Clemencio Sabitsana, Jr. vs. Judge Adriano Villamor (RTC Br.

16, Naval, Leyte)

RTJ No. 90-474. October 4, 1991

Nature of the case: Administrative Complaint in SC. Falsification of Certificates of Service.

SC Decision: Judge Villamor is dismissed from service, with forfeiture of all his accrued retirement
benefits, leave, etc; and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch, agency, or instrumentality of
the government, including GOCCs. He is guilty of making untruthful statements in his Certificates of
Service, of inexcusable negligence, and gross inefficiency in connection with missing records, and of
utter indifferences to the Court’s directives; and of serious misconduct for undue interest in a pending
criminal case before a lower court over which he exercised supervision.

Legal Doctrine:
Canon 1, New Code of Judicial Conduct:
Judicial independence is a pre-requisite to the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee
of a fair trial. A judge shall therefore uphold and exemplify judicial independence in both
its individual and institutional aspects.

Canon 1, Sec. 3, New Code of Judicial Conduct:

Judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute
pending before another court or administrative agency.

Canon 3, Rule 3.08, Code of Judicial Conduct:

A judge should diligently discharge administrative responsibilities, maintain professional
competence in court management, and facilitate the performance of the administrative
functions or other judges and court personnel.

Canon 3, Rule 3.09, Code of Judicial Conduct:

A judge should organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and
efficient dispatch of business, and require at all times the observance of high standards of
public service and fidelity.

Certificate of Service is not only a means to pay one’s pay check but an instrument by which
the courts can fulfill the constitutional mandate of the people’s right to a speedy disposition of cases.

The loss of eight records indicates gross misconduct and inexcusable negligence unbecoming of
a judge. Respondent judge is negligent for failing to account records of 12 civil and 2 criminal cases.

Facts:
Atty. Sabitsana charged Judge Villamor with falsification of his monthly Certificates of Service
by making it appear that he had resolved all cases submitted for decision within the required 90-day
period under Judiciary Act of 1948, Sec. 5. The truth is he had 15 undecided cases from 5 years back
(starting March 1985).

Deputy Court Administrator Bernad audited Villamor’s cases, and reported that there were 87
undecided cases beyond the 90-day period, including 6 criminal cases with prisoners, 36 criminal cases
without prisoners, and 45 civil cases. Worse, 2 criminal cases and 12 civil cases were missing.

Complainant also noted 7 additional cases that were still unresolved by Villamor.
 Commenting, Villamor claimed that the complaint was for harassment and vengeance. He
claimed he had not violated the 90-day period, but did not deny that there were other cases he had not
decided yet within 90 days because the transcripts were incomplete. He also added that he knew
nothing of the preparation of his monthly reports which appeared decided within 90 days when in fact
they were not; and that he only signed it.

Among others, the Court ordered Villamor to decided unresolved cases beyond the 90-day
period, and to inform the Court about his steps in retrieving lost records.

Villamor has been unheard from from on those directives.

Sabitsana followed up with another complaint, stating that the 7 mentioned cases he earlier
mentioned remained undecided.

The Court validated the complainant’s charge that Villamor failed to decided the cases within
the required period, and that he falsified his Certificates of Service.

Villamor shifted the blame on his Clerk of Court Atty. Jocobo, whom he claimed was
inefficient in managing Court records.

---------------------------------------------------------

Issue #1: Whether or not respondent Judge Villamor violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Ruling:
Yes. He violated Rule 3.08 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

As held in Secretary of Justice v Legaspi, the judge ought to know the cases submitted to him
for decision, particularly those pending for more than 90 days. He should keep his own record of cases
submitted for decision so that he could act on them promptly. He should also be diligent and vigilant in
preparing his monthly certificates of service by verifying often whether there are pending cases for
decision for more than 90 days, because he could be held accountable for any error or falsification in
his certificates. He cannot escape liability for falsification of his certificates of service with the excuse
that he has no knowledge of those cases pending decision for more than 90 days. Nor could he blame
his subordinate court employees for failing to remind him of his deadlines—court employees are not
the guardian of a judge’s responsibilities.

---------------------------------------------------------

Issue #2: Whether or not respondent Judge Villamor was guilty of giving undue interest in a pending
criminal case.

Ruling:
Yes, for doing such, respondent violated Canon 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct,
specifically, Sec. 3 thereof:
Judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute
pending before another court or administrative agency.
 In this case, respondent designated Judge Pitao as Acting Judge of the MCTC of Biliran
Cabucgayon, Leyte, which was vacant, to allocate 2 session days a week in his additional sala. Judge
Pitao in his residence received a note from a woman, who was the wife of the accused in the criminal
case pending trial for a long time. The note requested that the case be heard and decided, and if the
court had no jurisdiction, to remand it to RTC. It also spoke of Big Man Egane. Respondent asked
Pitao whether he received the note, and warned Pitao about Big Man Egane, who was backing the
complainant in the case and that Pitao should acquit the accused.

Pitao, however, convicted the accused of theft because the evidence was strong. Irked,
respondent Villamor directed Pitao to forward the records to his court, elevated the records of the case
to RTC over which respondent presides, and designated Judge de la Pena as Acting Judge of the MCTC
Biliran-Cabucgayon, Leyte replacing Pitao; and acquitted the accused in the criminal case.

It was found in the investigation that respondent had sent the handwritten note through the wife
of the accused to Pitao. This act of sending his note to Pitao showed failure to exercise due care, and
had an appearance of impropriety. His remark to Pitao of acquitting the accused was also improper and
created an impression that he was for the exoneration of the accused. It tended to influence the trial
judge who was going to decide the case, running afoul of the principle that judges are to promote
justice by administering it impartially.