EN BANC

[A.M. No. RTJ-18-2514. January 30, 2018.]

[Formerly A.M. No. 16-10-387-RTC]

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR , complainant, vs. JUDGE

HECTOR B. SALISE, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 7, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, BAYUGAN CITY, AGUSAN DEL SUR , respondent.

DECISION

PER CURIAM : p

This case is pursuant to the judicial audit conducted in the Regional Trial Courts
(RTC), Branch 6, Prosperidad and Branch 7, Bayugan City, both in the Province of
Agusan del Sur. At that time, respondent Judge Hector B. Salise was the Acting
Presiding Judge of Branch 6 and the Executive Judge of Branch 7. cHDAIS

The following are the factual and procedural antecedents of the instant case:
For Branch 6, RTC, Prosperidad, the judicial audit team found that the court
allowed substituted service of summons when, under Section 6 1 of the Rule on
Declaration of Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, the
modes of service of summons are only: a) personal service or service in person on
defendant; and b) service by publication. In Criminal Case No. 8172, entitled People v.
Peter, for Quali ed Theft, in which no bail was recommended, the court granted the
Urgent Petition for Bail without rst conducting a hearing to prove that the evidence of
guilt against the accused was strong despite the offense charged being a capital
offense, in violation of Sections 7 2 and 8, 3 Rule 114 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
In Criminal Case No. 8155, entitled People v. Lopez, Jr. , for Illegal Possession of an
Explosive, in which no bail was again recommended as the offense charged is
considered a capital offense under Presidential Decree (P.D.) 1866, 4 as amended by
Republic Act (R.A.) 9516, 5 the court once again granted the reduction of bail in the
amount of P20,000.00 even if there was no showing that a bail hearing was conducted.
In Civil Case No. 1639, a case for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, Judge Salise
prematurely rendered a decision granting the petition, without ruling on the petitioner's
motions to dispense with the presentation of her last witness and to admit her Formal
Offer of Exhibits, and even though the case was still set for hearing in a month's time.
The manner by which Judge Salise dismissed several cases before this court
would suggest impropriety, manifest bias and partiality, grave abuse of discretion, and
gross ignorance of the law and procedure. Notably, Judge Salise ordered the dismissal
of Criminal Case Nos. 7912, 7999, and 8000 before the scheduled day of arraignment,
while Criminal Case No. 8028 was dismissed prior to the scheduled hearing on the
Motion to Suppress Illegally Seized Evidence and without the accused ling a motion
for said dismissal. The court personnel of Branch 6 likewise testi ed that Judge Salise
would call cases, although they were not included in the calendar of cases for hearing,
even to the point of dismissing these cases.
Judge Salise also issued a Resolution dated September 5, 2014 in a case which
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 was never docketed in Branch 6 for failure to pay the required docket fee. The court
staff only came to know about this when someone led a Motion for Reconsideration
of said Resolution sometime in September 2014.
For Branch 7, RTC, Bayugan City, Judge Salise may be considered to have
railroaded the proceedings for a number of cases for declaration of nullity of marriage.
In Civil Case No. 1887, Judge Salise rendered a decision granting the petition barely
eight (8) months since the case was led on July 14, 2014, without conducting the
mandatory pre-trial, and worse, without petitioner presenting his evidence before the
court. In Civil Case No. 1770, he proceeded with the hearing of the case and later
penned a decision granting the petition although the court did not acquire jurisdiction
over the person of the respondent as the summons was returned to the court unserved.
Similarly, in Civil Case No. 1888, he proceeded to hear the case until the same was
submitted for decision even if there was a serious question on the court's jurisdiction
over the case. In Civil Case No. 1806, he proceeded with and decided the case without
complying with the mandatory requirements under the Rule on Declaration of Absolute
Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages such as the
investigation report of no collusion between the parties from the public prosecutor, the
pre-trial, and the notice to the respondent. In other cases, he proceeded with and
decided the case without due notice to the respondents. In Civil Case No. 1506, he
again decided the case in favor of the petitioner without the mandatory investigation
report of no collusion between the parties from the public prosecutor. And lastly, Judge
Salise would allow substituted service of summons in most cases for declaration of
nullity of marriage and annulment of voidable marriage before the court in violation of
Section 6 of the Rule on Declaration of Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of
Voidable Marriages.
In Special Proceeding No. 1741 for Cancellation of A davit of Legitimation,
Judge Salise issued an Order directing the then OIC-Clerk of Court of Branch 7, a non-
lawyer, to receive evidence ex parte, in violation of the rule 6 that the court may delegate
the reception of evidence to its clerk of court, who is a member of the bar. Also, in
several criminal cases, the issuance of warrants of arrest was extremely delayed, taking
four (4) to eight (8) months from the time the case was filed. 7
For his part, Judge Salise apologized for whatever procedural lapses he has
committed. He explained that his actions were all done in good faith and judges would
sometimes deviate from the rules on a case-to-case basis. He, likewise, claimed that
the reported irregularities were mostly due to inadvertence, but he did them in good
faith and without malice. He fervently asked for the kind indulgence and consideration
of the Court for the lapses, delays, negligence, and inadvertence, and promised to be
more circumspect in the future. ISHCcT

On October 21, 2016, after an extensive review and evaluation of the case, the
O ce of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended the imposition of the extreme
penalty of dismissal, thus:
PREMISES CONSIDERED , we respectfully recommend for the
consideration of the Court that:
1. the Joint Judicial Audit Report by way of a Memorandum dated 10
September 2015 be TREATED as an administrative complaint
against Judge Hector B. Salise, Executive Judge, Branch 7, Regional
Trial Court, Bayugan City, and formerly Acting Presiding Judge,
Branch 6, Regional Trial Court, Prosperidad, both in the Province of
Agusan del Sur;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 2. the letter dated 13 November 2015 and the twin compliance letters,
both dated 16 November 2015, all of Judge Salise be NOTED ; and
3. Judge Salise be ADJUDGED GUILTY of serious misconduct
prejudicial to the integrity and dignity of the judiciary, and be
DISMISSED from the service, with forfeiture of all or part of the
bene ts as the Court may determine, except accrued leave credits,
and disquali cation from reinstatement or appointment to any
public o ce, including government-owned and controlled
corporations.
Respectfully submitted. 8

The Court's Ruling

The Court nds no logical reason to depart from the ndings and
recommendations of the OCA.
At the outset, the Court stresses that Judge Salise never refuted, much less
denied the aforementioned judicial audit ndings and observations. In fact, he even
admitted that:
a. he granted bail to some accused charged with capital offenses in criminal
cases in which no bail was recommended, without conducting the
mandatory bail hearing. He merely mentioned excuses such as "there is an
ongoing settlement," "private complainant is open to settlement," the
prosecution did not object to the motion for bail," "to decongest jail," "upon
agreement of the parties," or "it was done without malice or bad faith";
b. with his permission, the court interpreter drafted the Decision in Civil Case
No. 1887, granting the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage based
solely on the petition and the psychological report, and there were no
copies of the Pre-trial Order, the Order showing that petitioner had been
presented, and the minutes. No transcript of stenographic notes could
likewise be seen in the records at the time of the judicial audit;
c. he erred in proceeding to hear the case in Civil Case No. 1770 (for
declaration of nullity of marriage) when the return of the summons states
that it is unserved. He decided the case in favor of the petitioner despite
the court's lack of jurisdiction over the defendant;
d. his act of proceeding to hear the case in Civil Case No. 1888 (for
declaration of nullity of marriage) despite the question on the court's
jurisdiction was due to the words of the petitioner's lawyer that his client
was able to nd a job in Bayugan and that he was renting a house in Purok
II, Poblacion, Bayugan City;
e. he failed to issue an Order directing the public prosecutor to conduct a
background check in Civil Case Nos. 1506 and 1806, both for declaration
of nullity of marriage, due to a mere oversight and the same was without
malice; and
f. he allowed plea-bargaining in cases for violation of R.A. 9165 or the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, with the consent of the prosecution in order
to decongest the jails.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 Furthermore, Judge Salise failed to refute several factual circumstances,
showing an implied admission of their truthfulness and accuracy. It was established
that he rendered a premature decision in Civil Case No. 1639 (for declaration of nullity
of marriage) granting the petition without rst ruling on the pending motions led by
the petitioner. He likewise dismissed criminal cases on his own initiative, supposedly
"for paucity of proof and dearth of evidence," even after he had already determined,
expressly or impliedly, that there was probable cause against the accused. He ordered
the dismissal of these cases after either the accused had been arraigned or after the
cases had been set for arraignment. CAacTH

Judge Salise also dismissed cases based on fabricated grounds. For instance,
he issued an Order in Criminal Case No. 7994, for illegal possession of rearm and
ammunition, dismissing the case on the ground that "this case has not been moving for
almost three (3) years," when in reality, said case was dismissed on May 17, 2013 or
less than two (2) months after the same had been led on March 26, 2013. In Criminal
Case No. 8011 for acts of lasciviousness, he dismissed the case motu proprio
"considering that private complainant x x x has not been appearing in this court since
the scheduled hearing of this case." However, an examination of the records of the case
would reveal that following the ling of the Information on July 13, 2013, there had only
been four (4) settings of the case before it was ordered dismissed on March 24, 2014.
Out of those four (4) settings, three (3) were cancelled due to the absence of the
defense counsel, ongoing plea-bargaining, and "as there was no showing that private
complainant x x x has been noti ed of the day's setting." Verily, those cancellations
could not reasonably be attributed to the private complainant.
Moreover, there were also irregularities in the manner by which Judge Salise
disposed of or dismissed criminal cases for violation of R.A. 9165. Supposedly to
"decongest the jail," he allowed plea-bargaining as early as 2012, which was still
prohibited then under Section 23, 9 Article II of R.A. 9165. In Criminal Case No. 3441 for
possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, with an imposable penalty of twelve
(12) years to life imprisonment and a ne of P300,000.00 to P500,000.00, he allowed
the accused to plead guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia and sentenced him to
suffer a straight penalty of one (1) year of imprisonment and to pay a ne of
P10,000.00. In Criminal Case No. 3488 for violation of Section 5, he allowed the two (2)
accused to plead guilty to the lesser offense of use of shabu and sentenced them to a
straight penalty of six (6) months of imprisonment and to pay a ne of P10,000.00. In
Criminal Case No. 4450 for possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, he again
allowed the accused to plead guilty to possession of drug paraphernalia and sentenced
him to suffer a straight penalty of one (1) year of imprisonment and to pay a ne of
P5,000.00.
Judge Salise also dismissed similar cases under highly questionable
circumstances and without due regard to the applicable procedural rules, to wit:
1. Criminal Case No. 3833 for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165
was ordered dismissed "for paucity of proof" even after he had earlier
issued an Order finding probable cause against the accused.
2. Criminal Case No. 3882 for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165
was ordered dismissed "for lack of probable cause" even after he had
earlier issued an Order finding probable cause against the accused.
3. He ordered motu proprio the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 4033 for
violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 against one of the accused
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 "for insu ciency of evidence" even if said accused had already been
arraigned and the case was awaiting pre-trial.
4. He ordered motu proprio the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 4098 for
violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 "in chambers" on the ground
that the accused "were arrested without a search warrant or warrant of
arrest," even if both of them had already been arraigned and the case had
been set for pre-trial conference.
5. He ordered motu proprio the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 4123 for
violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 on the ground that "the
arresting o cer dipped into the left pocket of the accused and allegedly
f o u n d shabu worth P1,000.00, which is illegal and inadmissible in
evidence," even if the accused had already been arraigned and the pre-trial
had been terminated.
6. He ordered motu proprio the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 4124 for
violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 on the ground that "a review
of the records shows that SPO1 Juliano M. Ano did not specify how the
shabu was found at the right hand pocket of the accused and that the
latter was not committing a crime in the presence of the police," even if the
case was already at the trial stage.
7. He ordered motu proprio the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 4188 for
violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 after almost nine (9) months
since the ling of the case, even if the case had already been set for
arraignment. Interestingly, when the accused led a motion for reduction
of bail, Judge Salise dismissed the case motu proprio instead of acting on
the motion. IAETDc

8. He ordered motu proprio the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 4194 for
violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 "in chambers" citing the
discrepancy between the residential addresses of the accused as
appearing in the Information and in the search warrant, even if the accused
had already been arraigned and the case had been set for pre-trial
conference.
9. He ordered motu proprio the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 4247 for
violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 on the ground that there was
a discrepancy between the time of apprehension of the accused as alleged
in the Information (9:30 p.m. of June 18, 2014) and that stated in the
a davit of the arresting o cer (10:30 p.m. of June 18, 2014). One of the
accused had already been arraigned and the pre-trial conference had been
scheduled. Upon motion of one of the accused, Judge Salise also ordered
the prosecution to conduct a re-investigation and to submit a report on the
same. Strangely, however, Judge Salise ordered the dismissal of the case
motu proprio without waiting for the re-investigation report.
10. He ordered motu proprio the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 4317 for
violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 "for paucity of proof" even if
the accused had already been arraigned and the case had been set for pre-
trial.
Judge Salise also never refuted or denied the testimonies of his court personnel
a rming his breaches and even saying that litigants and lawyers would frequent his
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 chamber to personally verify their cases. He would call cases, although not included in
the court's calendar, "to the point of dismissing" the same. Worse, he was also reported
to have issued and signed a Resolution in a case that was not in the court's docket.
The aforementioned circumstances surrounding the proceedings and disposition
of cases are far too agrant to simply be ignored and their totality strongly indicates
Judge Salise's corrupt tendencies. His assertions that his procedural lapses were
committed in good faith and without any monetary consideration simply do not hold
water. The number of cases involved and the manner by which he disposed of said
cases clearly show a pattern of misdeeds and a propensity to violate the law and
established procedural rules, particularly the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of
Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, R.A. 9165, the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure, and the Rules of Court.
Consequently, the Court finds Judge Salise guilty of serious misconduct.
Indeed, it is settled that, unless the acts were committed with fraud, dishonesty,
corruption, malice or ill will, bad faith, or deliberate intent to do an injustice, the
respondent judge may not be administratively liable for gross misconduct, ignorance of
the law, or incompetence of o cial acts in the exercise of judicial functions and duties,
particularly in the adjudication of cases. 1 0 However, when the ine ciency springs from
a failure to recognize such a basic and fundamental rule, law, or principle, the judge is
either too incompetent and undeserving of the position and title vested upon him, or he
is too vicious that he deliberately committed the oversight or omission in bad faith and
in grave abuse of authority. 1 1 Here, the attendant circumstances would reveal that
Judge Salise's acts contradict any claim of good faith.
Although a judge may not always be subjected to disciplinary actions for every
erroneous order or decision he issues, that relative immunity is not a license to be
negligent or abusive and arbitrary in performing his adjudicatory prerogatives. If judges
wantonly misuse the powers granted to them by the law, there will be, not only
confusion in the administration of justice, but also oppressive disregard of the basic
requirements under the law and established rules. For repeatedly and deliberately
committing irregularities in the disposition of his cases, thereby manifesting corrupt
inclinations, Judge Salise can be said to have misused said powers.
Indubitably, Judge Salise violated the Code of Judicial Conduct ordering judges
to ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and enhances the
con dence of the public, the legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the
judge and of the judiciary. 1 2 He simply used oversight, inadvertence, and honest
mistake as convenient excuses. He acted with conscious indifference to the possible
undesirable consequences to the parties involved.
Misconduct is a transgression of some established and de nite rule of action,
more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public o cer. To
warrant dismissal from service, the misconduct must be grave, serious, important,
weighty, momentous, and not tri ing. The misconduct must imply wrongful intention
and not a mere error of judgment and must also have a direct relation to and be
connected with the performance of the public o cer's o cial duties amounting either
to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect, or failure to discharge the duties of
the o ce. In order to differentiate gross misconduct from simple misconduct, the
elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or agrant disregard of
established rule, must be manifest in the former. 1 3 DcHSEa

To hold a judge administratively liable for serious misconduct, ignorance of the

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 law or incompetence of o cial acts in the exercise of judicial functions and duties, it
must be shown that his acts were committed with fraud, dishonesty, corruption, malice
or ill will, bad faith, or deliberate intent to do an injustice. 1 4 The Court has repeatedly
and consistently held that the judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to
be impartial as an added assurance to the parties that his decision will be just. The
litigants are entitled to no less than that. They should be sure that when their rights are
violated they can go to a judge who shall give them impartial justice. They must trust
the judge; otherwise, they will not go to him at all. They must believe in his sense of
fairness; otherwise, they will not seek his judgment. Without such con dence, there
would be no point in invoking his action for the justice they expect. 1 5 Judge Salise's
acts indubitably violated said trust and con dence, seriously impairing the image of the
judiciary to which he owes the duty of loyalty and obligation to keep it at all times above
reproach and worthy of the people's trust. 1 6
WHEREFORE , the Court FINDS Judge Hector B. Salise, Acting Presiding Judge
of Branch 6, Regional Trial Court, Prosperidad and Executive Judge of Branch 7,
Regional Trial Court, Bayugan City, both in the Province of Agusan del Sur, GUILTY of
serious misconduct and hereby DISMISSES him from the service with FORFEITURE
of retirement bene ts, except leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any
branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and
controlled corporations.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-de Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Del
Castillo, Leonen, Jardeleza, Caguioa, Tijam, Reyes, Jr. and Gesmundo, JJ., concur.
Perlas-Bernabe, * J., is on leave.
Martires, ** J., is on official leave.

Footnotes

* On leave.
** On official leave.
1. A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, March 4, 2003.
  Section 6. Summons. — The service of summons shall be governed by Rule 14 of the
Rules of Court and by the following rules:
  (1) Where the respondent cannot be located at his given address or his whereabouts are
unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, service of summons may, by
leave of court, be effected upon him by publication once a week for two consecutive
weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines and in such places as the
court may order. In addition, a copy of the summons shall be served on the respondent
at his last known address by registered mail or any other means the court may deem
sufficient.

xxx xxx xxx

2 . Section 7. Capital offense of an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life

imprisonment, not bailable. — No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when
evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution.
3. Section 8. Burden of proof in bail application. — At the hearing of an application for bail
led by a person who is in custody for the commission of an offense punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, the prosecution has the burden of
showing that evidence of guilt is strong. The evidence presented during the bail hearing
shall be considered automatically reproduced at the trial, but upon motion of either party,
the court may recall any witness for additional examination unless the latter is dead,
outside the Philippines, or otherwise unable to testify.

4 . Entitled Codifying the Laws on Illegal/Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in,

Acquisition or Disposition, of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives or Instruments Used in
the Manufacture of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives, and Imposing Stiffer Penalties
for Certain Violations thereof and for Relevant Purposes.
5. Entitled An Act Further Amending the Provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1866 x x x.
6. Section 9, Rule 30 of the Rules of Court provides:
  Section 9. Judge to receive evidence; delegation to clerk of court. — The judge of the
court where the case is pending shall personally receive the evidence to be adduced by
the parties. However, in default or ex parte hearings, and in any case where the parties
agree in writing, the court may delegate the reception of evidence to its clerk of court
who is a member of the bar. The clerk of court shall have no power to rule on objections
to any question or to the admission of exhibits, which objections shall be resolved by the
court upon submission of his report and the transcripts within ten (10) days from
termination of the hearing.

7. In violation of Section 6, Rule 112 which provides:

  Section 6. When warrant of arrest may issue. — (a) By the Regional Trial Court. —
Within ten (10) days from the ling of the complaint or information, the judge shall
personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may
immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish probable
cause. If he nds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment
order if the accused has already been arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by the judge
who conducted the preliminary investigation or when the complaint or information was
led pursuant to Section 7 of this Rule. In case of doubt on the existence of probable
cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within ve (5)
days from notice and the issue must be resolved by the court within thirty (30) days from
the filing of the complaint of information.
8. Evaluation and recommendation submitted by O cer-in-Charge Raul B. Villanueva and
Deputy Court Administrator Jenny Lind R. Aldecoa-Delorino, dated October 21, 2016.
Rollo, pp. 238-239.
9. Struck down as unconstitutional by the Court in Estipona v. Judge Lobrigo , G.R. No. 226679,
August 15, 2017, thereby allowing plea-bargaining in violations of R.A. 9165.
10. Andrada v. Judge Banzon, 592 Phil. 229, 233-234 (2008).
11. DOJ v. Judge Mislang, A.M. No. RTJ-14-2369 and A.M. No. RTJ-14-2372, July 26, 2016, 798
SCRA 225, 235.
12. Section 2, Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 13. Office of the Ombudsman v. De Zosa, 751 Phil. 293, 300 (2015).
14. Supra note 10, at 233-234.
15. Lai v. People, 762 Phil. 434, 443 (2015).

16. Re: Release by Judge Manuel T. Muro, RTC, Branch 54 Manila, of an Accused in a Non-
Bailable Offense, 419 Phil. 567, 592 (2001).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com