G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-03-1475, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1752, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1754. February 4, 2003
Earla Sy vs. Judge Veronica Dondiego; Judge Veronica Dondiego, et al. vs. Judge Camilo Tamin; Arsenio Corro, Jr. and Timoteo C. Yunting vs. Judge Camilo Tamin

FACTS

These consolidated administrative cases stem from a feud between two judges in Zamboanga del Sur. The first case (A.M. OCA IPI No. 00-853-MTJ) was filed by court employee Earla Sy against Judge Veronica Dondiego of the MTC, Tambulig, for falsification of public documents. Sy alleged that Dondiego, despite having already terminated a preliminary investigation and forwarded a criminal case (People vs. German Onod) to the Provincial Prosecutor, later issued an order dismissing the same case and ordering the accused’s release. Dondiego admitted the act but claimed her frequently absent clerk of court failed to inform her the case was already beyond her jurisdiction.
The second and third cases (A.M. OCA IPI No. 00-908-RTJ and A.M. OCA IPI No. 00-960-RTJ) were complaints filed against Judge Camilo Tamin of the RTC, Molave. Complainants, including Judge Dondiego, alleged gross ignorance of the law, misconduct, and abuse of authority. One specific allegation was that Judge Tamin falsified a decision by citing non-existent witnesses. It was established that these “witnesses” were actually named in a Supreme Court decision that Judge Tamin was quoting verbatim. Another complainant, Margarita Bayawa, alleged improper conduct by Judge Tamin in citing her for indirect contempt based on an affidavit she submitted.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) Whether Judge Dondiego is administratively liable for her actions in the Onod case; (2) Whether Judge Tamin is liable for the charges of gross ignorance of the law and misconduct; and (3) Whether Judge Tamin acted properly in the indirect contempt proceedings against Bayawa.

RULING

The Court found Judge Veronica Dondiego guilty of Simple Misconduct and imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P10,500.00). Her defense of reliance on a negligent subordinate was unacceptable. A judge has a non-delegable duty to be informed of the status of cases and to act with due care. Her failure to verify the case’s status before issuing a dismissal order constituted a breach of this duty, warranting administrative sanction.
Judge Camilo Tamin was exonerated from all charges. The allegation of falsification for citing “ghost witnesses” was baseless, as he was correctly quoting from an existing Supreme Court precedent. His act of citing complainants for indirect contempt, while stemming from a contentious environment, was not shown to be malicious or devoid of legal basis. The Court viewed the complaints against him as part of the retaliatory feud, not as evidence of judicial misconduct. Regarding the contempt charge against Bayawa, the Court found no liability on Judge Tamin’s part for instituting the proceedings, as he perceived the affidavit as part of a scheme to discredit his court. However, he was admonished for a slight delay in acting on Bayawa’s petition for bail, reminding him to act with deliberate speed in matters involving physical liberty. All complaints against Judge Tamin were dismissed.