THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. RTJ-18-2532. September 17, 2018.][Formerly OCA IPI No. 15-4446-RTJ]
PRESIDING JUDGE MARY JOCYLEN G. REGENCIA, complainant, vs.PRESIDING JUDGE HERMES B. MONTERO,respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 17, 2018, which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. RTJ-18-2532 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 15-4446-RTJ] (PRESIDING JUDGE MARY JOCYLEN G. REGENCIA, complainant v. PRESIDING JUDGE HERMES B. MONTERO, respondent). — Proceedings against members of the judiciary are private and confidential. Members of the judiciary, especially judges, should be mindful of their duty to observe and maintain the confidentiality of any administrative proceeding against fellow judges.
This Administrative Complaint arose from a March 29, 2006 Judgment 1 in an unlawful detainer case decided by Judge Jocylen 2 G. Regencia (Judge Regencia) as Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge of Asturias-Balamban, Cebu. The case was entitled "Milagros Peñaranda, et al. v. Bienvenida Manabat, et al.," and was docketed as Civil Case No. 254-B.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 59, Toledo City, acting as an appellate court, affirmed the lower court's ruling in the February 1, 2010 Decision 3 penned by Judge Hermes B. Montero (Judge Montero). The prevailing party then moved for the issuance of a writ of execution. 4
On April 23, 2010, Judge Montero issued an Omnibus Order, 5 granting the Motion for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution and directing the Municipal Circuit Trial Court to issue a writ of execution.
In a July 28, 2011 Order, 6 Judge Montero directed Judge Regencia to explain in writing why she failed to issue a writ of execution despite an order for her to do so. He also recommended that the Office of the Court Administrator investigate her:
Accordingly, Judge Mary Jocylen G. Regencia of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Asturias-Balamban is hereby directed to comply with the Omnibus Order dated April 23, 2010 — for the issuance of the writ of execution — and, in addition, she is likewise directed to explain or answer in writing within five (5) days from receipt hereof, the following questions:
(1) why she failed to comply (sic) with the Omnibus Order dated April 23, 2010?;
(2) why she conducted a "hearing" (sic) after the Municipal Circuit Trial Court had lost jurisdiction over the case?;
(3) why she returned (sic) the record to this Court, for the issuance of Entry of Judgment . . ., thereby arrogating to herself an "authority" over the Regional Trial Court?; and SCaITA
(4) why did she unreasonably delay the speedy disposition of the case, when the record was received by the Municipal Circuit Trial Court on May 14, 2010 yet?. (sic)
It is respectfully recommended to the Honorable Court Administrator, Supreme Court, Manila, that Judge Mary Jocylen G. Regencia be administratively investigated on this matter. 7
The July 28, 2011 Order was also sent to the litigants of the unlawful detainer case. 8
The Office of the Court Administrator investigated the Administrative Complaint against Judge Regencia and directed her to file a comment. 9
Judge Regencia filed her Comment 10 dated December 5, 2011, the pertinent portions of which included questions on the propriety of the Order issued by Judge Montero, which she claimed had been intended to humiliate her. 11
In its April 6, 2015 Resolution, 12 this Court dismissed the Administrative Complaint against Judge Regencia for lack of merit, but treated her Comment as another administrative complaint, this time against Judge Montero. Judge Montero was then directed to comment on the Administrative Complaint against him. 13
In his Comment, 14 Judge Montero alleged that there was no sufficient evidence provided to support the allegation that he encouraged other lawyers to malign Judge Regencia. 15 He maintained that the Order was not meant to humiliate her, 16 but was only a response to a "blatant defiance, disrespect, and gross insubordination by a lower court to an order of a higher court." 17
On February 1, 2018, 18 the Office of the Court Administrator found that Judge Montero violated Supreme Court rules and directives on the confidentiality of administrative proceedings:
Nonetheless, this Office finds that the Order dated 28 July 2011 of respondent Judge Montero is improper inasmuch as he virtually announced to the public the alleged infractions committed by complainant Judge Regencia. Considering that he was the Executive Judge of the RTC, Toledo City, Cebu, at the time, he could have called complainant Judge Regencia, whose court was under his jurisdiction, for a private conference to thresh out the matter regarding the propriety of issuing the writ of execution. Or better yet, he could have issued a memorandum directing her to explain in writing her alleged failure to comply with the Omnibus Order dated 23 April 2010.
. . . By incorporating his charges against complainant [Judge] Regencia in his Order dated 28 July 2011, respondent Judge Montero exposed complainant Judge Regencia to public disdain and humiliation and he wittingly or unwittingly violated the rule on confidentiality of administrative proceedings. At this point, respondent Judge Montero must be reminded of the rule that administrative proceedings against judges must be kept strictly private and confidential. 19
Since it was Judge Montero's first time to be sanctioned administratively, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended that he be merely reprimanded with a warning that a repetition of the offense would merit a severe sanction: 20
RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended for the consideration of the Honorable Court that:
1. the instant administrative case be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter; and aTHCSE
2. respondent Presiding Judge Hermes B. Montero, Branch 59, Regional Trial Court, Toledo City, Cebu, be found GUILTY of violating Supreme Court rules and directives and be REPRIMANDED with WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will merit a severe sanction. 21 (Emphasis in the original)
For resolution is the sole issue of whether or not disciplinary sanctions should be imposed on respondent Presiding Judge Hermes B. Montero for violating Rule 140, Section 12 of the Revised Rules of Court regarding the confidentiality of administrative proceedings against members of the judiciary.
Rule 140, Section 12 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that administrative proceedings against members of the judiciary shall be private and confidential:
SECTION 12. Confidentiality of proceedings. — Proceedings against Judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan shall be private and confidential, but a copy of the decision or resolution of the Court shall be attached to the record of the respondent in the Office of the Court Administrator.
Here, respondent violated the privacy and confidentiality of administrative proceedings when he issued the July 28, 2011 Order — directing complainant to explain her failure to issue a writ of execution — and had its copies furnished to the litigants in the unlawful detainer case.
The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary mandates that the behavior and conduct of judges should affirm the people's faith in the judiciary's integrity: 22
CANON 2
Integrity
xxx xxx xxx
SECTION 2. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the people's faith in the integrity of the Judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but must also be seen to be done.
Furthermore, Canon 3, Section 2 directs that judges must ensure that their public and private conduct would enhance "the confidence of the public, the legal profession[,] and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the judiciary."
When respondent dealt with complainant's perceived insubordination by issuing an Order and furnishing copies of it to the litigants, other parties not connected to the administrative matter were dragged as spectators. This publicized what should have been confidential and unfairly subjected complainant to insinuations of impropriety. Instead of engaging in a public tirade against complainant, respondent should have acted circumspectly and dealt with the situation privately.
A violation of the Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars is classified as a less serious charge. 23 Under Rule 140, Section 11 of the Revised Rules of Court, a person guilty of a less serious charge shall be suspended from office without salary and other benefits for a period not less than one (1) month but not more than three (3) months, 24 or a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00. 25
Nonetheless, this Court has the "discretion to temper the harshness of its judgment with mercy." 26 Without proof that respondent's Order was tainted with bad faith or malice, and since it was his first time to commit such an offense, a reprimand is a just and reasonable penalty. 27
WHEREFORE, this Court finds respondent Presiding Judge Hermes B. Montero of Branch 59, Regional Trial Court of Toledo City, Cebu GUILTY of violating Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars. He is REPRIMANDED with WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will merit a severe sanction. cAaDHT
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 78-94.
2. In the Judgment, Judge Regencia's first name was spelled as "Jocelyn."
3.Rollo, pp. 69-71.
4.Id. at 34-35.
5.Id. at 32-33.
6.Id. at 129-134.
7.Id. at 133-134.
8.Id. at 134.
9.Id. at 137 and 140.
10.Id. at 1-18.
11.Id. at 16.
12.Id. at 110-111.
13.Id.
14.Id. at 113-128.
15.Id. at 120-121.
16.Id. at 121-122.
17.Id. at 122.
18.Id. at 137-145.
19.Id. at 143-144.
20.Id. at 144.
21.Id. at 144-145.
22. NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC, Canon 2, sec. 2.
23. RULES OF COURT, Rule 140, sec. 9 (4).
24. RULES OF COURT, Rule 140, sec. 11 (B) (1).
25. RULES OF COURT, Rule 140, sec. 11 (B) (2).
26.Reyes-Macabeo v. Valle, 448 Phil. 583, 590 (2003) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
27.Judge Navarro v. Judge Tormis, 471 Phil. 876, 886 (2004) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Second Division].