A.M. No. RTJ-14-2388. June 10, 2014
EMILIE SISON-BARIAS, Complainant, vs. JUDGE MARINO E. RUBIA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT [RTC], BRANCH 24, BIÑAN, LAGUNA and EILEEN A. PECAÑA, DATA ENCODER II, RTC, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, BIÑAN, LAGUNA, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Emilie Sison-Barias is a party in three pending cases before the sala of respondent Judge Marino Rubia: an intestate proceeding for her late husband’s estate, a guardianship proceeding over her mother-in-law Romelias Almeda-Barias, and a civil action for annulment of contracts and reconveyance. A common property is involved in all cases. Complainant alleged that respondent Eileen Pecaña, a court data encoder and daughter of her brother’s friend, agreed to check on the delay in the publication of a notice in the intestate case during a meeting on February 20, 2010. Later, Pecaña informed complainant she could no longer assist because Judge Rubia had already given administration of properties to Evelyn Tanael (the guardian). On March 3, 2010, complainant, upon Pecaña’s text message, met with Pecaña and Judge Rubia for dinner at Café Juanita. During dinner, Judge Rubia asked complainant personal questions about her employment, alleged involvement with another man, and details of her husband’s death, which were not in the pleadings. Complainant inferred the judge obtained this information from Atty. Noe Zarate, counsel for the opposing party (Romelias Almeda-Barias). Respondents suggested complainant talk to Atty. Zarate. Complainant also alleged Judge Rubia exhibited manifest partiality in subsequent court proceedings: consolidating cases improperly, refusing to issue orders for inventory as special administrator, refusing to grant subpoena requests, failing to declare the opposing party in default for non-filing of pre-trial briefs, and incorrectly stating the burden of proof. After complainant’s lawyer learned of the dinner meeting, text exchanges between complainant and Pecaña on August 8, 2010, revealed Pecaña’s concern about an administrative case being filed and that “juj rubia will definitely get mad wid us.” Complainant moved for Judge Rubia’s inhibition, which was denied. She then filed this administrative complaint against Pecaña for gross misconduct and against Judge Rubia for conduct unbecoming, partiality, gross ignorance, incompetence, and gross misconduct.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Judge Marino E. Rubia and Eileen A. Pecaña are administratively liable for their actions related to the pending cases of complainant.

RULING

Yes, both respondents are administratively liable.
1. As to Judge Marino E. Rubia: He is found guilty of gross misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, and violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. His actions constitute conduct unbecoming of a judge. The dinner meeting with a party-litigant without the presence of her counsel, discussing case details and personal matters, and suggesting she talk to opposing counsel, violated the duty to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. His subsequent court actions, including improper consolidation of cases, refusal to grant necessary subpoenas and orders, and misapplication of procedural rules, demonstrated partiality and gross ignorance of basic legal procedures. These acts eroded public confidence in the judiciary. The penalty imposed is DISMISSAL from service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in any government branch or instrumentality.
2. As to Eileen A. Pecaña: She is found guilty of simple misconduct. As a court employee, she violated the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel by involving herself in a pending case, acting as an intermediary to arrange a meeting between a judge and a litigant, and discussing case status. Her text messages acknowledging potential trouble from an administrative case compound her liability. The penalty imposed is SUSPENSION for six (6) months without pay, with a stern warning that a repetition will be dealt with more severely.