A.M. No. MTJ-07-1692; November 28, 2007
ASUNCION B. VISBAL, Complainant, vs. JUDGE ROSABELLA M. TORMIS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, CEBU CITY, BRANCH 4, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Asuncion B. Visbal filed an administrative complaint for dishonesty and grave misconduct against respondent Judge Rosabella M. Tormis. The complaint stemmed from statements made by Judge Tormis in a criminal case for direct assault, which she had filed against Visbal before she was appointed to the bench. The Court’s First Division initially dismissed the main administrative complaint, finding the proper remedy to be judicial. However, the Court noted two procedural issues: first, Judge Tormis had testified in court without prior permission from the Supreme Court, and second, she had failed to furnish complainant with a copy of her Comment on the administrative complaint as repeatedly directed.
In her explanations, Judge Tormis argued she believed prior permission was unnecessary as she was a crime victim testifying in a case she filed before her judgeship. Regarding the service of her Comment, she consistently claimed she had complied, but the complainant repeatedly manifested to the Court that she never received a copy. For her failure to seek permission, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found her reasons justifiable but admonished her for imprudence. For her repeated failure to show proof of service of her Comment despite Court directives, she was previously fined ₱2,000 for contempt.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Rosabella M. Tormis should be held administratively liable for her failure to comply with the Supreme Court’s directives to furnish proof of service of her Comment to the complainant.

RULING

Yes, the Court found Judge Tormis administratively liable for Simple Misconduct. The core legal principle is that a judge’s duty to obey the orders and processes of the Supreme Court is paramount and non-negotiable. The Court’s directives are not mere requests but compulsory orders essential to the administrative supervision of the judiciary. Judge Tormis’s repeated failure to present proof that she served a copy of her Comment on the complainant, despite several explicit resolutions ordering her to do so, constitutes a clear defiance of lawful orders.
Her obstinate non-compliance, which had already resulted in a prior contempt finding and fine, demonstrated a troubling disregard for the Court’s authority. This defiance is a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates that a judge must respect and comply with the law and act at all times in a manner promoting public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity. Her actions fell short of the high standard of conduct required of members of the bench. Consequently, the Court imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (₱10,000) for Simple Misconduct, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or a similar act would be dealt with more severely.