A.M. RTJ-07-2062, Jan 18, 2011
Lessons Applicable: Ignorance of the Law
FACTS:
·
Judge Reyes in an order on May 30, 1996 dismissed
Civil Case No. 3383-R due to forum shopping and ordered that that the Buddha
statuette in the custody of this Court be immediately released to the children
of the late Rogelio Roxas in trust for the estate of the late Rogelio Roxas
·
RTC: Denied the separate motions for
reconsideration by the parties
·
Judge Pamintuan in an order dated May 9, 2006 set
the case for hearing on June 29, 2006 purportedly to formally and finally
release the Golden Buddha to its rightful owner.
o
Marcos was one of the subpoenaed parties, being
a person with interest in the case
o
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
o
Also ruled that the Golden Buddha in its custody
is a fake one
·
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 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.
o
Pamintuan Commented that Marcos should have
filed a motion for reconsideration instead of filing an administrative
complaint.
o
Marcos, in her Reply-Affidavit, cited Section 1
of Rule 37 which provides that only the aggrieved party may file a motion for
reconsideration within the period for taking an appeal
·
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:
- to avoid
delay in the administration of justice and thus, procedurally, to make
orderly the discharge of judicial business
- to put an
end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors, which is
precisely why courts exist.
·
Notably, this is NOT Judge Pamintuan’s first and
sole administrative case. Judge
Pamintuan was charged with Gross Ignorance of the Law, Gross Violation of the
Constitutional Rights of the Accused, Arrogance and Violation of the Canons of
Judicial Ethics and was suspended for 1 year. Having been previously warned and
punished for various infractions, Judge Pamintuan now deserves the ultimate
administrative penalty − dismissal from service