JUDGE PAMINTUAN OF RTC BRANCH 3,
BAGUIO CITY DISMISSED FROM SERVICE FOR GROSS IGNORANCE OF LAW
VITAL EXCERPTS OF THE SUPREME COURT EN BANC
A.M. No. RTJ-07-2062
Per Curiam:
The judiciary cannot keep those who cannot meet the exacting
standards of judicial conduct and integrity. This being so, in the performance
of the functions of their office, judges must endeavor to act in a manner that
puts them and their conduct above reproach and beyond suspicion. They
must act with extreme care for their office indeed is burdened with a heavy
load of responsibility.
XXX
From
the records, it appears that on November 15, 2006, Marcos filed a complaint-affidavit charging Judge
Pamintuan with Gross Ignorance of the Law for reversing motu proprio the final and executory order of then Acting Presiding
Judge Antonio Reyes (Judge Reyes) dated May 30, 1996 (and modified in
the September 2, 1996 order), in Civil Case No. 3383-R, entitled “Albert D.
Umali, in his capacity as the exclusive administrator and as President of the
Treasure Hunters Association of the Philippines v. Jose D. Roxas, et al.”
XXX
Marcos
averred that the act of Judge Pamintuan in reversing a final and executory
order constituted gross ignorance of the law.
In her complaint, citing A.M. No. 93-7-696-0, she argued that final and
executory judgments of lower courts were not reviewable even by the Supreme
Court. Judge Pamintuan reversed a final
and executory order not upon the instance of any of the parties in Civil Case
No. 3383-R but motu proprio. He
even failed to indicate where he obtained the information that the Golden
Buddha sitting in his sala was a “mere replica.” Marcos claimed that his order was in conflict
with Rule 36 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure which provides that a
judgment or final order shall state “clearly and distinctly the facts and the
law on which it (his order) is based xxx.”
In its Report, dated June 29, 2007,
the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that Judge
Pamintuan be dismissed from the service with the additional penalty of
forfeiture of all his retirement benefits and disqualification from
re-employment in the government service, including government owned or
controlled corporations, for Gross Ignorance of the Law and for “violation of
Canon 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.”
The OCA pointed out that:
As
held, execution is the fruit and end of the suit and is the life of the
law. A judgment, if left unexecuted,
would be nothing but an empty victory for the prevailing party. Bearing
this in mind, respondent issued the questioned Order dated August 15, 2006, the
pertinent text of which reads:
Despite
said Order which was issued almost ten (10) years ago, the estate of the late
Rogelio Roxas has not taken possession of the Buddha Statuette or the Buddha
replica from the Court, thus, this incumbent Presiding Judge, seeing the necessity of finally disposing of
the Buddha Statuette physically, and finding out the present statue of the late
Rogelio Roxas, ordered the hearing on June 29, 2006. (Italics supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
WHEREFORE, in accordance with the final and executory Order
of this Court dated September 2, 1996, the Buddha Statuette or Buddha replica
is awarded to the estate of Rogelio Roxas.
However, the Buddha Statuette or Buddha replica shall be under custodia
legis until the final settlement of the estate of the late Rogelio Roxas, or
upon the appointment of his estate’s administrator.
Clearly, the questioned Order
conforms to the directive of the Court in its previous Order dated May 30,
1996, which provides:
It is further ORDERED that the Buddha
Statuette in custody of this Court be immediately RELEASED to the children of
the late Rogelio Roxas, namely, Henry Roxas and Gervic Roxas and to the
decedent’s brother, Jose Roxas, IN TRUST FOR the estate of the late Rogelio
Roxas.
XXX
And modified in an Order dated
September 2, 1996, which reads:
“WHEREFORE, the
Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Solicitor General is DENIED. The Order of this Court on May 30, 1996
remains insofar as the Buddha statuette is awarded to the state of the late
Rogelio Roxas and is at the same time MODIFIED in the sense that the Buddha
statuette shall be under the custodia legis until the final settlement of the
estate of the late Rogelio Roxas or upon the appointment of his estate’s
administrator.”
x
x x x x x x x x
A
normal course of proceedings would have been that respondent Judge waits for
the proper party to go to court to ask for the release of the Buddha statuette.
x x x.
However,
respondent was being overzealous when he ruled that the Golden Buddha in its
custody is a “fake one, or a mere replica.”
Notwithstanding that the same may be his’ and the litigants’ opinion
during the hearing of June 29, 2006. (sic)
He should have borne in mind that
there were no issues nor controversies left for consideration (in Civil Case No.
3383-R).
It must be noted that the Order dated May 30, 1996 (and modified on September 2, 1996) has become final and executory. Hence, issues have been settled and the
matter laid to rest. As repeatedly ruled
by this Court, a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and
unalterable. A final judgment may no
longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct
erroneous conclusions of fact or law.
Should judgment of lower courts – which may normally be subject to
review by higher tribunals – become final and executory before, or without
exhaustion of all recourse of appeal, they too become inviolable, impervious to
modification. They may, then, no longer
be reviewed, or in any way modified directly or indirectly, by a higher court,
not even by Supreme Court, much less by any other official, branch or
department of government.
It is inexcusable for respondent Judge
to have overlooked such an elementary legal principle.”
XXX
After
a thorough study of the case, the Court (Supreme Court) agrees with the
evaluation and recommendation of the OCA.
Doubtless, the May 30, 1996 Order,
which was modified on September 2, 1996, in Civil Case No. 3383-R, has long
become final and executory. In his
assailed August 15, 2006 Order, Judge Pamintuan made express declarations that
were not embodied either in the May 30, 1996 Order or in the September 2, 1996
Order.
SECTION 6. Judges, like any other citizen, are entitled to freedom of
expression, belief, association and assembly, but
in exercising such rights, they shall always conduct themselves in such manner
as to preserve the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and
independence of the judiciary.
Judge Pamintuan indeed made a
serious error in making such a pronouncement in the challenged order.
It is axiomatic that when a judgment is final and executory,
it becomes immutable and unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any
respect either by the court which rendered it or even by this Court. The
doctrine of immutability and inalterability of a final judgment has a two-fold
purpose, to wit: (1) to avoid delay
in the administration of justice and thus, procedurally, to make orderly the
discharge of judicial business; and (2)
to put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors,
which is precisely why courts exist. Controversies cannot drag on indefinitely.
It is inexcusable for Judge Pamintuan to have overlooked
such basic legal principle no matter how noble his objectives were at that
time. Judges owe it to the public to be well-informed, thus, they are expected
to be familiar with the statutes and procedural rules at all
times. When the law is so elementary, not to know it or to act as if
one does not know it, constitutes gross ignorance of the law.
The Court agrees with the view of OCA that Judge Pamintuan
manifested gross ignorance of the law in issuing the questioned August 15, 2006
Order. Verily, he failed to conform to the high standards of competence
required of judges under the Code of Judicial Conduct, which provides that:
Rule 1.01 - A
judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence.
Rule 3.01 - A judge shall x x x maintain professional
competence.
Competence
is a mark of a good judge. When a judge
exhibits an utter lack of know-how with the rules or with settled
jurisprudence, he erodes the public’s confidence in the competence of our
courts. It is highly crucial that judges be acquainted with the law and basic
legal principles. Ignorance of the law, which everyone is bound to know,
excuses no one - not even judges.
WRITER'S NOTE: IT IS THE PERSONAL OPINION OF THIS WRITER THAT THIS CASE CITATION IS LIKE OR VERY SIMILAR TO THE ACTIONS THAT WERE TAKEN BY THE PREVIOUS JUDGE WHO ISSUED THE FEBRUARY 21, 2007 ORDER OF THE RTC COURT BRANCH 34, IRIGA CITY, IN THE RODRIGUEZ INTESTATE CASE, WHEN SHE USED AS BASIS AN ERRONEOUS COURT OF APPEALS DECISION WHICH HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE RTC CASE, AND IN THE ISSUANCE OF SUCH ORDER, REVERSED AND MODIFIED AN ALREADY LONG FINAL AND EXECUTORY "AMENDED DECISION" WHICH WAS ALREADY UPHELD IN AT LEAST TWO SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS WITH ENTRY OF JUDGMENTS BY THE TIME THE COURT OF APPEALS ISSUED A RESOLUTION OF ITS OWN NULLIFYING THE SAID AMENDED DECISION. PROOF OF THIS IS THE DECEMBER 4, 2009 SUPREME COURT DECISION IN G.R. No.182645 WHICH NULLIFIED THE AFORESAID FEBRUARY 21, 2007 RTC ORDER AND THE COURT OF APPEALS RESOLUTION. - rbg54
.tif)
No comments:
Post a Comment