainant and her husband's Public Apology and Joint Sworn Statement 18 which respondent had received. In the Public Apology, complainant stated that the libellous accusations she and her husband had previously made were not true and were merely results of a familial misunderstanding. 19 ASEcHI
In the report dated April 15, 2014, the Office of the Court Administrator found that the actions of respondent in relation to his August 20, 2009 Personal Data Sheet could have been perpetrated to avoid his disqualification from appointment to the Judiciary and to gain advantage over other applicants. 20 The Office of the Court Administrator found that respondent's acts and omissions showed that he could have been capable of lying, cheating, and defrauding to secure a position in the Judiciary. 21
However, the Office of the Court Administrator stated that dishonesty is a question of intention. 22 As such, there was a need to ascertain respondent's state of mind at the time he committed the questionable acts and omissions and the attendant circumstances surrounding each of them. 23
In Item No. 28 of his Personal Data Sheet, respondent indicated that Civil Case No. 5384-AF 24 had been "dismissed with finality" on March 23, 2009. 25 However, the Office of the Court Administrator found that it had been dismissed "without prejudice" and that it had been elevated to the Court of Appeals through a Petition for Certiorari. 26 While the date of filing of the Petition for Certiorari was not on record, respondent admitted that he filed his Comment on this Petition on December 14, 2009. 27 The Office of the Court Administrator noted that the Petition for Certiorari was eventually dismissed by the Court of Appeals in the Decision dated February 14, 2011. 28
Based on this, the Office of the Court Administrator lent credence to respondent's claims that when he submitted his Personal Data Sheet on August 20, 2009, he was not yet aware of the existence of the Petition for Certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals, 29 and that when he inquired from Branch 25 of the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija whether there was "any appeal" regarding Civil Case No. 5384-AF, he had been informed that there was none. 30 The Office of the Court Administrator recommended that respondent not be faulted for an honest mistake of fact not attributable to an intent to mislead or misrepresent. 31
As for the two (2) counts of Falsification of Public Documents, 32 the charges were dismissed on February 5, 1998, more than ten (10) years before respondent submitted his Personal Data Sheet. 33 In defense, respondent explained that his failure to disclose the case was due to inadvertence and belief that only his mother was charged in those cases. 34 Upon learning that he, too, was a respondent, he immediately disclosed it to the Judicial and Bar Council through a letter dated February 24, 2010, more than a year before the Complaint was filed. 35 According to the Office of the Court Administrator, respondent's voluntary act showed good faith. 36
In the letter dated March 1, 2010, the Judicial and Bar Council acknowledged receipt of respondent's letter. The Judicial and Bar Council did not refer the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator for any possible administrative action against respondent, which is a tacit acceptance of the explanation provided for the inadvertence. 37 In any case, the Office of the Court Administrator opined that the information would have had no adverse impact on the assessment of respondent's fitness to become a judge because the case had long been dismissed. 38
The Office of the Court Administrator also found that despite the pendency of a motion for reconsideration pertaining to the contempt of court charge, 39 respondent answered "No" to Item No. 29 of his Personal Data Sheet, which was a question on whether there was a pending civil, criminal, or administrative case against him. 40 Respondent explained that because the main case for Annulment of Title had been dismissed long before his submission of his Personal Data Sheet, he believed in good faith that there was no need to declare it as "pending." 41
While respondent's erroneous judgment not to disclose the contempt of court charge did not "necessarily connote the existence of bad faith, malice, an intention to defraud, or dishonesty," he should have been more prudent. 42
Respondent's declaration in his Personal Data Sheet that he graduated First Honors from elementary school was inaccurate. 43 Based on the Certification issued by the school principal, respondent finished as First Honorable Mention. 44 However, the Office of the Court Administrator found that this cannot be considered as having been induced by an intention to defraud. 45 Furthermore, based on his records, respondent had demonstrated his intellectual capacity through other academic achievements, such as graduating Second Honors from the College of Law of the Ateneo de Manila University, graduating Cum Laude from the University of the Philippines Diliman for his undergraduate degree, and being a Full Scholar at the Philippine Science High School. 46
On the charge of violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, the Office of the Court Administrator found that the records were bereft of evidence to support the claim that respondent had committed acts of injustice against his own family. 47 Complainant failed to provide any specific details to support her charge. For lack of factual basis, the Office of the Court Administrator found that the allegation did not warrant a formal investigation.
Based on the foregoing, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended:
(a) That this complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter against respondent Judge of Branch 27, Regional Trial Court, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija;
(b) That, on the charge of dishonesty, respondent be admonished and warned that a repetition of the same or similar act will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty;
(c) That the charge of violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct arising from the alleged acts of injustice against his own family be dismissed for lack of merit; and ITAaHc
(d) That the charge of Immorality be referred to an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals Manila for investigation, report, and recommendation within 60 days from receipt of the case records. 48
Acting on the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator, this court issued the Resolution dated July 21, 2014 redocketing the complaint as a regular administrative matter against respondent and referring the affidavit-complaint to an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals Manila for investigation, report, and recommendation within sixty (60) days from receipt of the case records. 49
The Office of the Court Administrator received the transmitted report and recommendation and rollo of the case, including the Affidavit of Desistance, transcript of stenographic notes held on January 29, 2015, and Legal Memorandum of respondent and minutes of hearings on February 6, 2015. 50
According to the Investigating Justice, complainant failed to appear at four (4) consecutive hearings, which prompted the issuance of a bench warrant for her arrest on January 12, 2015. 51 When she finally appeared at the January 29, 2015 hearing, 52 she explained that she did not attend the previous hearings because her counsel had withdrawn from the case. 53 She further testified that she had voluntarily executed the Affidavit of Desistance, 54 confessing that she had no factual nor legal basis for accusing respondent of having children with different women outside of wedlock. 55
The Investigating Justice stressed that the subsequent desistance had no controlling significance in the administrative case. 56
As to the issue of whether respondent was guilty of immorality, the report found that the allegations were manufactured by complainant in light of an "alitan" between her, her husband, and respondent. 57
Furthermore, it was found that the civil status of respondent's children could hardly be gleaned from the alleged failure to write their middle initials in his Personal Data Sheet. 58 There was no proof that respondent had entered into multiple immoral liaisons with several women and had children with them without the benefit of marriage under scandalous circumstances. 59 Respondent cannot be held liable for immoral and disgraceful conduct. 60
In the Resolution dated March 25, 2015, this court resolved to:
ADOPT and APPROVE the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of Investigating Justice Ricardo R. Rosario (Annex "A"). Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the complaint for immorality against Judge Angelo C. Perez for insufficiency of evidence[.]
SO ORDERED. 61
Respondent should be admonished for the charge of dishonesty. However, he is absolved from the charge of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Upon thorough evaluation of the parties' respective arguments, the Office of the Court Administrator found that respondent's actions pertaining to his Personal Data Sheet were not motivated by bad faith, malice, intention to defraud, or dishonesty. 62
Dishonesty requires intent to mislead and is not simply an act of bad judgment or negligence. 63 In Civil Service Commission v. Longos, 64 this court referred to dishonesty as defined in jurisprudence:
Dishonesty is defined as intentionally making a false statement on any material fact, or practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in securing his examination, appointment or registration. Dishonesty is a serious offense which reflects a person's character and exposes the moral decay which virtually destroys his honor, virtue and integrity. It is a malevolent act that has no place in the judiciary, as no other office in the government service exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness from an employee than a position in the judiciary. 65 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
In this case, respondent does not appear to have intentionally made a false statement of material facts to secure his appointment as a Regional Trial Court Judge. He filled out his Personal Data Sheet based on his existing knowledge at the time of its submission. Nevertheless, as someone applying to be an officer of the court, he should have been more prudent in his disclosures. As his negligence had resulted in inaccurate entries in his Personal Data Sheet, respondent is admonished and warned that a similar act will merit a more severe penalty.
As for the charge of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct through injustice allegedly perpetrated by respondent against his own family, no specific details were provided in the present Complaint that may shed light on this allegation. For lacking factual basis, this charge must be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Judge Angelo C. Perez is hereby ADMONISHED for the charge of dishonesty, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely. The charge of violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct arising from alleged acts of injustice by respondent against his own family is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED." CHTAIc
(Brion, J., on leave; Leonardo-de Castro, J., designated acting member per S.O. No. 2241 dated September 29, 2015; Mendoza, J., on official leave; Peralta, J., designated acting member per S.O. No. 2170 dated September 10, 2015.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 299, Administrative Matter for Agenda.
2. Id.
3. Id.
4. Id.
5. Id. at 305.
6. Respondent claimed that Civil Case No. 5384-AF had been dismissed with finality on March 23, 2009. However, according to complainant, the case was elevated to the Court of Appeals and the Decision was only promulgated on February 14, 2011.
7. The criminal case is under I.S. No. 10-96-10457-10458. Complainant claimed that this was not disclosed by respondent on his Personal Data Sheet.
8. Complainant alleged that this was filed by way of a motion against respondent by Atty. Wilson Chua, counsel of complainant's husband in Civil Case No. 5384-AF. This was also not disclosed in respondent's Personal Data Sheet.
9. Rollo, p. 300, Administrative Matter for Agenda.
10. Id. at 302.
11. CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, Canon 1, Rule 1.01. A judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence.
12. CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, Canon 1, Rule 1.02. A judge should administer justice impartially and without delay.
13. CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, Canon 2, Rule 2.01. A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
14. Rollo, p. 301, Administrative Matter for Agenda.
15. Id. at 302.
16. Id. at 305.
17. Id. at 306-307.
18. The Public Apology and Joint Sworn Statement was dated September 4, 2012.
19. Rollo, pp. 306-307, Administrative Matter for Agenda.
20. Id. at 308.
21. Id.
22. Id.
23. Id. at 308-309.
24. Id. at 300, Administrative Matter for Agenda. Civil Case No. 5384-AF 24 for Annulment of Title is entitled Claro C. Perez v. Angelo C. Perez, et al.
25. Id. at 309.
26. Id.
27. Id.
28. Id.
29. Id.
30. Id.
31. Id.
32. Id. at 300. The charges for Falsification of Public Documents were covered by I.S. No. 10-96-10457-10458, entitled Honorato Perez, Jr. v. Angelo C. Perez and Angela Concepcion vda. de Perez.
33. Id. at 310.
34. Id.
35. Id.
36. Id.
37. Id.
38. Id.
39. Id. at 300. The contempt of court charge was in relation to Civil Case No. 5384-AF for Annulment of Title.
40. Id. at 311.
41. Id.
42. Id.
43. Id.
44. Id.
45. Id.
46. Id. at 312.
47. Id. at 313.
48. Id. at 314.
49. Id. at 315, Notice.
50. Id. at 403, TSN, January 29, 2015.
51. Id. at 364-365, Order dated January 26, 2015.
52. Id. at 367-368, Order dated February 6, 2015.
53. Id. at 391, TSN, January 29, 2015.
54. Id. at 395-400.
55. Id.
56. Id. at 412, Report and Recommendation.
57. Id.
58. Id. at 415.
59. Id.
60. Id.
61. Id. at 419.
62. Id. at 311, Administrative Matter for Agenda.
63. Id. at 308.
64. Civil Service Commission v. Nenita C. Longos, A.M. No. P-12-3070, March 11, 2014 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2014/march2014/P-12-3070.pdf> [Per Curiam, En Banc].
65. Id. at 3.