A.M. No. MTJ-00-1337. April 27, 2004.
JUDGE DONATO SOTERO A. NAVARRO, complainant, vs. JUDGE ROSABELLA M. TORMIS, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Judge Donato Sotero A. Navarro of the MTCC, Cebu City, Branch 6, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Executive Judge Rosabella M. Tormis of the same court. The complaint alleged several instances of improper conduct. First, in Criminal Case No. 106436-R (People vs. Comparativo), Judge Tormis allegedly removed an Order of Commitment issued by Judge Navarro and substituted her own order directing the accused’s release, asserting the case fell under the Rule on Summary Procedure. Second, Judge Tormis allegedly uttered derogatory remarks against Judge Navarro and his court, stating “for me, Branch 6 does not exist.” Third, she was accused of rendering an opinion in a case (People vs. Garduque) pending before another judge, Judge Grace Orma E. Ypil, in violation of judicial ethics. The complaint also noted an incident where a copy of a Supreme Court resolution in this administrative case was posted on courtroom doors, which Judge Navarro implied was done to publicly embarrass him.
In her Comment, Judge Tormis defended her actions. She claimed the commitment order in the Comparativo case was issued by a clerk of court, not Judge Navarro, and her release order was justified. She characterized her “Branch 6 does not exist” remark as light banter. Regarding the Garduque case, she admitted sending a letter to Judge Ypil suggesting dismissal, arguing she acted as Executive Judge to address a perceived grave injustice, as the charged act of illegal squatting had allegedly been decriminalized. She also alleged the complaint was motivated by Judge Navarro’s personal grievances and ambition to become Executive Judge.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Rosabella M. Tormis is administratively liable for the acts complained of, and whether both judges engaged in conduct unbecoming of judicial officers.

RULING

The Supreme Court found Judge Rosabella M. Tormis guilty of improper conduct. The legal logic centers on the fundamental principle of judicial independence and propriety. A judge must not interfere with or influence the proceedings in another judge’s court. By writing a letter to Judge Ypil opining that Criminal Case No. 99796-12-R should be dismissed, Judge Tormis overstepped her bounds as Executive Judge. Her role did not grant her authority to comment on the merits of a case pending in another sala; such action constitutes an attempt to influence the course of litigation, which is improper and violates the Code of Judicial Conduct requiring judges to perform their duties without bias or undue influence.
Regarding the other charges, the Court did not find sufficient evidence to hold Judge Tormis liable for the alleged removal of the commitment order or for the derogatory remark, treating the latter as an unfortunate but unproven verbal exchange. However, the Court strongly admonished both judges for their overall conduct. Their public feud, which was reported in local media, eroded public confidence in the judiciary. Judges must always act with circumspection to preserve the integrity and impartiality of the judicial system. Their behavior fell short of the high standards of conduct required, as it created an appearance of impropriety and damaged the institution’s reputation.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
Judge Rosabella M. Tormis is found guilty of improper conduct for trying to influence litigation and is REPRIMANDED with a stern warning. Both Judge Tormis and Judge Donato Sotero A. Navarro are ADMONISHED for unbecoming conduct with a stern warning.