Español v Teledo-Mupas

Español v Teledo-Mupas

AM No. 03-1462-MTJ, 11 Feb 2010

Per Curiam

FACTS:

            Judge Lorinda Toledo-Mupas of MTC Dasmarinas, Cavita filed an Urgent Omnibus Motion as a second Motion for Reconsideration.  This motion urged the Court to reconsider its past Decision and Resolution: the decision found her guilty of gorss ignorance of the law and imposed upon her the penalty of dismissal from the service; while the resolution denied her motion for reconsideration.

            She argues that her issuance of detention pending investigation orders were not motivated by bad faith, dishonesty, or some other similar motive, and claiming that the penalty of dismissal is too harsh.

ISSUE:

            W/N the penalty of dismissal from service imposed upon respondent judge should be reconsidred.

HELD:

            No. The Urgent Omnibus Motion is denied there being no compelling reason to warrant a reconsideration of the Court’s previous decision.

            Aside from this Court's Decisions finding her guilty of gross ignorance in four different instances, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), in its Report not only found that respondent has again exhibited her gross ignorance of the law, but was also guilty of committing other serious offenses, in which he either offered flimsy defenses or no excuse at all:

• Respondent Judge failed to explain why there were motions for execution of decided cases which she had not acted upon for a considerably long time. This renders her guilty of gross inefficiency;
• OCA found that respondent failed to forward to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor (OPP) of Cavite the records of at least 370 cases which she dismissed after preliminary investigation.  Respondent judge claims that it was not her fault but that of her clerk of court.
• She was able to draw her salaries by submitting fraudulent or falsified certificates of service making her liable under Sec. 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court and Arts. 174 and 175 of the RPC.
• Undecided cases which had elapsed 30 days from the date of submission of the case for decision.  Failure to promptly decide cases in accordance with the Constitution or the Rules of Court constitutes gross inefficiency.
• The court records in her sala were in disarray which compromises their confidentiality and integrity.
• She continues to issue documents denominated “Detention Pending Investigation of the Case” even after her attention had been called, and she remained insistent in her erroneous belief that the document was an implied waiver of the rights of the accused under Art. 125 of the RPC.

 Respondent failed to present substantial and convincing evidence to refute the charges made by the OCA.