|
Thursday, May 08, 2003
SC asks MTC judge: Explain complaints filed by 2 litigants
By Karlon N. Rama
Sun.Star Staff Reporter
THE Supreme Court (SC) Office of the Court Administrator has asked a Municipal Trial Court judge to show cause why she should not be “suspended, disbarred or otherwise disciplinary sanctioned” for alleged violations of the code of professional responsibility.
Court Administrator Presbitero Velasco Jr., in a letter dated April 2, 2003, gave the MTC judge (name withheld until the cases are acted upon with finality) 10 days to submit her comment with a warning that “preferential attention on the matter is expected.”
Velasco’s instruction is pursuant to the administrative complaint filed against the judge by Dr. Edwin Fonghe and businesswoman Maharlika Canata, litigants who have cases pending before the judge’s sala.
They are complainants in some of the cases and the respondent in others.
The litigants, in their March 24, 2003 complaint, accused the judge of gross ignorance of the law, manifest partiality, incompetence and bad faith in the dispensation of her judicial function.
They also charged her for violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, manifest bias, gross misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a member of the judiciary.
Haste
The two revealed that the judge, last Feb. 4, 2003, denied a motion for inhibition they filed against a case, where they were the respondents, two hours after it as filed. This, they said, “was clearly and undisputedly done in precipitate haste.”
They filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was likewise denied.
“Respondent should have voluntarily inhibited herself from the aforementioned cases considering that we are already suspicious and apprehensive of her actuation and, therefore, it is our contention that we could not expect the cold neutrality of the respondent,” they said.
The judge should have inhibited from the case by considering that the complainant in the case pending against them is the nephew of the judge’s clerk of court.
They narrated that the judge’s supposed bias showed when the judge, last Feb. 19, 2003, arraigned Fonghe despite the pendency of the motion for inhibition.
During the arraignment, the judge cancelled the P4,000 cash bond Fonghe had earlier put up because Fonghe came late to court.
The judge, instead, issued another warrant of arrest to which Fonghe had to put up another cash bond or be arrested.
“Respondent never bothered to give me a chance by making a second call (for my case) and immediate issued the order canceling my cash bond,” he said.
On the same date, the judge issued an order holding in abeyance the arraignment of another case.
(May 8, 2003 issue)
Want Sun.Star news on your mobile phone? Click here.
Write letter to the editor. Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board. Click here. |
|
[ return
to top ]
[ home
]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
SUPERBALITA
WEEKEND
|
