A.M. No. RTJ-13-2359; October 23, 2013
Atty. Jerome Norman L. Tacorda for Odel Gedraga, Complainant, vs. Judge Reynaldo B. Clemens, Respondent.

FACTS

Atty. Jerome Norman L. Tacorda filed an administrative complaint against Judge Reynaldo B. Clemens, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Calbayog City, Branch 31, for gross ignorance of the law and alleged violation of the Child Witness Examination Rule. The complaint stemmed from the testimony of a 15-year-old witness, Odel Gedraga, in a murder case. Atty. Tacorda alleged that during the hearing on January 19, 2012, Judge Clemens failed to properly implement the rule by allowing the minor to testify continuously from 8:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. with only a brief break. He further claimed the judge was passive when defense counsel allegedly stood too close to the witness despite an order to maintain distance and when the court interpreter sometimes relied on the defense counsel for interpretation, potentially intimidating the child.
In his Comment, Judge Clemens refuted the allegations. He asserted he was unaware that the trial duration violated any rule, noting it was Atty. Tacorda who insisted on starting at 8:30 a.m. and conducted a lengthy direct examination. He cited the Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) to demonstrate he promptly granted Atty. Tacorda’s request for the defense counsel not to surround the witness and corrected the interpreter when she sought assistance from defense counsel. He maintained his actions were in good faith and aimed at efficiently managing the trial while being attentive to the witness’s condition.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Clemens is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law for his alleged violations of the Child Witness Examination Rule.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, finding no administrative liability. The Court emphasized that for a judge to be held liable for gross ignorance of the law, the erroneous acts must be gross, patent, deliberate, and motivated by bad faith, fraud, or dishonesty. A review of the TSN revealed that Judge Clemens was vigilant and responsive during the proceedings. He immediately acted on complainant’s manifestations, ordering the defense counsel to keep a distance from the witness and instructing the court interpreter to perform her duty independently. The Court found no evidence of ill motive or bad faith.
The duration of the minor’s testimony, while lengthy, was not shown to be a deliberate violation motivated by malice. The record indicated the judge was mindful of procedural rules and the witness’s exhaustion, even attempting to expedite the cross-examination. Administrative liability cannot be based on mere suspicion or speculation; the complainant bears the burden of proving bad faith by substantial evidence, which was not met. Thus, Judge Clemens’ conduct, though perhaps imperfect, did not rise to the level of gross ignorance warranting disciplinary action.