G.R. No. A.M. No. RTJ-20-2588 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 14-4336-RTJ). February 2, 2021.
Arsenio V. Delagua, complainant, vs. Presiding Judge Niño A. Batingana, Branch 6, Regional Trial Court, Mati City, Davao Oriental, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Arsenio V. Delagua charged respondent Judge Niño A. Batingana with grave misconduct, immorality, and ignorance of the law in relation to Special Proceeding No. 241, a petition for the probate of the will of complainant’s father, Francisco C. Delagua, Sr. The complainant alleged that in 2013, respondent appointed Francisco Delagua, Jr. as Special Administrator of the estate despite Delagua, Jr. being disinherited in the will and despite the motion for his appointment not being heard. The complainant further alleged that on October 15, 2014, respondent, together with his alleged paramour Lang Lang Dimpas and court staff, visited the Delagua family beach resort, where Delagua, Jr. served them food. The following day, respondent granted Delagua, Jr. an extension to submit a required accounting report. The complainant also asserted that respondent had a longstanding friendship with Delagua, Jr. and that during the resort visit, respondent accepted a pad of thousand-peso bills from Delagua, Jr. The complainant filed a motion for inhibition, which respondent denied. Respondent countered that his actions were in accordance with law and that the accusations were intended to harass him. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) records revealed respondent had been previously sanctioned in eight other administrative cases. The case was referred to an Investigating Justice of the Court of Appeals, who found respondent guilty of immorality and gross misconduct but not of ignorance of the law, recommending a suspension of three to six months.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Niño A. Batingana is administratively liable for grave misconduct, immorality, and ignorance of the law.

RULING

The Supreme Court found respondent Judge Niño A. Batingana GUILTY of GROSS MISCONDUCT but NOT GUILTY of immorality and ignorance of the law.
1. On Gross Misconduct: The Court found respondent liable. The testimonies of the complainant and witness Melencio Bartolome established that respondent frequently visited party-litigant Delagua, Jr. at the beach resort (property subject to the probate case), accepted money from him, and received favors (food). These acts, even without direct proof the money was a bribe, violated the New Code of Judicial Conduct. By associating with and accepting money and favors from a litigant with a pending case in his sala, respondent exhibited a corrupt inclination, failed to act with integrity and impartiality, and damaged public confidence in the judiciary. This constitutes gross misconduct, a serious charge.
2. On Immorality: The charge was not substantiated. While evidence showed respondent’s alleged paramour accompanied him to the resort, there was no substantial proof of an illicit affair.
3. On Ignorance of the Law: The charge was not proven. The appointment of a special administrator is discretionary. Complainant failed to show that respondent’s appointment order was contrary to law or issued with bad faith, fraud, or deliberate intent to do injustice.
PENALTY: Considering gross misconduct is a serious charge under the Rules and in light of respondent’s history of multiple prior administrative infractions, which demonstrated his unfitness for office, the Supreme Court imposed the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE. The dismissal carries the accessory penalties of forfeiture of all retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in any government office.