Pedraja v. Natividad

THIRD DIVISION

[A.M. No. MTJ-03-1495. November 25, 2020.][Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 00-924-MTJ]

CELERINA Z. PEDRAJA, complainant, vs.JUDGE JOSE ARTURO R. NATIVIDAD, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 25, 2020, which reads as follows:

"A.M. No. MTJ-03-1495 [Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 00-924-MTJ] (Celerina Z. Pedraja v. Judge Jose Arturo R. Natividad). — For the Court's consideration is a Letter (Plea for Judicial Clemency) 1 filed by Jose Arturo R. Natividad (respondent), former Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Cainta, Rizal seeking to lift the ban against his re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned, or controlled corporations.

In a Resolution 2 dated October 15, 2008, the Court found respondent guilty of immorality, for maintaining an illicit relationship with Elizabeth F. Perez de Tagle (de Tagle), a complainant in a criminal case involving a violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 which was pending in his sala.

The Court gave merit to the Letter-Complaint 3 against respondent which was filed by Celerina Z. Pedraja (complainant), who was the accused in the aforementioned criminal case. The Court refused to give credence to the Affidavit of Repudiation 4 allegedly executed by complainant and ruled that the complaint of the latter was supported by photos of respondent and de Tagle which showed that the relationship between the two was more than casual and that respondent acted inappropriately. Aside from the letter complaint, the investigation conducted by the Court likewise revealed that the former spouse of de Tagle was aware of the illicit relations of his wife with respondent and that it was even public knowledge among the employees of respondent. Nevertheless, considering his filing of a certificate of candidacy for representative m Taguig-Pateros during the pendency of the administrative complaint, he was considered as separated from service and was sanctioned as a member of the bar. The dispositive portion of the subject Resolution 5 reads:

WHEREFORE, in view of our aforestated finding that Judge Natividad is GUILTY of immorality which would have warranted his dismissal from the service had he not been considered separated from the service by virtue of his filing his candidacy for an elective position during the pendency of the administrative case against him, the Court, consistent with the penalties imposed in Zarate and Naval, hereby orders (1) the FORFEITURE of all his benefits except accrued leaves; and (2) the DISQUALIFICATION of Judge Jose Arturo R. Natividad from reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporation.

SO ORDERED. 6

Thereafter, both parties filed their respective Motions for Reconsideration 7 which the Court denied with finality in a Resolution 8 dated April 7, 2010.

On May 23, 2018, or almost eight years after the verdict against him, respondent filed the instant Letter 9 alleging that he had accepted his fate, with deep remorse for his acts of indiscretion and endeavored to mend his ways and morally reform. He avers that he is now devoted to a bible-based spiritual ministry, apart from his active practice of his Catholic/Christian faith; that he has made amends with his former spouse, who has since remarried; and that his focus is now on his children, who, according to him, have all become responsible, God-fearing, and productive members of society. Furthermore, he subscribes that he has embraced the ignominy of his dismissal from service for immorality and as he approached the later years of his professional life, he wishes to be given the opportunity to go back to government service, with an undertaking that he would never again involve himself with any person in any manner that may compromise his integrity and character. Lastly, he views his plea for mercy and compassion as a chance to make his "healing" complete.

The matter was then referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluation, report, and recommendation. 10 On July 19, 2020, the OCA, through a Memorandum 11 recommended the denial of the appeal for judicial clemency for lack of merit.

Ruling of the Court

The Court denies the plea for judicial clemency of respondent.

Judicial clemency is an act of mercy removing any disqualification from the erring official. It is not a privilege or a right that can be availed of at any time. The Court will only grant it in meritorious cases. Proof of reformation and a showing of potential and promise are considered as indispensable requirements to the grant of judicial clemency. 12

In Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, MTC-QC, Br. 37, Appealing for Clemency, 13 the Court laid down the following guidelines in resolving a request for judicial clemency, viz.:

1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall include but should not be limited to certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, judges or judges associations and prominent members of the community with proven integrity and probity. A subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case for the same or similar misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of non-reformation.

2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of reformation.

3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has productive years ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself.

4. There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning or legal acumen or contribution to legal scholarship and the development of the legal system or administrative and other relevant skills), as well as potential for public service.

5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify clemency. (Citations omitted) 14

In the same manner, to be reinstated to the practice of law, an applicant must, like any other candidate for admission to the bar, satisfy the Court that he or she is a person of good moral character. 15

Applying the foregoing standards to this case, the Court finds no merit in respondent's plea for his exemption for further service of the penalty imposed upon him. Apart from his own declarations, there is no other independent evidence or relevant circumstances presented to justify clemency. 16 While respondent does not question the penalty imposed against him, his letter for clemency was merely a one-page letter with no supporting documents such as certifications or testimonials from any officer or chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, judges, or judges associations, and prominent members of the community with proven integrity and probity. His letter is likewise not supported by any single proof of his professed repentance. His appeal for clemency is solely anchored on his avowed intention "to serve once more in government" for that chance to make his "healing complete" because he had "embraced the ignominy or dismissal from the service for immorality" for ten years and undertakes to never again be involved with any person in any manner that may compromise his integrity and character.

As correctly observed by the OCA, respondent has not demonstrated that he has, in any way, contributed to his community. 17 Although he claims that he has been remorseful for his actions, there is no strong indication that he has creditably reformed himself. It is incumbent upon respondent to prove in sufficient terms how he has effectively reformed himself, given his past transgression which tarnished the Court's image and reputation. 18 Respondent further failed to adduce evidence reflecting his promise and potential for public service. 19 There is no evidence presented to demonstrate his potential for public service or that he still has productive years ahead or him that can be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself. 20 It should be noted that proof of reformation and a showing of potential and promise are considered as indispensable requirements to the grant of judicial clemency. 21

Without a scintilla of doubt, respondent's plea of clemency does not sufficiently prove that he has already fully and effectively reformed himself after he was ordered disqualified to re-enter government service meriting the Court's liberality. Raising good and successful children, making amends with the estranged wife, and being an active member of a bible-based spiritual ministry do not necessarily show true repentance and reformation, especially when all the claims are unsupported, considering that what is at stake is the integrity of the judiciary.

Given that an act of mercy removing any disqualification should be balanced with the preservation of public confidence in the courts, it becomes more imperative to require factual support for respondent's allegations of remorse and reform. 22 This is not the first time that the Court has come down hard and wielded the rod of discipline against members of the judiciary who have fallen short of the exacting standards of judicial conduct to safeguard the integrity of the judiciary. A judge is the visible representation of the law and of justice; thus, he/she must: "comport himself[/herself] in a manner that his[/her] conduct must be free of a whiff of impropriety, not only with respect to the performance of his[/her] official duties[,] but also as to his[/her] behavior outside his[/her] sala and as a private individual. [The character of a judge] must be able to withstand the most searching public scrutiny because the ethical principles and sense of propriety of a judge are essential to the preservation of the people's faith in the judicial system."23

WHEREFORE, the Plea for Judicial Clemency of Jose Arturo R. Natividad is DENIED.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, p. 126.

2.Id. at 68-74.

3.Id. at 2-6.

4.Id. at 60-61.

5.Id. at 68-74.

6.Id. at 73.

7.Id. at 75-78; 79-81.

8.Id. at 116-117.

9.Id. at 126.

10.Id. at 136.

11.Id. at 139-140.

12.Id. at 140. See also Concerned Lawyers of Bulacan v. Judge Villalon-Pornillos, 805 Phil. 688, 691 (2017).

13. 560 Phil. 1 (2007).

14.Id. at 5-6.

15.Macarubbo v. Atty Macarubbo, 702 Phil. 1, 5 (2013), citing In Re: Atty. Tranquilino Rovero, 189 Phil. 605, 606 (1980).

16. See Mamasaw Sultan Ali v. Judge Pacalna, 722 Phil. 112, 116 (2013).

17.Rollo, p. 140.

18.Re: Deceitful Conduct of Ignacio S. Del Rosario, Cash Clerk III, Records and Miscellaneous Matter Section, Checks Disbursement Division, FMO-OCA, A.M. No. 2011-05-SC, June 19, 2018, 866 SCRA 425, 435.

19.Id.

20.Re: In the Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of Rolando S. Torres as a Member of the Philippine Bar, 813 Phil. 503, 509 (2017).

21.Re: Deceitful Conduct of Ignacio S. Del Rosario, Cash Clerk III, Records and Miscellaneous Matter Section, Checks Disbursement Division, FMO-OCA, supra note 17 at 433.

22.Mamasaw Sultan Ali v. Judge Pacalna, supra note 15 at 117.

23.Id.