MARCOS – v – PAMINTUAN
EN BANC, A.M.
No. RTJ-07-2062, January 18,
2011
Doctrine:
The judiciary cannot keep those who cannot meet the exacting standards of
judicial conduct and integrity. This being so, in the performance of the
functions of their office, judges must endeavor to act in a manner that puts
them and their conduct above reproach and beyond suspicion. They must act
with extreme care for their office indeed is burdened with a heavy load of responsibility.
Judge Reyes dismissed Civil Case No. 3383-R in an order on May 30,
1996. The parties filed their separate motions for reconsideration of the said
order but both motions were denied by the RTC for lack of merit. 10 years
later, Judge Pamintuan set the case for hearing on June 29,
2006 purportedly to formally and finally release the Golden Buddha to its
rightful owner. Marcos was one of the subpoenaed parties, being a person
with interest in the case.
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 (Judge
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. She argued
that final and executory judgments of lower courts were not reviewable even by
the Supreme Court. In his Comment, Judge Pamintuan argued that Marcos
could have just filed a pleading manifesting lack of interest or moving for the
recall of the subpoena, but she did not. With her appearance through
counsel, she subjected herself to the jurisdiction of the court.
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.
Issue: Whether or not Judge
Pamintuan is guilty for Gross Ignorance of the Law and for violation of Canon 4
of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Ruling: Yes. Judge Fernando Vil
Pamintuan of the RTC Baguio City, Branch 3, is DISMISSED from
the service.
o Doubtless, the May 30,
1996 Order, which was modified on September 2, 1996, in Civil Case No.
3383-R, has long become final and executory. In his assailed August
15, 2006 Order, Judge Pamintuan made express declarations that were not embodied
either in the May 30, 1996 Order or in the September 2,
1996 Order. He ruled that the Golden Buddha in the custody of the court
was a fake one, or a mere replica of the original. This may be his opinion
or the litigants during the hearing of June 29, 2006 but Judge Pamintuan should
have realized that the trial court did not rule on that point in its May 30,
1996 Order (even in its September 2, 1996 Order).
o Section 6, Canon 4 of
the New Code of Judicial Conduct provides: 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.
o Judge Pamintuan indeed
made a serious error in making such a pronouncement in the challenged order. It
is axiomatic that when a judgment is final and executory, it becomes immutable
and unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any respect either by the
court which rendered it or even by this Court. The doctrine of immutability and
inalterability of a final judgment has a two-fold purpose, to wit: (1) to
avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus, procedurally, to make
orderly the discharge of judicial business; and (2) to
put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors, which
is precisely why courts exist. Controversies cannot drag on indefinitely.
o Judges owe it to the
public to be well-informed, thus, they are expected to be familiar with the
statutes and procedural rules at all times. When the law is so
elementary, not to know it or to act as if one does not know it, constitutes
gross ignorance of the law.
o Judge Pamintuan failed
to conform to the high standards of competence required of judges under the
Code of Judicial Conduct, which provides that:
Rule 1.01 - A judge
should be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence.
Rule 3.01 - A judge shall x x x maintain professional competence.
o Competence is a mark of
a good judge. When a judge exhibits an utter lack of know-how with the
rules or with settled jurisprudence, he erodes the public’s confidence in the
competence of our courts. It is highly crucial that judges be acquainted with
the law and basic legal principles. Ignorance of the law, which everyone is
bound to know, excuses no one - not even judges.
o Notably, this is not Judge
Pamintuan’s first and sole administrative case. In this
case, the Court finds Judge Pamintuan accountable for gross ignorance of the
law. He could have simply been suspended and fined, but the Court cannot
take his previous infractions lightly. His violations are serious in
character. Having been previously warned and punished for various
infractions, Judge Pamintuan now deserves the ultimate administrative penalty −
dismissal from service.
