Complainant Vs Vs Respondent: Second Division

SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. MTJ-07-1689. March 13, 2009.]

[Formerly OCA-I.P.I. No. 07-1897-MTJ]
PERLA BURIAS , complainant, vs . JUDGE MIRAFE B. VALENCIA, MTC-

Irosin, Sorsogon , respondent.
RESOLUTION
TINGA , J : p
In a veri ed complaint dated 19 August 2005, Perla Burias (complainant)

charged Judge Mirafe B. Valencia (respondent), then Presiding Judge of the Municipal
Trial Court (MTC) of Irosin, Sorsogon, of gross misconduct. IEaATD
The undisputed facts follow.

On 4 and 25 August 2005, respondent borrowed money from complainant in the
amounts of P5,000.00 and P2,500.00, respectively. The loans were evidenced by
promissory notes. 1
On 25 August 2005, complainant filed a verified complaint 2 for forcible entry and
damages with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction
before the MTC of Bulan, Sorsogon, presided by Judge Marie Louise A. Guan-Aragon
(Judge Guan-Aragon). The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 590 entitled Perla
Burias vs. Celima Morata.
On 7 November 2005, Judge Guan-Aragon inhibited herself from the civil case. 3
On 16 June 2006, respondent took over Civil Case No. 590 and, as the new
presiding judge in the case, issued a pre-trial conference order. 4
On 15 and 29 September 2006, the parties to the civil case submitted their
position papers in compliance with the order of respondent.
On 6 December 2006, respondent issued an order requiring the defendant in the
civil case to submit other documents to support her claim of prior physical possession.
5
On 4 and 24 January 2007, respondent again borrowed from complainant the

amounts of P15,000.00 and P3,000.00, as evidenced by two (2) handwritten notes. 6
On 23 March 2007, complainant led an urgent motion for respondent's
inhibition on the ground of delay in the resolution of the civil case and apparent bias
against complainant based on the Order of 6 December 2006.
Respondent denied the motion on 18 April 2007, citing the demise of her son as
cause for the delay. 7
Complainant moved for reconsideration but the motion was denied by
respondent on 8 January 2008. 8
In her administrative complaint, complainant alleged that on 12 October 2005,
respondent endorsed a check and thereafter exchanged the same for cash in the sum
of P5,000.00 that complainant provided. Said check however was dishonored when
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
presented for payment by complainant. She also averred that sometime in March 2007,
respondent verbally demanded from her the sum of P50,000.00 and that her
P30,500.00 indebtedness be written off in exchange for a favorable decision in Civil
Case No. 590. According to complainant, she refused to accede to the demands of
respondent. In April 2007, respondent reportedly called her up and threatened that she
would release any of the two (2) draft decisions she allegedly prepared favoring
respondent in the civil case. Complainant claimed that by reason of these threats, she
was constrained to file the instant administrative case. 9 ADCEaH
In a 1st Indorsement dated 21 May 2007, the O ce of the Court Administrator

(OCA) required respondent to comment on the administrative complaint. 1 0
On 21 June 2007, respondent submitted her comment. Anent the dishonored
check, respondent explained that she signed on the dorsal side of the check to
accommodate a troubled friend who issued said check in favor of complainant. 1 1
Respondent admitted that she entered into several transactions with complainant
involving copra products from her plantation to complainant's buying station. She was
even allowed to take small credits with the assurance of payment whenever the next
copra produce is delivered to complainant's store. 1 2 Respondent denied that she had
demanded P50,000.00 from complainant and that the P30,500.00 indebtedness be
written off for being malicious, baseless and simply intended to destroy her standing
as a member of the bench. 1 3 She also denied aunting the two (2) draft decisions.
While she admitted that the rst eight (8) pages of the purported decisions are similar
to her draft, the rest of their pages differ. 1 4 She justi ed the 6 December 2006 Order
as it was issued consistently with the provision of Section 11, Rule 70 of the Rules of
Court which allows the issuance of an order for the purpose of clarifying certain
material facts.
In a Resolution dated 8 October 2007, the Court resolved to re-docket the case
as a regular administrative case and required the parties to manifest whether they are
willing submit the matter for resolution on the basis of the pleadings filed. 1 5
On 13 March 2008, respondent prayed that the administrative complaint be
submitted for resolution 1 6 while on 2 April 2008, complainant manifested the
submission of the case for resolution. 1 7
In its Report dated 28 August 2007, the OCA recommended that respondent be
found guilty of misconduct and be meted a ne of P21,000.00 with a warning that the
commission of a similar offense in the future shall be dealt with more severely. 1 8
The OCA held respondent accountable for contracting loans of money from
persons with whom her o ce has o cial relations. It ruled that it was improper for
respondent to take a loan from a party-litigant. However, the OCA considered the proof
inadequate to support the allegation that the loan was extended on a promised
favorable decision. With respect to the charge of delay in the resolution of Civil Case
No. 590, the OCA sustained respondent's Order dated 6 December 2006. It found
nothing in the records which show that clari catory procedure was resorted to gain
time for the rendition of the judgment. Neither did OCA nd any irregularity in the
issuance of the Order denying the motion for inhibition found by complainant. 1 9
EcATDH
Complainant's allegations were categorized by OCA into two issues — the rst
relates to the charge of borrowing money and the second deals with the apparent delay
in the resolution of Civil Case No. 590.
This Court shall proceed to resolve the issues in this order.
With respect to the charge of borrowing money in exchange for a favorable
judgment, Rule 5.02, Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a judge
shall refrain from nancial and business dealings that tend to re ect adversely on the
court's impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of judicial activities, or
increase involvement with lawyers or persons likely to come before the court. A judge
should so manage investments and other nancial interests as to minimize the number
of cases giving grounds for disqualification.
Under Rule 5.04 of Canon 5, a judge may obtain a loan if no law prohibits such
loan. However, the law prohibits a judge from engaging in nancial transactions with a
party-litigant. Respondent admitted borrowing money from complainant during the
pendency of the case. This act alone is patently inappropriate. 2 0 The impression that
respondent would rule in favor of complainant because the former is indebted to the
latter is what the Court seeks to avoid. A judge's conduct should always be beyond
reproach.
This Court has time and again emphasized that no government position is more
demanding of moral righteousness and uprightness than a seat in the judiciary. Judges
as models of law and justice are mandated to avoid not only impropriety, but also the
appearance of impropriety, because their conduct affects the people's faith and
confidence in the entire judicial system. 2 1
Complainant also cites intentional delay on the part of respondent as a ground in
her motion for inhibition, which motion was denied by respondent. The OCA however
correctly disposed this issue as a judicial matter which should not be treated as
administrative in character, thus:
. . . hence, the party who alleges to be aggrieved may apply for the appropriate
legal remedy. In the absence of such a proceeding, the order either for or against
inhibition stands. 2 2
However, we do not completely agree with OCA's nding on the propriety of the
issuance of 6 December 2006 order. Section 10 Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure provides:
Sec. 10. Rendition of judgment. — Within thirty (30) days after receipt
of the last a davits and position papers, or the expiration of the period for ling
the same, the court shall render judgment. TEAICc
However should the court nd it necessary to clarify certain material facts,

it may, during the said period , issue an order specifying the matters to be
clari ed, and require the parties to submit a davits or other evidence on the said
matters within ten (10) days from receipt of said order. Judgment shall be
rendered within fteen (15) days after the receipt of the last clari catory
affidavits, or the expiration of the period for filing the same.
The court shall not resort to the clari catory procedure to gain time for the
rendition of the judgment.
The above-quoted rule explicitly mandates that should the court nd it necessary to
clarify certain material facts, it shall issue a clari catory order during said period, which
is construed as "within 30 days after receipt of the last a davits or position papers, or
the expiration of the periods for ling the same". The last position paper was led by
respondent in the civil case on 29 September 2006. Respondent should have issued the
assailed order within 30 days counted from the receipt of the position paper.
Be that as it may, all orders relating to a motion for inhibition should not be
treated as administrative in character.
Under Section 8 in relation to Section 11, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court,
borrowing money or property from lawyers and litigants in a case pending before the
court constitutes a serious charge punishable by any of the following sanctions:
SEC. 11. Sanctions. — A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge,
any of the following sanctions may be imposed:
1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the bene ts as
the Court may determine, and disquali cation from reinstatement or appointment
to any public o ce, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
Provided, however, that the forfeiture of bene ts shall in no case include accrued
leave credits;
2. Suspension from o ce without salary and other bene ts for more
than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or
3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00
Since respondent retired from service last 22 February 2008, the penalty of ne is
imposed. EScAID
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Judge Mirafe B. Valencia of the MTC of Irosin,
Sorsogon is meted with a FINE of P20,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing, Carpio-Morales, Velasco, Jr. and Brion, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1. Rollo, p. 14.
2. Id. at 9-13.
3. Id. at 29.
4. Id. at 30-31.
5. Id. at 132.
6. Id. at 134-135.
7. Id. at 169. TcEaDS
8. Id. at 225.
9. Id. at 3-4.
10. Id at 174.
11. Id. at 187.
12. Id. at 176-177.
13. Id. at 178.

14. Id. at 178-180.
15. Id. at 199.
16. Id. at 243.
17. Id. at 272.
18. Id. at 190.
19. Id. at 189.
20. Id. at 188.
21. Adriano v. Judge Villanueva, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1232, 19 February 2003, citing Yu-Asensi
v. Villanueva, 322 SCRA 255, 19 January 2000.
22. Rollo, p. 189. SCIAaT

Complainant Vs Vs Respondent: Second Division

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complainant Vs Vs Respondent: Second Division

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complainant Vs Vs Respondent: Second Division

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SECOND DIVISION

[A.M. No. MTJ-07-1689. March 13, 2009.]

PERLA BURIAS , complainant, vs . JUDGE MIRAFE B. VALENCIA, MTC-

In a veri ed complaint dated 19 August 2005, Perla Burias (complainant)

The undisputed facts follow.

On 4 and 24 January 2007, respondent again borrowed from complainant the

In a 1st Indorsement dated 21 May 2007, the O ce of the Court Administrator

However should the court nd it necessary to clarify certain material facts,

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like