Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

A.M. No. R-249-RTJ September 17, 1987

CEFERINO INCIONG, petitioner,

vs.
HONORABLE LETICIA S. MARIANO DE GUIA, respondent.

RESOLUTION

FELICIANO, J.:

Complainant Attorney Ceferino Inciong brought a charge against the respondent Judge of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Balayan Batangas, of "Inducing Court Employees to Falsify Court
Record".

The Office of the Court Administrator found that there was a prima facie case against respondent
Judge which warranted an investigation. 1

By a Resolution dated 9 December 1986, the Court referred Petitioner's complaint to Associate Justice Manuel C. Herrera of the Court of
Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation.

On 10 March 1987, Justice Manuel C. Herrera submitted a "Report and Recommendation" on this
matter stating that, at the hearing called by the Investigator, the complainant Ceferino Inciong orally
withdrew his complaint. On that basis, and because respondent Judge "had been re-appointed as
Judge of the Regional Trial Court, with station at Balanga, Bataan," the Investigator recommended
the dismissal of the complaint filed against respondent Judge.

In a Resolution dated 9 April 1987, the Court, "[c]onsidering that the unexplained withdrawal of the
complaint was made without any reference to the substance of the complaint or the evidence in
support thereof, and considering further that the reappointment of the respondent as Judge of the
Regional Trial Court has no bearing on the merit or lack of merit on the complaint filed in this
Administrative Case," resolved to refer the complaint to Associate Justice Justo P. Torres, Jr. of the
Court of Appeals "for investigation de novo, report and recommendation."

The details of the charge set out in the complaint are found in an attached Joint Affidavit dated 29
November 1984, executed by Mr. Nemesio G. Dalisay and Ms. Rufina A. Pinili Deputy Sheriff,
Branch 9 and Staff Assistant, Branch 10, respectively, Regional Trial Court, Balayan, Batangas. The
affiants stated that sometime in the last week of November 1984, they were urgently caned to the,
chambers of respondent Judge. There, respondent Judge requested them to affix their initials on the
information filed in a criminal case entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Ruben Rodriguez, et al.",
with the explanation that they (the affiants) had failed to sign the same as one of the criminal cases
raffled to respondent Judge's sala. Believing that an oversight on their part had occurred, affiants
stated, they complied with respondent Judge's request and affixed their signatures on the
information in said criminal case. Upon return to their respective branches, affiants consulted the list
of cases raffled on 22 November 1984 and found that the Ruben Rodriguez case was not among the
criminal cases raffled on said date. Affiants further referred to respondent Judge as stating that "she
is interested in personally handling the Murder Case involving Ruben Rodriguez as she allegedly
had an understanding with [the] Executive Judge." 2

The findings of the Second Investigator, Justice Torres are as follows:

The undersigned, set, conducted, heard and received testimonial and documentary
evidence as stated above on June 5, 8 and 9, 1987. Subsequent hearings were
conducted on June 22 and 29, 1987. The last hearing was on July 2, 1987.

xxx xxx xxx

Although as stated earlier in this report, petitioner filed on June 29, 1987, a "Motion
to Withdraw Administrative Complaint and Evidence Already Adduced" against
respondent, the same was denied by the undersigned in an Order dated July 1, 1987
being aware of the case of Vasquez vs. Malvar (85 SCRA, 10) and the fact that in an
investigation of this nature what is involved is not only the personal interest of the
complaining party but more importantly, public interest and the integrity of the judicial
office. 3

xxx xxx xxx

Evidence is overwhelming to the effect that no raffle was conducted on November

22, 1984 in reference to Criminal Case No. 2589 entitle & People of the Philippines
vs. Ruben Rodriguez.

All the witnesses. presented by petitioner-complainant testified that no such raffle

was conducted. ...

Then Executive Judge Alberto Reyes of the Regional Trial Court of Balayan, Branch
X, testified under oath that Criminal Case No. 2589 "was never included in the raffle
of cases" on November 22, 1984. On July 2, 1987, the Investigating Justice
summoned by way of subpoena duces tecum Attorney Arturo G. Matibag; OIC,
Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC, 4th Judicial District, Balayan, Batangas. He
testified under oath that he was not aware that Criminal Case No. 2589 was raffled
and more he averred that "in no instance can a case be assigned to the judges
without raffle."

On June 9, 1987, respondent Honorable Judge Leticia S. Mariano de Guia presented

her only witness in the person of Atty. Edemaco Magpantay, a private prosecutor in
Criminal Case No. 2589. Witness Magpantay presented a sworn statement marked
as Exhibit 3 (for respondent) describing how the respondent conducted the
proceedings in Criminal Case No. 2589. When witness Magpantay was asked by the
Investigating Justice "whether or not the raffle of this case was actually conducted by
the rules," he answered "No, your Honor." On cross-examination by Atty. Ceferino
Inciong, witness Magpantay was asked — do you know that P175,000.00 was paid
by the accused and only P100,000.00 went to the aggrieved party P75,000.00 was
pocketed by the respondent. To which line of questioning respondent Judge de Guia
objected stating among others that is a libelous statement. I object to that your
Honor.

xxx xxx xxx

The undersigned Investigating Justice had ample opportunity to observe and weigh
at close range the behavior and conduct of the parties and the witnesses presented
during this administrative investigation de novo. It is the opinion of the Investigating
Justice that the evidence presented by the petitioner, both testimonial and
documentary, are in substance credibly adequate to establish the charge of
"INDUCING COURT EMPLOYEES TO FALSIFY COURT RECORD." The evidence
presented by respondent was also carefully examined and analyzed in accordance
with established rules and jurisprudence on the matter but the same was found
inadequate to off-set the justiceable and credible evidence for petitioner.

Although Investigating Justice is aware that this is an administrative proceeding

nevertheless, it appears that respondent would be responsible for causing it to
appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in
fact so participate.

Respondent Judge de Guia stated in her "Rejoinder to Supplementary Reply and

Motion to dismiss filed before this Honorable Supreme Court, that assignment of
cases is very common in Balayan, without the benefit of raffle; the record however,
does not reveal who assigned Criminal Case No. 2589 to respondent. Be it as it may,
Investigating Justice shares the findings of then Deputy Senior Judicial Administrator
Arturo Buena that: "On the contrary, suspicion arises that there may indeed be
irregularities in the raffling of cases in the Regional Trial Court of Balayan, in view of
respondent's admission that assignment of cases without the benefit of raffle is very
 common in said court, a procedure which violates Circular No. 7 of the Supreme
Court dated September 23, 1974 as amended by Circular No. 3 dated April 24,1975
as further amended by Circular No. 20 dated October 4, 1979, which provides as
follows:

Rule 1 — Raffling of Cases — All cases filed with the Court in

stations or groupings where there are two or more branches shall be
assigned or distributed to the different branches by raffle. No case
may be assigned to any branch without being raffled. The raffle of
cases should be regularly conducted at the hour and on the day or
days to be fixed by the Executive Judge. ...

Even on the assumption, as respondent admitted, that assignment of cases is "very

common" in the Regional Trial Courts where she was assigned, she should have
borne in mind that practice is not the law. The law is very explicit on this as
expressed by Article 7 of the New Civil Code which provides:

"Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or

non-observance shall not be excused by disuse, or customs
or practice to the contrary."

Respondent could not go against Circular No. 20 of the Honorable Supreme Court in
the exercise of its rule-making power until it is repealed or otherwise modified. 4

xxx xxx xxx

(Emphasis supplied)

After a careful review of the report and of the transcript of the hearings held by Justice Torres, the
Court agrees with the findings of Justice Torres. The Court is satisfied that respondent Judge
induced the two court employees to make it appear that the Ruben Rodriguez case had been raffled
to her sala when it had not in fact been so raffled. The Court is further satisfied that a violation of
Circular No. 7 dated 23 September 1974, as amended, has been committed by respondent Judge
who has been unable to account for the Ruben Rodriguez case winding up in her sala.

The behaviour of respondent Judge complained of and proven in this case is of such a character as
to create a substantial suspicion that respondent Judge may have been moved by corrupt motives in
taking over the criminal case against Ruben Rodriguez, et al. and acquitting the accused in view of
the inability of the fiscal to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt because his
witnesses had turned hostile. While, fortunately for respondent Judge, that suspicion re-examine
mains a suspicion only, it behooves respondent Judge constantly to bear in mind that:

... The judge is the visible representation of the law and, more importantly, of justice.
From him, the people draw their will and awareness to obey the law. They see in him
an intermediary of justice between two conflicting interests, specially in the station of
municipal judges, like respondent Judge, who have that close and direct contact with
the people before anybody else in the judiciary. Thus, for the judge to return that
regard, he must be the first to abide by the law and weave an example for the others
to follow. He should be studiously careful to avoid even the slightest infraction of the
law. ... 5

The Court adopts the recommendation of the investigating Justice and hereby finds respondent
Judge Leticia S. Mariano de Guia guilty of misconduct irregularities office and accordingly, imposes
a FINE upon respondent Judge equivalent to her three (3) months pay, with a stern WARNING that
repetition of the same offense or commission of a similar offense will be dealt with more severely.

The Court Administrator is hereby instructed immediately to investigate and determine whether
Circular No. 7 of 23 September 1974, as amended, is being faithfully adhered to in the Regional Trial
Court of Balayan, Batangas, and forthwith to report to the Court.

SO ORDERED.
Teehankee, C.J., Yap, Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Paras, Padilla, Bidin,
Sarmiento and Cortes, JJ., concur.

Cruz, J., took no part.

Gancayco, J., is on leave.

Footnotes

1 Rollo, pp. 113-117.

2 Rollo, p. 3.

3 Rollo, p. 188,

4 Rollo, pp. 189-193.

5 De la Paz vs. Inutan, 64 SCRA 540 at 548-549 [1975].