Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=40363:a-m-no-rtj-98-1403-august-14,-2000-mamerto-t-pacris-v-adrian-n-pagalilauan&amp;catid=1396&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 03:39:29+00:00

Document:
MAMERTO T. PACRIS, Complainant, v. JUDGE ADRIAN N. PAGALILAUAN, Respondent.
At bar is an administrative complaint of Mamerto T. Pacris (complainant) against Judge Adrian N. Pagalilauan (respondent) of Branch 12, Regional Trial Court, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan, for serious misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, inefficiency and falsification of monthly certificate of service.
During the pendency of Election Case No. 1807-S, entitled ‘Federico Q. Galapia, protestant, versus Mamerto T. Pacris, protestee,’ which was tried and submitted for decision before respondent judge, and during the campaign of (sic) the 1995 elections, wherein the protestant and the protestee were again among the candidates for mayor in Sanchez Mira, Cagayan, the protestant in his campaign speeches told the public that he will sit as the Mayor-elect of Sanchez Mira on April 14, 1995. So the protestee approached the respondent judge in his chambers to inquire from him if he has (sic) already rendered his decision in the election protest involving the protestant and the protestee and stated to him what the protestant had been publicly telling the people, but respondent judge told protestee not to believe the protestant and to convince protestee, he showed his unsigned decision dismissing Election Case No. 1807-S.
In the early morning of April 20, 1995, the undersigned before going to Tuguegarao, Cagayan, to see the Governor on official matters, he decided to see first the respondent judge in his chambers, which he was using it (sic) at that time as his sleeping quarters without the permission of the Supreme Court because he left his boarding house after he was caught peeping at the daughter of his landlady while taking a bath, to ascertain from him if it is (sic) true what protestant had been telling the public that he will (sic) sit that day, April 20, 1995, as the mayor-elect of Sanchez Mira and he admitted that he had changed his unsigned decision dismissing the election protest and invalidated the ballots with undetached coupons.
That respondent judge, as part of his plan, design or scheme to make protestant win the election protest, intentionally violated the COMELEC Rules of Procedure in his desire to favor the protestant, by not setting a date for the promulgation of the decision wherein due notice must be given to the parties, but instead he immediately promulgated the same on the very day it was rendered, in violation of Rule 35, Sec. 19 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure and the case of Alejo v. Tanada, 238 SCRA 60 (1994).
and Circular No. 13, dated July 1, 1987, of the Supreme Court, providing general guidelines for all members of the judiciary, that judges should keep abreast of the rulings and doctrines laid down by the Supreme Court and apply them to appropriate cases regardless of their personal opinion.
That respondent judge, to buttress his decision making protestant win in the election protest, which exposes his complete ignorance of the law, not only invalidated the 121 ballots with undetached upper coupons but also considered said ballots as marked contrary to the settled doctrines in elections (sic) contest that the mark which shall invalidate the ballot are those which the voter himself deliberately placed on his ballot for the purpose of identifying it thereafter. In other words, a markplaced (sic) on the ballot by a person other than the voter himself does not invalidate [the ballot] as marked (Tajanlangit v. Cazenas, G.R. No. L-18894, June 30, 1962, 5 SCRA 567). Hence, the ballots which (sic) upper coupons were not detached by the Chairman of the Board of Inspectors are not marked ballots.
That respondent judge, either as a part of his plan, design or scheme to make protestee lose in the election protest or in evident bad faith and/or partiality, also declared invalid six (6) ballots cast in favor of the protestee which were not signed by the Chairman of the Board of Inspectors. However, he did not declare invalid the twenty five (25) ballots cast in favor of the Respondent. In the case of Lucero v. De Guzman, 45 Phil. 852, 875, the Court held that . . . it is a well settled rule that a voter shall not be deprived of the franchise by mere failure of the election officials to comply with some provisions or another statute relative to the acts to be done exclusively by the officer’.
The respondent judge, not supported by evidence or with conscious and deliberate act to do an injustice against the protestee, stated in his decision that, ‘after a careful scrutiny of the Book of Voters and List of Voters, the Court finds’, among others, the following three (3) of the eight voters to be Invalid.
Orlino P Achanrobles.com.ph:redl died on December 12, 1992 (Annexes B-B1, while Pacito Cabulisan died on June 2, 1992 (Annex C) after the elections on May 11, 1992. The annotations ‘deceased’ at the back of their voters affidavit were entered by the Comelec Officer when he requested the court during the trial of the election protest for the return to his Office the Book of Voters of the aforesaid precincts preparatory to the May 8, 1995 elections.
That respondent judge, to further fortify his plan, design or scheme to make protestee lose the election protest and with deliberate intent to cause injustice on the part of the protestee and a clear violation of Sec. 14, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution, dismissed for lack of merit protestee’s counter-protest without taking into account the facts and evidence alleged in his counter-protest and without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and law on which the dismissal was based.
Considering the facts that protestant had been publicly telling the people that he has plenty of money; that he will do everything within his resources to win his election protest; that he will sit as the mayor-elect of Sanchez Mira on April 20, 1995, the date of the questioned decision of respondent judge; that respondent judge had prepared an unsigned decision dismissing the election protest; that he was enticed to prepare another decision dated April 20, 1995, which he promulgated on the same day, declaring protestant as the winner in the May 11, 1992 elections for mayor of Sanchez Mira, Cagayan, in complete disregard to (sic) the decisions and rules and regulation of the Supreme Court, the principle of res ipsa liquitor (sic) be applied to him (People v. Valenzuela, 135 SCRA 712).
"3.	That from the time I assumed office as the presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan I became aware for the first time of the existence and pendency of Election Case No. 1807-S before the said Court when it was included in the July 29, 1993, calendar of the Court, at which time the committee on revision of ballots and recounting of votes had not yet submitted its report of the result of the revision and recounting of votes in the precincts covered by the protest and counter-protest . . .
Consequently, it is most respectfully submitted that the delay if there is any, in the elevation of the record of the case to the Comelec called for and fully justified by the incidents and events that took place after the promulgation of the decision and the filing of a notice of appeal by the protestee.
18.	That in so far as the 122 ballots in Precinct No. 23 Masisit, which were declared invalid in the decision rendered, I was fully aware of the provisions of Sec. 211, par. No. 27 of the Omnibus Election Code and of the doctrines or ruling made by the Honorable Supreme Court to the effect that the voter should not be deprived of his or her vote by the mere failure of the election officers to comply with the formal pre-requisites of voting. It was, and still is, my honest and considered view, however, that Sec. 211, par. 27 and the above-mentioned doctrines or ruling of the Honorable Supreme Court are not applicable . . .
19.	That as regards to the six (6) ballots wherein the protestee was voted for but which were declared invalid in the decision for the reason that the same were not signed by the Chairman of the Board of Election Inspectors, and my failure to declare invalid the twenty/five (25) ballots wherein the protestant was voted for and which are likewise, unsigned by the Chairman, I candidly admit I committed a mistake or ommission (sic). My ommission (sic) or mistake however, is an honest one and was the result of pure inadvertense (sic); not a deliberate act. . . .
22.	That it is not true that I have not been reporting for duty on Mondays, Fridays and Thursday afternoons, the truth of the matter being that I do work from Monday to Friday and on many instances I even worked at home on Saturdays and Sundays when resolving cases involving difficult questions of law, although I seldom conduct trials or hearing of cases on Mondays and Fridays because said days are devoted by me to make my decisions and study cases pending trial before the Court;cralaw : red"
RESPONDENT JUDGE COMMITTED GROSS MISCONDUCT FOR SHOWING COMPLAINANT A COPY OF HIS UNPROMULGATED DECISION IN ELECTION CASE NO. 1807-S, BUT NOT FOR PREPARING TWO DRAFTS OF DECISION AS CHARGED.
RESPONDENT JUDGE ERRED IN PROMULGATING THE DECISION IN ELECTION CASE NO. 1807-S WITHOUT FIRST SETTING THE DATE THEREFOR WITH NOTICE TO THE PARTIES.
RESPONDENT JUDGE ERRED IN INVALIDATING ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-ONE (121) BALLOTS WITH UNDETACHED UPPER STUBS.
RESPONDENT JUDGE ERRED IN INVALIDATING SIX (6) BALLOTS FOR BEING UNSIGNED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF CANVASSERS.
RESPONDENT JUDGE ERRED IN INVALIDATING THE VOTE OF NANCITA ALEGADO, A TEACHER AND VOTER OF PRECINCT 35 OF SANCHEZ MIRA, CAGAYAN, WHO SERVED AS MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF INSPECTORS OF PRECINCT 22-B OF THE SAME MUNICIPALITY.
RESPONDENT JUDGE IS LIABLE FOR VIOLATION OF CIRCULAR NO. 13 ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 1.
RESPONDENT JUDGE’S ALLEGED VOYEURISM IS DISMISSED AS A COMPLAINT ON SIMILAR GROUND WAS ALREADY FILED AT THE TIME OF THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE.
RESPONDENT JUDGE’S ALLEGED PRACTICE OF USING HIS CHAMBERS AS SLEEPING QUARTERS IS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF MERIT.
RESPONDENT’S ALLEGED DELAY IN RESOLVING ELECTION CASE NO. 1807-S IS DISMISSED.
RESPONDENT JUDGE’S ALLEGED ERROR IN INVALIDATING THE VOTES OF CABULISAN AND ACDAL IS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF MERIT.
RESPONDENT JUDGE’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO SET ELECTION CASE NO. 1807-S FOR HEARING SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF MERIT.
RESPONDENT JUDGE’S ALLEGED PARTIALITY TOWARDS COUNSEL FOR THE PROTESTANT IN ELECTION CASE NO. 1807-S IS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF MERIT.
There is nothing on record to prove that the respondent showed a copy of his subject decision to the complainant.
That respondent prepared two drafts of his subject decision is of no moment. It may be that he changed his mind after preparing one draft or intentionally prepared two drafts for his evaluation and consideration. Besides, the decision became effective only upon its promulgation.
1.	Respondent admitted that he promulgated the decision in Election Case No. 1807-S without first setting the date therefor and with no notice to the parties.
2.	Respondent invalidated one hundred twenty-one (121) ballots with undetached upper stubs contrary to jurisprudence and the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code.
As admitted by respondent, he did not observe stare decisis in invalidating one-hundred twenty one (121) ballots with undetached upper stubs. What the respondent did does not accord with applicable rules and jurisprudence.
Respondent, in his 2nd Indorsement, 13 manifested awareness of the foregoing rules and jurisprudence but contended that paragraph 27 of Section 211 of the Omnibus Election Code "refers to the lower stab (sic) of the ballot" 14 and not the upper stubs involved in the present case.
4.	So also, he invalidated the vote of Nancita Alegado, a member of the Board of Election Inspectors of Precinct 22 of Sanchez Mira, Cagayan, on the ground that her name did not appear in the Book of Voters.
Ms. Alegado is a registered voter of Precinct 35 of Sanchez Mira, Cagayan, but she was serving as an election inspector in Precinct 22-B so that she was entitled to vote in the latter precinct. Despite the categorical declaration in the law that she had voting rights, respondent improperly excluded her vote just because Ms. Alegado’s name did not appear in the Book of Voters.
"WHEREFORE, the protestant Federico Q Galapia in the above-entitled case should be, as he is hereby declared to be the winner in the May 11, 1992 election (sic) for mayor of Sanchez Mira, Cagayan.
The counter-protest filed by the protestee is hereby dismissed for lack of merit, with costs de oficio.
Therefrom, it can be gleaned unerringly that respondent never discussed in the body of his decision the basis for the dismissal of the counter-protest. In so doing, he violated a basic legal principle, a constitutional one at that, 18 that in making a decision, the facts and the law upon which the decision is based must be expressed clearly and distinctly.
The laws that respondent violated or failed to apply are not complicated, and do not involve difficult questions of law. His failure to apply basic legal principles constitutes utter disregard of well-settled doctrines.
"22.	That it is not true that I have not been reporting for duty on Mondays, Fridays and Thursday afternoons, the truth of the matter being that I do work from Monday to Friday (sic) and on (sic) many instances I even worked at home on Saturdays and Sundays when resolving cases involving difficult questions of law, although I seldom conduct trials or hearing of cases on Mondays and Fridays because said days are devoted by me to make my decisions and study cases pending trial before the Court;"
2.	The charge that respondent has been using his chambers as sleeping quarters is anemic of evidentiary support and is therefore dismissed.
4.	Respondent’s alleged error in nullifying the votes of Cabulisan and Achanrobles.com.ph:redl is likewise dismissed for lack of corroborating evidence to substantiate the same.
"First, as the record of the case bears him out, complainant was amenable to the submission of the case for decision without hearing. In an Order, dated February 21, 1995, respondent judge explicitl[y] instructed with caveat that ‘the parties hereby given twenty (20) days from today to submit their respective memorandum. With or without their memoranda, the case will be submitted for decision.’ The parties, including complainant, did not manifest their objection in open court or move for the reconsideration of said order in writing. Instead, they submitted their respective compliance thereto.
Second, it is duly noted that when complainant saw the first draft of decision, which he alleged was in his favor, there was no fuss over the lack of hearing. . . .
6.	The charge of falsification of Certificates of Service is also dismissed in view of the absence of proof.
7.	The charge that respondent has been partial in favor of the counsel for the protestant in Election Case No. 1807-S is also dismissed for lack of merit. The Clerk of Court of Branch 12, Regional Trial Court, Sanchez Mira, Cagayan, has certified that since the respondent became the Presiding Judge, there was only one criminal case which was reconsidered, from conviction to acquittal, and that it was counsel for protestant, Atty. Victoriano Pascua, who appeared as the private prosecutor in the said case. Furthermore, Atty. Pascua has a lot of cases pending in the sala of the respondent that somehow explains the long hours he spends in the courtroom.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Adrian N. Pagalilauan is found GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law and is hereby FINED in the amount of TEN THOUSAND (P10,000.00) PESOS.
The charges of serious misconduct, falsification of certificates of service and inefficiency are DISMISSED for lack of merit.
7.	Memorandum dated December 9, 1998, p. 19.
10.	Section 211 (27), Omnibus Election Code.
15.	Article 8, Civil Code of the Philippines.
16.	Punzalan v. Commission on Elections, 289 SCRA 702, 715.
19.	Dated July 1, 1987.
21.	Dated January 28, 1988.
23.	Memorandum, supra, p. 36.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.