AM RTJ 20 2597; (September, 2020) (Digest)
A.M. No. RTJ-20-2597, September 22, 2020
Anonymous Complaint against Judge Edmundo P. Pintac and Ms. Lorelei T. Sumague, Stenographer, Both of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Ozamiz City (Consolidated with A.M. No. P-20-4091, A.M. No. RTJ-20-2598, and A.M. No. RTJ-20-2599)
FACTS
These consolidated administrative cases originated from multiple complaints between Judge Edmundo P. Pintac and his process server, Rolando O. Ruiz, of the RTC, Branch 15, Ozamiz City. An anonymous 2009 letter accused Judge Pintac of an illicit relationship with his court stenographer, Lorelei T. Sumague. Subsequently, Judge Pintac filed a complaint against Ruiz for Gross Misconduct and Dishonesty, alleging Ruiz solicited and received money from a litigant, Regina Flores, by falsely claiming it was for the Judge, and that Ruiz falsified a court return of service. Ruiz, in turn, filed counter-complaints against Judge Pintac for immorality, oppression, and corrupt practices, claiming he was privy to the Judge’s wrongdoings.
ISSUE
The primary issue was whether the parties were administratively liable based on the evidence presented.
RULING
The Supreme Court found Rolando O. Ruiz GUILTY of Gross Misconduct and DISMISSED him from service with forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification from government service. The legal logic centered on the substantial evidence proving Ruiz’s acts of soliciting money from a litigant under the guise of judicial influence and falsifying an official document. Regina Flores’ credible testimony and Ruiz’s own resignation letter, where he admitted wrongdoing and begged for forgiveness, constituted clear and convincing proof. Solicitation from litigants is a grave offense that erodes public trust in the judiciary, warranting the ultimate penalty.
Conversely, all complaints against Judge Pintac and Stenographer Sumague were DISMISSED for lack of merit due to insufficient evidence. Ruiz’s accusations of immorality and corruption were uncorroborated, self-serving, and appeared to be mere retaliatory claims lacking credible substantiation. The anonymous complaint similarly offered no proof. The charge regarding the Judge’s failure to inhibit from a case involving a subordinate was rendered moot by his death prior to adjudication. The Court emphasized that while administrative complaints against judges are serious, they must be supported by substantial evidence, which was absent here, unlike the concrete evidence against Ruiz.