Case Digest: SALAZAR v. JUDGE MARIGOMEN

DOROTEO M. SALAZAR v. JUDGE ANTONIO D. MARIGOMEN

537 SCRA 25 (2007)

In an administrative complaint against a judge, the complainant need not be a real party in interest.

Doroteo M. Salazar (Salazar) charged Judge Antonio D. Marigomen (Judge Marigomen) with gross ignorance of the law, bias, conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service and rendering a decision violative of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Rules of Procedure and the Constitution in connection with Election Case he presided. In said election case, Judge Salazar is accused of admitting in evidence uncertified photocopies of the contested ballots contrary to Section 7, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.

Salazar also accuses Judge Marigomen of partiality after he ordered his Clerk of Court to coordinate with counsel for the protestee in the election case and to testify for her, despite the objection of the protestant in relation with the presentation of the plain photocopies of the contested ballots. Furthermore, Judge Marigomen allowed Atty. Reinerio Roeles, the co-counsel for the protestee, to testify despite the protestant’s objection on the ground that his testifying would be a violation of professional ethics and despite Judge Marigomen’s citation of authorities on the matter. Finally, Salazar claims that Judge Marigomen violated the COMELEC Rules of Procedure as well as the Constitution for not clearly and distinctly stating the facts and the law on which his decision was based.

In his Comment, Judge Marigomen proffers, among other things that Salazar is not the real party in interest and, in any event, the complaint is moot and academic as the election protest had been decided on appeal by the COMELEC; and if errors were committed, they pertain to the exercise of his adjudicative functions which cannot be corrected through administrative proceedings.

Subsequently, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended that Judge Marigomen be found guilty of (a) gross ignorance of the law and fined in the amount of P20,000, and (b) bias and dishonesty, amounting to grave misconduct and suspended for six months without pay. Hence, this petition.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the administrative case shall be dismissed because the complainant is not a real party in interest
2. Whether or not respondent Judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law, bias and dishonesty

HELD:

Administrative matter involves the exercise of the Court’s power to discipline judges. It is undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare, that is, to maintain the faith and confidence of the people in the government. Thus, unlike in ordinary cases, there is no private offended party in administrative proceedings who may be entitled to judicial relief. The complainant need not be a real party in interest, as anyone may file an administrative complaint against a judge, the only requirement being that the complaint be verified and it ―be in writing and shall state clearly and concisely the acts and omissions constituting violations of standards of conduct prescribed for Judges by law, the Rules of Court, or the Code of Judicial Conduct.‖

The Court finds the evaluation of the case by the OCA in order. Judge Marigomen’s questioned acts do not conform to Canons 3 and 5 regarding impartiality and equality of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.

And respondent indeed committed falsehood, as found by the OCA. Judge Marigomen’s claim that he allowed the protestee’s counsel, Atty. Roeles, to testify over the objection of the protestant’s counsel because the latter failed to submit a memorandum in support of the objection, is belied by the records of the case. Thus, in a pleading captioned ―Manifestation,‖ the protestant’s counsel submitted a memorandum of authorities on the matter.

Judge Marigomen also indeed failed to state in his decision why he invalidated 90 ballots in favor of the protestant and to specify the ballots being set aside, thereby violating the Constitution.