3 Judges on Carpet for Ignorance, etc.
Published in Today
(February 02, 2000)
THE Supreme Court has punished three judges for ignorance of the law, serious misconduct and inefficiency.
In three separate decisions, the Court penalized Judge Francisco Villanueva. of the Quezon City Metropolitan Trail Court, Judge Eustaquio Gacott Jr. of the Regional Trial Court of Puerto Princesa City and Judge Romeo Perez of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Bauang, La Union.
Villanueva got a P 10,000 fine and a one-year suspension without pay for serious misconduct in efficiency and absenteeism.
Gacott was fined P15,000 for gross ignorance of the law after the judge dismissed an election protest case when the complainant failed to pay the docket fees within the prescribed period.
The Court found Perez guilty of gross ignorance of the law and partiality when he issued two conflicting orders in a case involving a land dispute in barangay Piringao, Bauang, La Union. Perez was ordered to pay a fine of P 10,000.
Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Franklin Drilon urged the Judicial and Bar Council to make more transparent, the screening of applicants for vacant positions in the judiciary to prevent the appointmeni of incompetent judges.
Drilon, who was an ex-officio member of the council for four years while serving as justice secretary, made the suggestion in the light of the recent apprehension of a Regional Trial Court judge from Camarines Sur for bribery.
Drilon, chairman or the Committee on Justice in the Commission on Appointments called for such transparency in the counsil during the confirmation hearings on the appointment of Justice Amado Dimayuga as a member of the council representing the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
"Allegations of corruption in the judiciary have reached alarming proportions. In the past two years alonae, some 30 judges have been meted [out with] disciplinary sanctions by the Supreme Court -- not to mention the other one hundred or so judges facing disciplinary proceedings before the High Tribunal," Drilon said.
"This says a lot about the present screening process being observed in the council, which may consider to be shrouded in secrecy. The council should hold open public hearings in its screening of applicants to the judiciary in order to erase such perception and so that it may be able to spot or weed out undeserving candidates based on, the public's direct information," Drilon said.
"The public must be given all the opportunity to present information on the qualification or disqualification of a particular applicant.,' he said.
While acknowledging that it is impractical for the council to conduct regular public hearings for all the applications filed before it. Drilon said that the council must explore other options to present nominees to judicial Positions to public scrutiny.
KAREN TIONGSON
Reporter
