Source: ÌÀÍ·Ìõ
This page was dynamically generated
by the ÌÀÍ·Ìõ Content Management System (E-LibCMS)
CAGUIOA, J.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Judge Ofelia T. Pinto, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 60, Angeles City, Pampanga, is found GUILTY of Gross Ignorance of the Law and is hereby DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reÂemployment in any branch, agency or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.In imposing the extreme penalty of dismissal from service, the Court held that respondent had no jurisdiction to entertain the motion filed by the accused-movant to reopen Criminal Case No. 91-937 because the CA's decision, which affirmed the accused-movant's conviction, had become final and executory. Respondent's conduct was contrary to the clear language of Section 24,[9] Rule 119 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides that the reopening of a criminal case may only be availed of "at any time before finality of the judgment of conviction[.]"[10] The motion to reopen Criminal Case-No. 91-937 was therefore not the proper procedural recourse and respondent's action was violative of the doctrine of finality of judgments. Even granting that there was an available procedural remedy to question the final decision of the CA, such procedural recourse was beyond the scope of respondent's judicial authority. The matter of the accused-movant's denial of due process, as the case may be, should have been brought up to the CA or with this Court in an appropriate petition.
SO ORDERED.[8]
This Office has reexamined former Judge Pinto's case and notes certain circumstances that can be considered in her petition for judicial clemency.
First, almost ten (10) years have lapsed since the imposition of the penalty against former Judge Pinto. She has displayed remorse and she has been active in social and religious activities in her community. There are certificates vouching her good reputation in the community[,] as well as various certificates of recognition and appreciation[, which] were issued to acknowledge her active membership and participation in the different socio[-]civic organizations. Second, she does not question the decision dismissing her from the service for gross ignorance of the law. In fact, she admitted her mistake and claimed to have learned her lesson. She assures that she will avoid all appearance of impropriety[,] especially those that create unlawful motive. Third, she has no pending criminal and/or civil case filed against her. Lastly, due to old age, she is suffering from various illnesses that require medical treatment which she cannot afford due to poverty caused by her unemployment and dismissal with forfeiture of retirement benefits.
Although former Judge Pinto had already reached her retirement age and is no longer eligible for regular employment, she can still be of service in some other way in the community[,] considering not only her legal knowledge[,] but also her expertise as a member of the Bench.
In view of the aforementioned circumstances, former Judge Pinto's repentance for what she did and the substantial compliance by her with the guidelines set for the grant of clemency, her plea for clemency merits compassion from the Court.[35]
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.The Court explained in In Re: Ong that the main impetus to refine the foregoing guidelines was the necessity to curb the subjectivity of dealing with clemency petitions, and to institutionalize a more uniform standard and more objective fact-finding process in resolving clemency petitions.[38]
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. x x x[37]
On 15 June 2022, in San Isidro Labrador Parish, Rev. Fr. Justiniano recounts that former Judge Pinto has been an active member of the different church organizations in St. Joseph the Worker Parish even before she was still in the judiciary. She was involved in all the programs, activities and events of the parish. In fact, she was consistently voted as President of the Parish Pastoral Council since 2013 up to the present.Verily, the fact-finding check of the OCA negates any notion that respondent's affirmation of remorse and reformation in her petition was merely self-serving. The supporting documents respondent attached to her petition consisting of testimonials of individuals attesting to her character and the alleged certifications of recognition and appreciation of her service were also shown not to be merely pro-forma.
On 15 June 2022, the team interviewed Ret. Judge Rolando Bulan, Chairman of Barangay Pandayan, who also issued a certificate vouching Judge Pinto's reputation in the community. He claims that he intends to appoint former Judge Pinto to lead the Barangay Justice Council because he believes that as a former judge, she is the most qualified person to execute the powers and obligations of the barangay justice council. x x x
x x x x
Paz S. Nisperos, as the President of St. Francis Village Phase II A&B Homeowners Association Inc. (SFV 2 HAI) of Pandayan-Malhacan, Meycauayan City, confirms that on 1 August 2019, she issued a Certification that former Judge Ofelia T. Pinto is a bonafide member of St. Francis Village 2 Homeowners Association, Inc[.] (SFV 2 HAI) of Brgy. Pandayan-Malhacan, Meycauayan City, since its inception and that Judge Pinto is a person of good moral character and of good standing in the community. She renders free legal services not only to the members but to the people of the community. Judge Pinto likewise is dependable, fair in her dealings and can be trusted upon on any tasks assigned to her. She is presently one of the Advisers and the COMELEC Chair of the Association, the positions she h[o]lds for three (3) consecutive terms (7 years). She deemed Judge Pinto as an asset of the Association.
On 19 October 2013, SFV 2 HAI awarded Judge Ofelia T. Pinto a Certificate of Recognition in grateful recognition of her whole-hearted support, cooperation and valuable contributions rendered to SFV 2 HAI and the Community in 2011-2013.
During the brief interview, Mrs. Nisperos claims that up to this date, the Homeowners Association and its members still goes to her for legal advice on several issues including but not limited to matters concerning election of officers.
x x x x
Judge Pinto also serves as the Legal Adviser of the Kapisanan [ng Flores de Maria]. She claims that Judge Pinto is trustworthy, dependable and reliable and that she helps in any way she can to achieve the goals of the Kapisanan until this date.
x x x x
Susan Isorena as the Vice President of Confradia ni San Jose (CONSAJOS), an organization of St. Joseph the Worker Parish, confirms the issuance of the Certificate dated 1 August 2019, that former JUDGE OFELIA T. PINTO is a member of good standing in the community. She is the President of Confradia ni San Jose (CONSAJOS) since 2015 up to the present. Judge Pinto is an active officer of the organization having led to successful completion [of] every project that the organization had taken and continues to embark. She also acts as the legal adviser and takes care of the legal problems of the organization for free. Judge Pinto is trustworthy, hardworking, kind, helpful and dependable, and a person of integrity and is morally upright.
x x x x
Sis. Erlinda D. Lunaria, as the president of Our Lady of the Holy Rosary Sub-Parish Pastoral Council (OLHR-SPPC), confirms that on 27 July 2019, she certifies that she personally know[s] Sis. Judge Ofelia T. Pinto and she vouched that she is a member in good standing – morally and spiritually – of the Parish of St. Joseph the Worker. She is her coÂworker at the parish, having been involved in the running of the parish community and church affairs for more than 10 years now. She is at present the Vice Chairman of the SJWP Parish Pastoral Council, next to their parish priest, Rev. Fr. Benito B. Justiniano.
She is a regular supporter – in terms of leadership and financial – of the sub-parish, the Our Lady of the Holy Rosary of Metrogate Complex, Pandayan, City of Meycauayan, Bulacan.
x x x x
Lydia B. Miguel[,] as the President of Basic Ecclesial Community (BEC) confirms that on 1 August 2019, she certifies that former Judge Ofelia Pinto is a member of good standing in the organization x x x, which is an organization under their Parish, the St. Joseph the Worker Parish of Barangay Pandayan, Meycauayan City.
Judge Pinto is the adviser of the BEC and she is dependable, hardworking, trustworthy, and a person of integrity. She attends to the legal needs of their members all for free as it was her advocacy to render free legal service to the people in the community. Actually, she has been doing this since she passed the Bar Examination in 1977.
The BEC members can vouch for Judge Pinto's good moral character.
x x x x
Jose M. Concha, as the President of Barangay Pandayan Citizens Alliance Inc., confirms that on 14 August 2019, he certif[ied] that former Judge OFELIA T. PINTO is of good moral character, religious and presently the Legal Adviser of Barangay Pandayan Senior Citizen Alliance Inc., Pandayan Chapter, Meycauayan City.
x x x x
Girlie Patricia D. Agustin, the Head of St. Joseph the Worker Commission on Social Action, confirms that the organization issued a Certificate of Recognition dated 7 December 2013, certifying former Judge Pinto's service to the Church, untiring dedication, sacrifice and faithful exercise of her gifts.
x x x x
At present, former Judge Pinto is still an active Rotarian. On 23 June 2022, the team interviewed Dr. Helen Ocampo, present president of the Rotary Club Gold of Meycauayan Bulacan, who confirmed former Judge Pinto's active membership and participation in the club's activities and programs despite her advance[d] age and health status. x x x[56]
Nine (9) years without source of income and, therefore, without savings, had left her unprepared to meet the COVID-19 pandemic.Indeed, the Court is inclined to extend its mercy to an errant member of the Bench and the Bar when warranted. In Re: Letter of Mrs. Ma. Cristina Raco Corona Requesting the Grant of Retirement and other Benefits to the Late Former Chief Justice Renato C. Corona and her Claim for Survivorship Pension as his Wife under Republic Act No. 9946,[58] the Court observed the instances when the Court granted clemency to judges based on humanitarian reasons, thus:
Those relatives and friends who, previously, had been giving her loans and dole-outs, are also suffering financially and have nothing more to spare.
Undersigned and her paralytic husband are now left to fend for themselves and can barely tide over, to eat three times daily.
Left to their own, as their three (3) children also have no sufficient source of livelihood, she and her husband could not anymore buy the medicines they need, to ease their respective illnesses.
Undersigned, who is 75 years old now, is suffering from Type II diabetes mellitus and hypertension, while her husband continues to be dependent on his wheelchair and could not do things on his own. A regular intake of medicine is supposed to be done, by those with illnesses like theirs, but they have to endure physical pain because they have no resources to buy medicine.[57]
In Talens-Dabon v. Arceo, the Court dismissed Judge Arceo from service in 1996 for committing lewd and lustful acts against complainant Atty. Jocelyn Talens-Dabon. His acts constituted gross misconduct and immorality prejudicial to the best interest of the service and he was convicted therefor by the Sandiganbayan in 2004 for violation of the AntiÂ-Sexual Harassment Law and Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code. In 2012, having been released on probation and upon showing remorse and good conduct, Judge Arceo was granted judicial clemency, restoring his eligibility for re-employment in the government and allowing the release of his accrued leave credits.On January 19, 2021, the Court likewise favorably ruled on the petition for judicial clemency of former Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Gregory S. Ong in In Re: Ong, albeit partially, upon his demonstration of remorse and reformation, along with his dire state. This is, in fact, the case that prompted respondent to seek the Court's clemency the third time through the present petition. The Court in said case granted respondent Ong's retirement benefits, but forfeited 2/3 of his lump sum benefit as penalty. The Court likewise lifted his disqualification from reemployment in any branch, agency, or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.[60]
In Sabitsana, Jr. v. Villamor, Judge Villamor was found guilty of making untruthful statements in his Certificates of Service, of inexcusable negligence and gross inefficiency, and of serious misconduct for undue interest in a criminal case before a lower court over which he had exercised supervision, all in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. He was dismissed from service in 1991, with the correlative forfeiture of retirement benefits, leave, and other privileges and ban from re-employment in the government. In 1992, his case was reconsidered and was allowed to enjoy all vacation and sick leave benefits that he has earned during the period of his government service. In 2001, the Court granted the release of 25% of former Judge Villamor's retirement benefits.
In Meris v. Ofilada, former Judge Ofilada had served the government for 37 years when he was dismissed in 1998 on the grounds of grave abuse of authority, evident partiality, gross incompetence, and ignorance of the law. It was his wife who requested the release of Judge Ofilada's retirement benefits in a Plea for Mercy before the Court, since Judge Ofilada was old, incapacitated, and in dire need of funds to cover his medical expenses. As former Judge Ofilada passed away pending consideration of his wife's letter, the Court in 2001 allowed the release of 25% of his retirement benefits, among other gratuities to his heirs.
In Castillo v. Calanog, Judge Calanog was dismissed from service for immorality in 1991, having taken advantage of his power and authority and "of the complainant's helplessness and state of material deprivation and persuaded her to become his mistress." Three years thereafter and upon the filing of a petition for clemency and compassion, the Court lifted his penalty of disqualification from appointment to any public office after Judge Calanog showed sincere repentance and upon considering his contributions during the period that he was a judge.
In Junio v. Judge Rivera, Jr., former Judge Rivera's dismissal in 1993 was grounded on gross misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the judiciary, having kissed his boarder's daughter while drunk during his birthday party. In 2005, the Court eventually lifted his ban from public service and accorded him his monetary gratuities in view of the length of his public service, relatively clean criminal record, demonstration of sincere repentance, regressing physical condition, and old age. Moreover, former Judge Rivera had never been found guilty of a criminal offense and never moved for the reconsideration of his dismissal, as he "accepted the verdict, in all humility."[59] (Emphasis supplied)
The judicial audit conducted on Branch 60 uncovered many procedural violations committed by Judge Pinto in cases involving petitions for nullity and annulment of marriages that were in direct contravention of the letter and spirit of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC). Accordingly, we entirely agree with the OCA's recommendation that Judge Pinto was guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedure, and of gross inefficiency.Notably, the judicial audit and concomitant investigation in said subsequent case occurred in 2008, or before the events in this present case had transpired. As such, it is hardly conclusive proof of respondent's non-Âreformation or disregard of the discipline already imposed on her in this case. At the same time, it bears emphasis that the Court in a petition for judicial clemency is mainly concerned with whether the respondent may be given the chance to redeem himself or herself in view of his or her contrition. The perspective of the Court therefore should be more forward looking and less on whether respondent has the propensity to err.
Anent gross ignorance of the law and procedure, the audit report copiously detailed how Judge Pinto had disregarded the law and procedure in handling the cases pending before her sala. The observations and findings contained in the audit report stood unrefuted by her. Among her gross errors and blunders were omitting to furnish to the OSG copies of the decisions she had rendered; granting motions to take advance testimonies and depositions even before the records of the cases were transmitted to her sala; accepting pre[-]trial briefs on the same days of the holding of the pre[-]trial conferences, and permitting the lawyers to take part in the pre[-]trial conferences despite not being authorized to do so through special powers of attorney; acting on and admitting formal offers of exhibits even before the respondents or the State could comment thereon; and not giving notifications to the OSG regarding the progress of proceedings in at least 19 cases. We should observe that any of these gross errors and blunders was sufficient to render her administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and procedure.
The OCA listed other irregularities committed by Judge Pinto, namely: (a) the issuance of a certificate of finality without proof that the respondent was already furnished a copy of the decision; (b) the issuance of a copy of the decision despite the fact that the copy of the decision supposedly sent to the respondent had been returned for the reason of "wrong address"; (c) the issuance of an order declaring her decision final and executory despite the fact that a copy of the decision had been returned with the marking "respondent unknown"; (d) the failure to act on the QSG's motion seeking to be furnished with a copy of the decision; (e) her amending in one case of her original decision by inserting a new date and place of the marriage in question, and such amended decision was not furnished to the respondent; (f) her admitting the formal offer of evidence of the petitioner without first giving the respondent and the public prosecutor the opportunity and time to comment thereon; (g) the acceptance of the pre[-]trial brief of the petitioner on the same day the pre[-]trial conference was held; and (h) the issuance of the summons to the parties on May 8, 2006 although the case was raffled to her sala only on May 9, 2006. Such other irregularities, singly or collectively, were themselves gross and blatant violations of the rules of procedure and the basic guidelines for ensuring that proceedings initiated to annul a marriage or declare the nullity of a marriage are insulated from vice and fraud.[62]