G.R. No.: A.M. No. RTJ-08-2149; March 9, 2011 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 08-2787-RTJ)
Case Parties/Title: Lydia A. Benancillo, Complainant, vs. Judge Venancio J. Amila, Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Tagbilaran City, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Lydia A. Benancillo filed a Petition for Temporary Protection Order (TPO) and Permanent Protection Order under Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-VAWC) against her live-in partner, Paul John Belot, docketed as Civil Case No. 7268. The RTC Branch 1 (then Family Court) issued a TPO directing Belot to turn over personal effects and properties of their diving business, Underworld Diver’s Panglao, Inc. Belot filed a motion for reconsideration, while business partners Paz Mandin Trotin and Christopher Mandin filed a motion for intervention regarding the business properties. The case was later transferred to RTC Branch 3, presided by respondent Judge Venancio J. Amila, when it was designated as the new Family Court. Judge Amila, in an Order dated July 16, 2007, denied both Belot’s motion for reconsideration and the intervenors’ motion for intervention, and issued a cease-and-desist order against the intervenors. He reiterated this in an Order dated August 14, 2007, and denied the intervenors’ motion for reconsideration in an Order dated October 2, 2007.
The complainant alleged that while Judge Amila initially ruled in her favor by denying the intervention, he refused to enforce the TPO. She further claimed that on October 8, 2007, Judge Amila called her and her counsel to a meeting in his chambers for October 9, 2007, but they did not proceed upon learning the intervenors were also invited. After meeting with the intervenors, Judge Amila issued an Order dated October 18, 2007, rescinding his October 2, 2007 Order, and subsequently denied the complainant’s motion for reconsideration in an Order dated October 25, 2007. The complainant charged Judge Amila with Grave Abuse of Discretion, Gross Ignorance of the Law and Procedure, Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Judgment or Order, Partiality, and Impropriety, arguing that the October 18, 2007 Order was issued without a motion from any party and was based on a non-existent petition for certiorari, and that the October 25, 2007 Order introduced a new jurisdictional issue inconsistently.
In his Comment, Judge Amila denied the charges, claiming the complainant was motivated by “insatiable greed” and was merely a live-in partner in an “illegitimate relationship,” whom Belot branded as a “prostitute.” He justified rescinding his October 2, 2007 Order because he feared the complainant, as a “dummy owner,” might abscond with the properties due to the “illegitimate status” of their relationship. He asserted authority to rectify errors motu proprio to maintain the status quo. In her Reply, the complainant asserted that Judge Amila’s remarks showed prejudice, lack of gender sensitivity, and disregard for the Anti-VAWC law, and that his bias reflected a lack of impartiality. She also noted that the petition for certiorari cited by Judge Amila had been dismissed by the Court of Appeals.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found that Judge Amila acted inappropriately in calling the intervenors to a meeting in his chambers and using derogatory language in his Comment. The OCA deemed the charges for gross ignorance of the law premature due to a pending petition before the Supreme Court assailing the October 18 and 25, 2007 Orders.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Venancio J. Amila is administratively liable for Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge based on the allegations and evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court found respondent Judge Venancio J. Amila GUILTY of Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge. The Court agreed with the OCA’s findings that Judge Amila acted inappropriately by calling the intervenors to a meeting in his chambers after having ruled they had no legal personality to intervene, creating an impression of impropriety and partiality. More significantly, the Court condemned the derogatory and irreverent language used by Judge Amila in his Comment, where he described the complainant as an opportunist, a mistress in an illegitimate relationship, and motivated by insatiable greed, echoing the abusive language of the respondent in the case. Such conduct violated the New Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates judges to ensure equality, avoid discrimination, and act with courtesy and civility. A judge must be temperate in speech and maintain the dignity of the judicial office. Judge Amila’s language was deemed vulgar, unbecoming, and demonstrated a lack of the cold neutrality required of an impartial judge, especially in a case involving violence against women and children.
The Court imposed a fine of Twenty-One Thousand Pesos (₱21,000.00) on Judge Amila, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely. The charges for Grave Abuse of Discretion, Gross Ignorance of the Law and Procedure, and Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Judgment or Order relative to the issuance of the October 18 and 25, 2007 Orders were dismissed for being premature, as the complainant had a pending petition assailing those orders before the Supreme Court.