EXCERPTS FROM A CITATION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE CASE AGAINST A JUDGE WHO TRIED TO MODIFY A LONG FINAL JUDGMENT

 O                    Marcos v. Judge Fernando Vil. Pamintuan   A.M. RTJ-07-2062, Jan 18, 2011 

            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.

o    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.

 

·         Judge Pamintuan was placed under preventive suspension pending resolution of the administrative case to stop him from committing further damage to the judiciary.

·         Judge Pamintuan moved for reconsideration and eventually filed a Motion for Early Resolution of Motion for Reconsideration and to Submit the Case for Decision.

·         Judge Pamintuan then sent a letter requesting for his backpay and benefits covering the period of his preventive suspension - denied for being premature and for lack of merit.

ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Pamintuan is guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law

HELD:  Judge Fernando Vil Pamintuan of the RTC of Baguio City, Branch 3, is DISMISSED from the service.

·         Judge Pamintuan should have realized that the trial court did not rule on that point that the Golden Buddha is fake in its May 30, 1996 Order (even in its September 2, 1996 Order)

·         Section 6, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct:

o    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.

·         The doctrine of immutability and unalterability 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
2. to put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors, which is precisely why courts exist

 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.

o    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. 

·         Judge Pamintuan was placed under preventive suspension pending resolution of the administrative case to stop him from committing further damage to the judiciary.

·         Judge Pamintuan moved for reconsideration and eventually filed a Motion for Early Resolution of Motion for Reconsideration and to Submit the Case for Decision.

·         Judge Pamintuan then sent a letter requesting for his backpay and benefits covering the period of his preventive suspension - denied for being premature and for lack of merit

ISSUE: W/N Judge Pamintuan is guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law

HELD:  Judge Fernando Vil Pamintuan of the RTC of Baguio City, Branch 3, is DISMISSED from the service

·         Judge Pamintuan should have realized that the trial court did not rule on that point that the Golden Buddha is fake in its May 30, 1996 Order (even in its September 2, 1996 Order)

·         Section 6, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct:

o    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.

·         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
2. to put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors, which is precisely why courts exist.

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.

 GENERAL MEMORANDUM FROM THE OFFICE OF THE ESTATE ADMINISTRATOR

DATE: OCTOBER 23, 2023

RE:      INDEFINITE SUSPENSION OF THE SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY ISSUED TO MESSRS.  JOANNA MARIE SALTORRE AND FLORGE A. RALLOS 

SEVERAL PERSONS WROTE LETTERS TO THE OFFICE OF THE COURT-APPOINTED ESTATE ADMINISTRATOR HENRY F. RODRIGUEZ THRU THE UNDERSIGNED, SEEKING CLARIFICATION IF THE ABOVE NAMED PERSONS WERE GIVEN AUTHORITY TO TRANSACT, NEGOTIATE AND RECEIVE MONEYS REGARDING PROPERTIES INCLUDED IN THE INVENTORY OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE HERMOGENES RODRIGUEZ 

WE HAVE CALLED THE ATTENTION THRU TEXT AND CHAT SEVERAL TIMES MR. FLORGE A. RALLOS AND HER PARTNER JOANNA MARIE SALTORRE BY ASKING THEM TO MEET UP WITH US TOGETHER WITH THE CONCERNED PERSONS TO CLARIFY THIS, BUT THEY HAVE CONTINUALLY DEFERRED MEETING US TOGETHER WITH THE PERSONS CONCERNED.  IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT TO PREVENT ANY FURTHER TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING THE TWO, WE ARE CONSTRAINED TO ACT IN THIS REGARD AS AFORESAID SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS ONLY MEANT TO BE USED TO SECURE CERTIFIED COPIES AND NOTHING MORE.  ANY ACTIONS MADE BY THE ABOVE NAMED PERSONS WITH ANY THIRD PARTIES ARE NOT SANCTIONED OR ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE ESTATE, AND THEREFORE ANY TRANSACTIONS MADE BY THESE TWO PERSONS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE ESTATE IN LIGHT OF THESE EVENTS.  

IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IN THE RTC ORDER DATED SEPTEMBER 8, 2000, THE HON. JUDGE BAGALACSA DECLARED THAT ANY CONVEYANCES AND AUTHORITY GIVEN TO ANYONE SHOULD BE DULY NOTED BY THE HONORABLE COURTS REGARDING THE INTESTATE PROCEEDINGS. ANY TRANSACTION OR AUTHORITY NOT NOTED ARE UNAUTHORIZED AND CANNOT BE GIVEN DUE COURSE, SUCH AS THE LIMITED AUTHORITY GIVEN TO THE ABOVE NAMED PERSONS.

IN ORDER TO PROTECT AND INSULATE THE ESTATE ADMINISTRATOR AND THE ESTATE FROM FURTHER ANY ACTS UNSANCTIONED ANY UNKNOWN TO THE ESTATE AND NOT DULY NOTED AND APPROVED BY THE COURTS BY THESE ABOVE NAMED PERSONS, WE ARE THEREFORE PUBLISHING THIS MEMORANDUM SUSPENDING THEIR SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY.  IF THEY WILL TRANSACT WITH ANYONE CONCERNED, WE HEREBY ADVISE ALL CONCERNED TO STOP ANYH TRANSACTION AND SEEK CLEARANCE FIRST WITH US BY POSTING COMMENTS IN THIS MEMORANDUM, TEXT AND/OR CALL THE UNDERSIGNED AT  MOBILE NUMBER 09172402893 SO WE CAN RESPOND IMMEDIATELY.

                                      

FROM THE OFFICE OF THE COURT-APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR

FOR HENRY F. RODRIGUEZ:

RENATO B. GOMEZ, DULY SUPREME COURT NOTED ATTY-IN-FACT OF THE ESTATE /MOBILE NO. 0917-2402893