Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case Digest 2
Case Digest 2
Facts:
Complainant, together with her two brothers, Enrique and Perlito "Jun"
Sison, Jr., met with respondent Pecan a on February 20, 2010. During this
meeting, complainant informed respondent Pecan a of the delay in the
publication of the notice in the petition for issuance of letters of
administration. She then asked respondent Pecan a to check the status of
the publication of the notice. Respondent Pecan a asked for
complainant's number so that she could inform her as soon as any
development takes place in the case. Enrique and Perlito executed
adavits to corroborate these allegations.
Respondent Judge Rubia arrived at Cafe Juanita around 8:30 p.m. During
the dinner meeting, respondents allegedly asked complainant
inappropriate questions. Respondent Judge Rubia allegedly asked
whether she was still connected with Philippine Airlines, which she still
was at that time. Complainant was then informed that respondent Judge
Rubia knew of this fact through Atty. Noe Zarate, counsel of Romelias
Almeda-Barias. This disclosure surprised complainant, as she was under
the impression that opposing counsel and respondent Judge Rubia had
no business discussing matters that were not relevant to their pending
cases.
Respondent Judge Rubia also allegedly asked her questions about her
supposed involvement with another man and other accusations made by
Romelias Almeda-Barias.
HELD:
Yes. This court must set aside the ndings of fact and reject the
report of Justice Samuel Gaerlan. Respondents Judge Rubia and Pecan a
should be held administratively liable for their actions.
Pecan a took place on March 10, 2010 on the side street of Burgos Circle
in Bonifacio Global City, after the Rotary Club of Makati, Southwest
Chapter meeting and dinner at Numa Restaurant, on their way to the
parking lot. This means that the testimony of and the evidence
presented by Rodel do not disprove the occurrence of the dinner
meeting as alleged by complainant, since the meeting of the Rotary Club
and the dinner meeting alleged by complainant took place on dierent
dates.
The investigation report stated that the attendance sheet and the
program of meeting that Rodel submitted corroborated his testimony.
The date indicated on the attendance sheet and on the program of
meeting was March 10, 2010, not March 3, 2010. However, there was
nothing to indicate the time of arrival or departure of the attendees.
Neither was there an indication of the time when the meeting began or
ended. The attendance sheet and the program of meeting, by themselves
or taken as corroborative evidence of Rodel's testimony, do not discount
the distinct and tangible possibility that the dinner meeting as narrated
by complainant took place.
On the other hand, we nd the allegation that the dinner meeting took
place on March 3, 2010 more credible.
Complainant presented a document containing a list of calls she made
from January to March 2010. She identied her cellular phone number
as well as respondent Pecan a's. Respondent Pecan a admitted that the
number identied by complainant was her number. On March 2 and 3,
2010, calls were made to respondent Pecan a's number. Respondent
Pecan a admitted that she had received a call from complainant before
the latter picked her up at 6750 Makati City. However, no calls to
respondent Pecan a were recorded on March 10, 2010 in the document
presented. On the other hand, the calls made to respondent Pecan a as
shown in the document coincided with complainant's allegations.
There was clearly no reason for respondent Pecan a to go out of her way
to greet respondent Judge Rubia. In fact, after allegedly being repeatedly
reminded that court employees should not have any dealings with
litigants, respondent Pecan a should not have gone out to greet
respondent Judge Rubia since she was dining with a litigant.