The Daily Tribune <<< Without Fear or Favor >>>

»HEADLINES

»NATION

instead of outright dismissal from service she is suspended for only six months for receiving P100,000

Tribunal gives erring female judge just a slap on wrist

By Benjamin B. Pulta

02/22/2009

The Supreme Court (SC) just gave a slap on the wrist a female Makati judge who sought and received P100,000 from a litigant for a case pending before the high court.

Instead of an outright dismissal from the service, the SC suspended Judge Evelyn Arcaya-Chua of Makati City Regional Trial Court Branch 144 for six months for receiving money in exchange for a favorable decision involving the case of an aunt’s friend after the high court ruled that even if the complainant in an administrative case withdraws her complaint the case can still be pursued.

The rule applies, the tribunal said, if substantial evidence, particularly those “true and based on personal knowledge” to support the allegations against the respondent, could be made the basis for the investigation to proceed.

Chua was earlier suspended by the SC for the undue issuance of “protection orders” to litigants with cases pending before her sala.

“Let it be stressed once again that the office of a judge is sacred and imbued with public interest. The need to maintain the public’s confidence in the judiciary cannot be made to depend solely on the whims and caprices of complainants who are, in a real sense, only witnesses therein. Thus, withdrawal of a complaint or desistance from a complaint will not deprive this court of its power under the Constitution to ferret out the truth and discipline its members accordingly,” Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez wrote in the 13-page decision for the SC’s Third Division.

The SC said “most telling of all the circumstances pointing to respondent’s guilt is the “unwavering stance” of complainant that Chua did solicit and receive” P100,000 from the complainant to facilitate a favorable ruling in Muñoz’s cases.

The complainant’s testimony during the clarificatory hearing revealed her true reasons for withdrawing her complaint: That Chua, after all, returned the money. The SC observed that Chua could not deny she was present during the clarificatory hearing but “did not make any objection at the time which failure is truly damaging.”

The case stemmed from a complaint for serious misconduct and dishonesty filed by Sylvia Santos, aunt of Chua’s husband, alleging that in September 2002, she asked the help of Chua, then presiding judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 62 of Makati City, regarding the cases of complainant’s friend, Emerita Muñoz, pending before the SC.

A former SC employee, Chua was alleged to have asked P100,000 from Muñoz which Chua would give to a court employee for the speedy resolution of the cases. In October 2002, complainant gave respondent the amount. Complainant also alleged that when she followed up the case in February 2003, Chua told her there was a problemas the other party was offering P10 million to the justices. Complainant then asked Chua to return the P100,000. But, Chua could no longer be contacted.

Chua denied the charges against her.

The SC, in July 2007, referred the complaint against Chua to Court of Appeals Marina Buzon for investigation, report and recommendation.

During the preliminary conference on Sept. 4, 2007, complainant manifested her desire to move for the dismissal of her complaint against Chua “for the sake of unity and harmonious relations in their family,” among other reasons.

Justice Buzon, in October 2007, recommended the dismissal of the administrative case against Chua “in view of paucity of evidence upon which a conclusion could be drawn, brought about by the withdrawal by Santos of her complaint and her failure and refusal to prove the allegations in her complaint.”

The SC, adopting the recommendation of Justice Buzon, dismissed in its Dec. 5, 2007 Resolution the complaint for lack of evidence. It also ordered complainant to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of court for filing an unfounded verified complaint against Chua.

In her compliance dated Jan. 6, 2008, the complainant stated, “Contrary to the impression of the honorable court, her administrative complaint against Judge Evelyn Argaya (sic) Chua is not unfounded, and all the the allegations therein are true and based on respondent’s personal knowledge.”

On March 3, 2008, the court found complaint’s compliance unsatisfactory and that she was “trifling with court processes.” The court then resolved to recall its Dec. 5, 2007, reopen the administrative case against Chua, direct Court of Appeals Justice Rebecca Salvador to conduct an investigation and submit her report and recommendation and directed Chua to attend under pain of contempt of court all hearings scheduled by Justice Salvador.

The court agreed with Justice Salvador’s findings and recommendations finding “sufficient grounds” to hold Chua liable for the offenses charged.

Recommending that Chua be administratively penalized for the grave misconduct and dishonesty charged by complainant, Justice Salvador found, among other things, that the complainant’s allegations were true and based on personal knowledge and it was only because of respondent and her family’s pleas, as well as for humane reasons, that she gave up her complaint against Chua.

Justice Salvador particularly observed that Chua had no reason to ask forgiveness from complainant if indeed complainant falsely instituted the administrative case against her.

Justice Salvador also stressed complainant’s testimony that Chua’s return of money, in addition to familial interests, induced her to withdraw the complaint, the decision read.

“If it is true that she received no money… it necessarily and logically follows that respondent would not have returned — as in fact she would not have anything to return — the money to complainant,” Justice Salvador said.

“If a criminal conviction for which the quantum of proof is guilty beyond reasonable doubt may be made to rest on the testimony of a single credible witness, it stands to reason that an administrative complaint, for which only substantial evidence is required, can be sustained on the strength thereof,” stressed Justice Salvador.

Aside from the penalty, the court also warned Chua that the commission of the same or similar act in the future shall merit a more severe penalty.

Misconduct is a “transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, unlawful behavior, willful in character, improper or wrong behavior; while “gross” has been defined as “out of all measure, beyond allowance; flagrant; shameful; such conduct as is not to be excused,” the court said.