FIRST DIVISION
[A.M. No. MTJ-17-1901. September 14, 2020.](Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 13-2589-MTJ)
JUDGE TOMAS EDUARDO B. MADDELA III, complainant, vs.JUDGE JACINTO C. GONZALES, respondent.
[A.M. No. MTJ-20-1937. September 14, 2020.](Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 16-2829-MTJ)
EXECUTIVE JUDGE JACINTO C. GONZALES, complainant, vs.JUDGE TOMAS EDUARDO B. MADDELA III, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 14, 2020which reads as follows: HTcADC
"A.M. No. MTJ-17-1901 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 13-2589-MTJ) — Judge Tomas Eduardo B. Maddela III v. Judge Jacinto C. Gonzales; and
A.M. No. MTJ-20-1937 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 16-2829-MTJ) — Executive Judge Jacinto C. Gonzales v. Judge Tomas Eduardo B. Maddela III
RESOLUTION
This resolves the two complaints by two judges against each other. The first is the Complaint 1 for Malfeasance filed on November 28, 2012 by Presiding Judge Tomas Eduardo B. Maddela III (Judge Maddela), Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 5, Olongapo City, (MTCC-Branch 5) against Executive Judge Jacinto C. Gonzales (Judge Gonzales), Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Olongapo City, (MTCC-Branch 2). The second is the administrative Complaint 2 filed on May 31, 2013 by Judge Gonzales against Judge Maddela charging the latter with gross ignorance of the law.
The Antecedents
On November 28, 2012, Judge Maddela filed a Complaint against Judge Gonzales charging the latter with malfeasance. The case arose from the alleged irregularities in the conduct of the raffling of cases in the first level courts of Olongapo City, specifically Criminal Case Nos. 588-12, 589-12 and 590-12 held on October 11, 2012. Judge Maddela averred that Judge Gonzales never constituted a Raffle Committee and that the said criminal cases were unilaterally assigned to Judge Gonzales contrary to what is provided for under the rules. 3
Specifically, the issue between them stemmed from the statement in the minutes of the raffle held on November 15, 2012 that Judge Maddela did not attend the scheduled raffle despite being notified and represented by his Branch Clerk of Court, Diana M. Fernandez. According to Judge Maddela, this is in retalliation to his letter to Vice-Executive Judge Merinnisa O. Ligaya requesting for the re-raffling of Criminal Case Nos. 588-12, 589-12 and 590-12 which were directly assigned to Judge Gonzales. To Judge Maddela's mind, Judge Gonzales took the letter-request personally. 4
Judge Gonzales denied all the allegations against him in his Letter-Comment dated January 18, 2013 addressed to Deputy Court Administrator Raul B. Villanueva. He averred that, as borne by the minutes of the raffle, the said criminal cases were included in the 29 cases originally raffled among the presiding judges. Furthermore, he averred that when he learned that Judge Maddela called into question the raffle of the three criminal cases, he immediately ordered for the re-raffling of the said cases which were eventually assigned to Judge Maddela. 5
Additionally, Judge Gonzales interposed that he constituted a Raffle Committee contrary to the allegations of Judge Maddela. In fact, the minutes of the raffle proceedings were regularly submitted to the Supreme Court, which prove that there was, indeed, a Raffle Committee. Moreover, Judge Maddela was part of this committee as proven by his signature on the raffle minutes. 6
Judge Gonzales' Position
Judge Gonzales denied ordering the inclusion in the minutes of the raffle the particular statement that Judge Maddela did not attend the raffle although he was absent at the time of the raffle as relayed by Judge Maddela's Branch Clerk of Court. He also explained that even if delegation of any function by any member of the Raffle Committee is prohibited in accordance with A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, Judge Gonzales was lenient enough to allow Judge Maddela to be represented by his staff on the Raffle held on October 11, 2012 due to necessity because of the unavailability of the other members of the Raffle Committee in order not to stifle the proceedings. 7
Aside from the dismissal of the complaint against him, Judge Gonzales charged Judge Maddela with gross ignorance of the law after he allegedly dismissed Criminal Case Nos. 588-12, 589-12 and 590-12 on the basis of a mere affidavit of desistance of the private complainant therein, who was not even presented on the witness stand. 8
Judge Maddela's Position
On February 5, 2013, in his Reply to Judge Gonzales' Comment dated January 18, 2013, Judge Maddela claimed that Judge Gonzales rigged the raffling of the cases as the latter was interested in the three aforementioned criminal cases that he assigned to his own sala without the benefit of raffle. With undue haste, Judge Gonzales issued an Order dated October 4, 2012 arresting all the accused even though the court has yet to acquire jurisdiction over the cases since according to the records, the Information in these cases were received by the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC), MTCC, Olongapo City on October 9, 2012. In addition, Judge Maddela alleged that Judge Gonzales ordered the stamping of the date "October 4, 2012" on the Information in Criminal Case No. 589-12 to make it appear that it was regularly raffled and that the arrest warrants were issued lawfully after having acquired jurisdiction over the cases. 9
Judge Maddela likewise reiterated that he did not sign the Minutes of the Raffle dated October 11, 2012 because of the questionable assignment of the criminal cases without raffle to Judge Gonzales. 10
In his Comment dated May 24, 2013, Judge Gonzales adopted his Letter-Comment dated January 18, 2013 as his comment on Judge Maddela's Reply dated February 5, 2013. 11
Report and Recommendation of
In his Report and Recommendation, 12 Investigating Judge Richard A. Paradeza (Investigating Judge Paradeza) of the Regional Trial Court, Olongapo City recommended that both administrative cases, OCA I.P.I. No. 13-2589-MTJ and OCA I.P.I. No. 16-2829-MTJ, be dismissed for lack of substantial evidence, the quantum of proof required in administrative cases, for the reason that neither party presented testimonial evidence to support their respective assertions. 13
The Report and Recommendation dated August 1, 2016 of Investigating Judge Paradeza was referred to the OCA in a Resolution by the Supreme Court (Second Division) dated November 7, 2016. On March 27, 2017, the OCA issued a Memorandum 14 which recommended the following:
1. [T]he instant administrative complaints be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter;
2. [I]n OCA I.P.I. No. 13-2589-MTJ, respondent Executive Judge Jacinto C. Gonzales, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Olongapo City, Zambales, be found GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of authority, and be meted the penalty of SUSPENSION for three (3) months without pay, with STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or any similar act shall be dealt with more severely;
3. Investigating Judge Richard A. Paradeza be DIRECTED to submit to this Office copies of pertinent records of Criminal Case Nos. 588-12, 589-12, and 590-12, particularly the transcript of stenographic notes of the hearing conducted on 13 December 2012 within five (5) days from notice; and
4. [T]he resolution of OCA I.P.I. No. 16-2829-MTJ be HELD IN ABEYANCE pending the compliance of Investigating Judge Paradeza with the above directive.
Respectfully submitted.
27 March 2017[.] 15
Hence, the case was transmitted to this Court for review.
During the pendency of the case, however, the Court was informed of Judge Gonzales' untimely demise through the letter of his widow dated March 15, 2019. 16
We hold that the death of Judge Gonzales during the pendency of the case extinguishes altogether the liability and penalty that may be imposed on him. An erring judge's mistakes should not unduly punish his heirs who had no knowledge or involvement in the alleged wrongful act. The liability, being personal, should be extinguished by reason of Judge Gonzales' death and should no longer be imposed on the benefits due to his heirs.
Here, Emma Octavia Avila Gonzales, the widow of the late Judge Gonzales, brought to the attention of the court the fact that their family incurred financial losses due to Judge Gonzales' lingering illness and eventual death. Their savings have been depleted as they paid for Judge Gonzales' medical and burial expenses. They have resorted to borrowing money to pay for their daily expenses, with the promise that they will pay their creditors as soon as Judge Gonzales' benefits are released. 17
In view of the circumstances of this case and for humanitarian considerations, the Court hereby dismisses the case against Judge Gonzales.
As for A.M. No. MTJ-20-1937 (OCA I.P.I. No. 16-2829-MTJ) involving the allegation of Judge Gonzales that Judge Maddela dismissed Criminal Case Nos. 588-12, 589-12 and 590-12 based on the affidavit of desistance of the offended party without presenting to the witness stand the offended party, we rule that it be also dismissed based on insufficiency of evidence.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. A.M. No. MTJ-17-1901 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 13-2589-MTJ), filed against the late Executive Judge Jacinto C. Gonzales, of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Olongapo City is DISMISSED due to his death during the pendency of the case.
2. A.M. No. MTJ-20-1937 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 16-2829-MTJ), filed against Presiding Judge Tomas Eduardo B. Maddela III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 5, Olongapo City is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
The Office of the Court Administrator is hereby ORDERED to PROCEED with the processing and release of Judge Gonzales' benefits, unless there are other lawful causes for withholding them.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo (A.M. No. MTJ-17-1901), pp. 7-8.
2. Rollo (A.M. No. MTJ-20-1937), pp. 2-7.
3. Rollo (A.M. No. MTJ-17-1901), p. 143.
4. Id.
5. Id. at 144.
6. Id.
7. Id.
8. Id.
9. Id. at 144-145.
10. Id. at 145.
11. Id.
12. Id. at 134-141.
13. Id. at 141.
14. Id. at 143-149.
15. Id. at 149.
16. Rollo (A.M. No. MTJ-17-1901), p. 154.
17. Id.