OLIVIA LAUREL ET AL, Complainant vs. JUDGE PABLO B.

FRANCISCO,

Facts: Judge Francisco was originally assigned as the Presiding Judge of RTCBranch 26 of Sta. Cruz, Laguna. After encountering a
disconcerting problem in an election case, Judge Francisco requested that he be detailed elsewhere. He was thereafter detailed as the
acting Presiding Judge of RTC-Branch 25 of Biñan and then of RTC-Branch 24, also of Biñan, Laguna. At first, the relations between
Judge Francisco and the personnel of the RTC of Biñan, Laguna, were friendly and harmonious, but animosity crept in after some
time.

Later on, personnel of the RTC of Binan sent a letter to the Court Administrator demanding that the said Judge be relieved of
his detail at the RTC of Binan, Laguna and be ordered to return to his permanent post at the RTC of Sta. Cruz, Laguna. As
consequence thereof, Judge Francisco, while detailed as acting Presiding Judge of Branch 25, and later on, of Branch 24, of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Biñan, Laguna, instituted nine administrative complaints against officers and rank and file personnel of
the RTC of Biñan, Laguna. While two other administrative cases at bar were filed against Judge Franciscoby Javier, Laurel, and
Ramos, together with Prosecutor Alberto R. Nofuente (Pros. Nofuente); and by Magat and one Joel O. Arellano (Arellano).

In the contempt case, Judge Francisco, as acting Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 24, issued an Order holding Respondents
Javier, Laurel, Ramos, and Pros. Nofuente guilty of Direct Contempt, for supposedly disrupting the court proceedings, and sentencing
them to nine days’ imprisonment at the Biñan Municipal Jail. Respondents then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of
Appeals assailing the above Order. Subsequently, CA set aside the assailed Direct Contempt Order for having been issued by Judge
Francisco with grave abuse of discretion. Judge Francisco’s appeal of the Court of Appeals judgment was denied by this Court. As
counter-charge to the Direct Contempt Order, Javier, Laurel, Ramos, and Pros. Nofuente filed a Complaint for Gross Ignorance of the
Law and Incompetence against Judge Francisco. According to the Complaint, Judge Francisco’s Direct Contempt Order was issued in
violation of due process and Rule 71, Section 1 of the Rules of Court.

The other cases:

A.M. No. RTJ-06-1992

Judge Francisco, as acting Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 24, issued an Order holding Respondents Javier, Laurel, Ramos,
and Pros. Nofuente guilty of Direct Contempt, for supposedly disrupting the court proceedings, and sentencing them to nine days’
imprisonment at the Biñan Municipal Jail. Respondents then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals assailing the
above Order. Subsequently, CA set aside the assailed Direct Contempt Order for having been issued by Judge Francisco with grave
abuse of discretion. Judge Francisco’s appeal of the Court of Appeals judgment was denied by this Court. As counter-charge to the
Direct Contempt Order, Javier, Laurel, Ramos, and Pros. Nofuente filed a Complaint for Gross Ignorance of the Law and
Incompetence against Judge Francisco. According to the Complaint, Judge Francisco’s Direct Contempt Order was issued in violation
of due process and Rule 71, Section 1 of the Rules of Court.

A.M. No. P-10-2745

Judge Francisco’s Answer in A.M. No. RTJ-06-1992 served as his Complaint for Grave Misconduct against Ramos, Laurel,
and Javier. The complaint against Ramos was that, she is absent most of the time and did not file her leave of absence but she was able
to draw her full month’s salary because Laurel approved her falsified daily time record. Javier was alleged to have shown unwarranted
behaviour over an order against an alleged relative of hers. In their Joint Comment, Javier, Laurel, and Ramos claimed that Judge
Francisco’s accusations against them were malicious and made to satisfy the judge’s personal grudge against them. Further, they
stated that almost all of the court personnel of the RTC of Biñan, Laguna had fallen victim to Judge Francisco’s vindictiveness. Judge
Francisco became hostile to everybody. He branded the court personnel as disrespectful, misinterpreting the latter’s smiles and glances
as making faces or laughter as insult. It was for this reason that some personnel filed a petition with the Supreme Court requesting for
Judge Francisco’s return to his original station at the RTC of Sta. Cruz, Laguna.

A.M. No. RTJ-00-1992

Judge Francisco filed a complaint for Falsification of Public Documents against Laurel and Ramos. He averred that Laurel, as
Officer-in-Charge (OIC) Branch Clerk of Court, approved Ramos’s allegedly falsified DTR. However, according to Ramos and
Laurel, this case is only one of the several cases filed by Judge Francisco against all the court personnel of Branches 24 and 25 who
petitioned for his ouster from the said courts and he filed administrative and criminal cases though unfounded and baseless just to get
even with them.
A.M. No. P-10-2746

This is another Complaint for Falsification of Public Documents filed by Judge Francisco against Branch Clerk of Court
Atty. Hernandez, Legal Researcher Orfiano, and Stenographers Chaves, Lopez, and Perez, all of RTCBranch 24 of Biñan, Laguna.
Judge Francisco alleged that the Respondent stenographers were not reporting for work everyday, yet they still receive full salary and
that they falsify their DTR. The concerned court personnel all denied Justice Francisco’s allegations that they were involved in the
falsification of DTRs, arguing that these were merely uncorroborated and false accusations which should be dismissed.

A.M. No. P-10-2747

Judge Francisco filed a Letter-Complaint and accused several court personnel with different administrative cases. The
Respondents therein filed a Joint-Comment and accused that Judge Francisco of falsifying his certificates of service by not reflecting
therein that he was not holding session every Wednesday. Judge Francisco denied, in his Reply, that he was not conducting trials on
Wednesdays and, as proof, he attached photocopies of the calendar of cases falling on Wednesdays.

A.M. No. P-10-2748

Judge Francisco filed a Complaint for Grave Misconduct against Cuevillas which stemmed from an ejectment case that
originated from the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Biñan, Laguna. As soon as the complete records of said case were elevated to the
RTC on appeal, Judge Francisco issued an order directing the counsels of both parties to submit their respective memoranda, after
which, the case would be deemed submitted for decision. However, Cuevillas never informed Judge Francisco that the parties have
already submitted their memoranda and, as a result, Judge Francisco was not able to render a decision within the prescribed period.
Cuevillas admitted in her Comment that she received the memoranda, but she did not hide said pleadings from Judge Francisco.
Cuevillas clarified that she was in charge of the records in criminal cases. She only received the memoranda of the parties in Civil
Case (Ejectment) because Moreno, the one in charge of the records in civil cases, was not around at that time. Cuevillas averred that
she turned over the memoranda to Moreno for processing as soon as the latter arrived.

A.M. No. P-10-2749

Judge Francisco filed a Letter-Complaint for Dishonesty and Misconduct against Alfonso, Bati, Cuevillas, Javier, Laurel,
Lopez, Magat, Moreno, Orfiano, Pascual, Perez, Santos, and Sevilla, who accused the judge of falsifying his certificates of service
because he was not reporting for work on Wednesdays, and yet was receiving his full monthly salary. As evidence, he presented some
of the court calendar that fell on Wednesdays. In the Respondents Comment, the concerned court personnel pointed out that Judge
Francisco’s charges against them were not corroborated by material witnesses and that the purported court calendar of cases presented
by the judge were uncertified photocopies, hence, inadmissible as evidence.

A.M.No.P-10-2750/ A.M.No.P-10-2751/ A.M. No. P-03-1706

Judge Francisco filed three more administrative cases for Falsification of Public Documents docketed as: (1) A.M. No. P-10-
2750, against Atty. Galeon and Pascual; (2) A.M. No. P-10-2751, against Atty. Galeon alone; and (3) A.M. No. P-03-1706 against
Atty. Galeon and Laurel. In summary, Judge Francisco alleges them for making untruthful narration facts in the certified photocopies
of the calendar book. Expectedly, Atty. Galeon, Laurel, and Pascual denied the charges against them.

A.M. No. RTJ-10-2214

During the investigation of A.M. No. RTJ-06-1992 and A.M. No. P-10- 2745 by Justice Barrios, Arellano and Magat, both Deputy
Sheriffs of the of the RTC of Biñan, Laguna, testified that Judge Francisco exerted undue influence upon them to shell out P1,000.00
and P3,000.00, respectively, to defray the salary of the judge’s bodyguard Joselito Nuestro (Nuestro). Because of the said testimonies,
Judge Francisco filed before the OCA an administrative complaint for Gross Misconduct against Arellano and Magat. They then
countered a Complaint for Grave Misconduct against Judge Francisco.

As a result of the investigation before the Court of Appeals of 11 administrative cases, Justice Barrios made the following
recommendations:
 a. Under RTJ-06-1992, Judge Pablo Francisco be found GUILTY of Gross Ignorance of the Law and FINED the amount of
P30,000.00, taking into account that he has since resigned; and
b. All other cases should be DISMISSED.

Issue: Is the issuance of the contempt order justified?

Ruling: No. Considering that the acts alluded to as the basis by which the Respondent [Judge Francisco] declared the petitioners
[Javier, Laurel, Ramos, and Pros. Nofuente] in contempt of court, are neither constitutive of direct or indirect contempt, this Court is
of the opinion that the Order of Respondent declaring petitioners in contempt and imposing a penalty of nine (9) days imprisonment is
a GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION. Nevertheless, we find that in issuing the Direct Contempt Order without legal basis, Judge
Francisco is more appropriately guilty of the administrative offense of grave abuse of authority, rather than gross ignorance of the law
and incompetence. In point is the case of Panaligan v. Ibay, where Judge Francisco Ibay improperly cited John Panaligan for
contempt. We ruled: The integrity of the judiciary rests not only upon the fact that it is able to administer justice but also upon the
perception and confidence of the community that the people who run the system have done justice. The assumption of office by a
judge places upon him duties and restrictions peculiar to his exalted position. He is the visible representation of law and justice. He
must be perceived, not as a repository of arbitrary power, but as one who dispenses justice under the sanction of the rule of law. The
behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the people’s faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but
must also be seen to be done. In the present case, respondent Judge may not have been urged by ulterior motives in citing complainant
in contempt and in subsequently sending him to jail for putting off the lights in the 12th floor including his sala; nevertheless, his
actuation can easily be perceived as being a repository of arbitrary power. His actuation must never serve to fuel suspicion over a
misuse of the prestige of his office to enhance his personal interest. We cannot simply shrug off respondent Judge’s failure to exercise
that degree of care and temperance required of a judge in the correct and prompt administration of justice; more so in this case where
the exercise of the power of contempt resulted in complainant’s detention and deprivation of liberty. Respondent Judge’s conduct
amounts to grave abuse of authority.