Dating principal ngayon janitor

During the hearing conducted by Justice Salazar-Fernando on October 24, , complainant Ocampo confirmed that he had no personal knowledge of the alleged bribery of respondent Judge Arcaya-Chua. Justice Salazar-Fernando recommended that A. She stated that as a matter of policy, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action even though such acts are erroneous.

Mupas, [22] which held thus: In the absence of contrary evidence, what will prevail is the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his or her official duties.

Navigation menu

In administrative proceedings, complainants have the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in their complaints. Thus, when the complainant relies mainly on secondhand information to prove the charges against the respondent, the complaint is reduced into a bare indictment or mere speculation. The Court cannot give credence to charges based on mere credence or speculation.

As we held in a recent case: Any administrative complaint leveled against a judge must always be examined with a discriminating eye, for its consequential effects are by their nature highly penal, such that the respondent judge stands to face the sanction of dismissal or disbarment. Mere imputation of judicial misconduct in the absence of sufficient proof to sustain the same will never be countenanced.

If a judge should be disciplined for misconduct, the evidence against him should be competent. It is specifically applicable to "women and their children," not to men. Thus, while the TPO may be justified with respect to the protection accorded the minor, the same is not legally tenable with respect to the petitioner, Albert Chang Tan. Under R. Certainly, such a TPO would be absurd. Hence, Justice Salazar-Fernando found respondent Judge Arcaya-Chua's error in this regard to be gross ignorance of the law. Callejo, Sr. Pamintuan , [24] which stated, thus: When the inefficiency springs from a failure to consider so basic and elementary a rule, a law or a principle in the discharge of his duties, a judge is either too incompetent and undeserving of the position and the title he holds or is too vicious that the oversight or omission was deliberately done in bad faith and in grave abuse of judicial authority De Guzman, Jr.

Sison , A. RTJ, March 26, When the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to simply apply it; anything less than that would be constitutive of gross ignorance of the law Rodriguez v. Bonifacio , A. RTJ, November 6, Justice Salazar-Fernando averred that as a family court judge, respondent Judge Arcaya-Chua should be the last person to err in the application of R.

Such is unthinkable under R. A careful evaluation of the records in the Chang Tan Case showed that there was not even any allegation of violence committed by Stephanie Pulliam against her husband, Chang Tan. Thus, Justice Salazar-Fernando found that the TPO against Stephanie, insofar as it directed the latter to stay away from the home and office of petitioner, to cease and desist from harassing, intimidating or threatening petitioner and to refrain from acts of commission or omission that create an unreasonable risk to the health, safety or welfare of petitioner, was anomalous.

Kadenang Ginto - Wikipedia

Be that as it may, with respect to the issue of custody, Justice Salazar-Fernando found respondent Judge Arcaya-Chua's reasons for granting custody over subject minor to Albert Chang Tan to be legally tenable. While not exactly conclusive, the evidence relied upon by respondent Judge in granting custody in favor of Chang Tan was substantial enough to warrant a prima facie determination that a TPO in favor of the minor was necessary and would serve her paramount interest.

Justice Salazar-Fernando found nothing improper in respondent Judge's reliance on the psychological evaluation report of Dr. Sonia Rodriguez and the statements of yaya Josie Leynes and the subject minor herself, Rafi Pulliam, which all confirmed that Stephanie has not been a good influence to her daughter, Rafi. As far as the latter's paramount interest was concerned, Stephanie was not the ideal person to whom custody should be awarded.

On this premise, respondent Judge Arcaya-Chua's award of temporary custody to the father could be justified. However, Justice Salazar-Fernando stated that she does not necessarily affirm the correctness of the custody award to the father, Chang Tan, since respondent Judge Arcaya-Chua's Order dated May 7, was annulled and set aside by the Twelfth Division of the Court of Appeals in a Decision dated October 31, In regard to the alleged bribery and unusual interest which respondent Judge Arcaya-Chua allegedly displayed in the said case, Justice Salazar-Fernando found no substantial evidence to support such allegations.

Moreover, not one of the witnesses of OCA confirmed having personally witnessed the alleged heated argument between Chang Tan and the OIC of the RTC of Makati City, Branch , except for their secondhand accounts that they heard that such incident actually transpired. Justice Salazar-Fernando found it speculative to attribute the commission of bribery or wrongdoing to resp ondent Judge Arcaya - Chua solely on such account.

The Investigating Justice stated that respondent Judge appeared to have no personal or actual participation in that incident, because the "heated argument" was allegedly between Chang Tan and the OIC, Victoria Jamora. As regards respondent Judge Arcaya-Chua's issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment in the RCBC Case, Justice Salazar-Fernando found no evidence against respondent of any irregularity or undue interest in the case. Respondent convincingly elaborated the circumstances surrounding her issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment, particularly the manner in which she studied and evaluated the application for the writ.

Justice Salazar-Fernando was convinced that while the order granting the writ was indeed speedily issued the ex parte hearing on the application having been held on a Friday, followed immediately by the issuance of the writ on the succeeding business day, a Monday there was really nothing impossible or irregular in such feat. Per respondents account, she had been unofficially reporting for work on Saturdays during that time and she did not have to evaluate the totality of the evidence for the purpose of ruling on the propriety of issuing the writ.

Further, considering respondent's habit of immediately disposing pending motions before her court, Justice Salazar-Fernando found no sufficient basis to attach a sinister significance to the speedy issuance of the writ of preliminary attachment. The Investigating Justice also found respondent Judge's reasons for issuing the writ of preliminary attachment to be apt.

Justice Salazar-Fernando held that in the absence of evidence that she was motivated by any dishonest or corrupt motive in issuing the writ, respondent Judge Arcaya-Chua is entitled to the presumption that she regularly performed her duties. She cited, thus: In administrative proceedings, the complainant bears the onus of establishing, by substantial evidence, the averments of his complaint.

Notatu dignum is the presumption of regularity in the performance of a judge's functions, hence bias, prejudice and even undue interest cannot be presumed , specially weighed against a judge's sacred allegation under oath of office to administer justice without respect to any person and do equal right to the poor and to the rich. In a long line of cases decided by this Court, it was held that bare allegations of bias are not enough in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the judge will undertake his noble role to dispense justice according to law and evidence and without fear or favor.

In Sinnott v. Barte, it was further held, mere suspicion that a judge is partial is not enough. There should be clear and convincing evidence to prove the charge of bias and partiality. Extrinsic evidence is required to establish bias, bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose, in addition to the palpable error that may be inferred from the decision or order itself.

Although the decision may seem so erroneous as to raise doubts concerning a judge's integrity, absent extrinsic evidence, the decision itself would be insufficient to establish a case against the judge. Findings in the Judicial Audit Case Re: Marriage Certificates and Monthly Reports. Justice Salazar-Fernando found that there is substantial evidence of an anomaly in respon dent Judge Arcaya-Chua's solemnization of marriages in her court and failure to reflect the correct number of marriages in her Monthly Reports.

The Investigating Justice stated that at once, the timing of the disposal of the marriage certificates, which were said to have been contained in four 4 plastic bags, is highly suspect, because it occurred during the time the judicial audit was being conducted. However, as regards the timing of disposal, she explained that she ordered Indicio to dispose of her garbage on the second week of May, days before the judicial audit. Indicio stated that the garbage was due for disposal on May 14, , but since it was election day, the disposal of the garbage was postponed until May 17, , at which time, the disposal of the plastic bags caught the attention of the security detail of the Supreme Court.

The Investigating Justice stated that based on the foregoing account, if the order to dispose of the garbage was indeed made on May 9, , it is perplexing why such a simple task of throwing away a garbage of barely four plastic bags, which would take only a couple of minutes to accomplish, could tarry for several days. The logical implication is that the order to dispose could not have been made on May 9, , but more likely later when the judicial audit was already being conducted.

Such conclusion jibes with the account of Atty. Fe Corcelles-Aguila, one of the members of the judicial audit team, that upon being immediately confronted why he chose that particular day to dispose of the supposed garbage despite the ongoing audit, Indicio "could not offer any explanation. He testified, thus: You mentioned in your Affidavit and in your testimony this morning that you executed an Affidavit on May 17 and the throwing away of the garbage was also done at 8: When did I give my instruction to you to throw away the garbage?

Description

You told me before the audit to throw all your trash. Did you know when that particular day was?

That was election day, Your Honor. Election day of May, ? Yes, Your Honor.

From principal to janitress: 84-year-old ‘Nanay Pacing’ shares her career-life story

Was that the exact date when Judge Chua told you to throw the garbage? May I draw your attention to paragraph 2 of your Affidavit. This was subscribed to on May So the last week that you mentioned here was a week before May You mentioned here that last week, I was instructed by the Presiding Judge to dispose of the garbage which were stocked in her branch.

Do you confirm the statement in paragraph 2 of your Affidavit? Judge Chua told me to throw the garbage because it was election day. I am sorry, Your Honor, but I do not get the fact straight. May I draw your attention now to paragraph 5 of your Affidavit. You said here that the said garbage was scheduled to be disposed last May 14, However, since it was election day, same was not collected.

Yes, maam, it was scheduled on May 14, but the janitor was busy so it was only on May 17 that he had an opportunity to throw it. To clarify the matter, Mr. Indicio, when did I give the instruction to you to throw away the garbage? I was told before the audit. The audit was conducted on May 15 up to May Based on paragraph 2 of your Affidavit, I gave the instruction to you a week before May 17, so I gave the instruction to you probably on May 10, is that what you are saying?

I do not remember the exact date but I was instructed by Judge Chua. When you told us that before the audit was conducted, Judge Chua already instructed you to throw those garbage bags placed inside the stenographers room, how many days after that instruction was given to you did you comply with her instruction? Eight 8 days, Your Honor. So if you instructed Beldad to throw those garbage bags on May 17 minus 8 that would be May 9, is that correct? Yes, your Honor. According to Justice Salazar-Fernando, apart from the timing of the disposal, the manner of disposing the plastic bags of marriage certificates was also open to suspicion.

Although there were four plastic bags ready for disposal, which according to Indicio himself were really not too heavy, [31] only one was taken out by the janitor to be disposed, leaving three other plastic bags inside the courtroom. Taking out the plastic bags one by one could have been purposely sought to surreptitiously remove the said bags from the courtroom, and avoid detection by the security personnel detailed by the judicial audit team.

Justice Salazar-Fernando noted that despite repeated references to the supposed garbage, which were allegedly contained in similar plastic bags containing the marriage certificates, the whereabouts of the said plastic bags of garbage were never accounted for. If what were mistakenly attempted to be disposed of by Indicio were the plastic bags containing the marriage certificates, the plastic bags containing the garbage could have been found elsewhere in the courtroom.

However, as things turned out, there were really no plastic bags of garbage, but only more plastic bags of marriage certificates. Respondent Judge Arcaya-Chua's account of the plastic bags of garbage was unsubstantiated. The Investigating Justice did not give credence to respondent Judges theory as to why the plastic bags of marriage certificates were found in the stenographer's room, causing Indicio to mistake it for the garbage which she supposedly ordered him to dispose of. Respondent Judge Arcaya-Chua theorized that a certain Noel Umipig, a casual employee in her staff, who harbored a deep-seated grudge against her for not being able to borrow money from her, could have been responsible in transferring the plastic bags of marriage certificates from the small room in her chambers to the stenographer's room before her courtroom was padlocked.

According to her, Umipig could have heard of the impending administrative investigation on her. Hence, to expose the big number of weddings she had been solemnizing, which, purportedly, through Umipig' s machinations had not been reflected in her monthly reports, Umipig could have taken out the plastic bags of marriage certificates from the small room in her chambers and transferred them to the stenographer's room, so that once the plastic bags were taken out to the garbage can along the corridor, the documents would be discovered by the audit team. Justice Salazar-Fernando found respondent Judges theory difficult to swallow.

According to her, it was fantastic that respondent Judge attached too much cunning to Umipig for the latter to have deviously perpetrated all the acts being attributed to him. If the intention was only to expose the big number of weddings, it is hard to understand why Umipig would have to go the difficult way of trespassing on her chambers when all he would have to do was spread rumors about the weddings, as he had been wont to do, per respondent Judge Arcaya-Chua's own account. In regard to the non-payment of the marriage solemnization fees, the certifications [32] issued by the Clerks of Court of the MeTC and RTC of Makati City attest to the fact that out of the 1, marriages solemnized by respondent Judge Arcaya-Chua, only marriages were paid the corresponding solemnization fees.

Justice Salazar-Fernando found no reason to doubt the reliability or integrity of the said certifications, the contents of which were confirmed by Arnel Magsombol and Lucila Ticman, the same persons who personally verified from their records whether or not the solemnization fees of the marriages solemnized by respondent Judge Arcaya-Chua were paid. Respondent Judge assailed the reliability of the procedure undertaken by Magsombol and Ticman in verifying the payment of solemnization fees, positing that they could have merely relied on the dates of the wedding as stated in the marriage certificates, which were often not the same dates stated in the receipts.