Case Digest: Re: Anonymous Complaints Against Hon. Bandong, AM No RTJ-17-2507, October 9, 2017

Facts:

The Office of the Court Administrator received two letters-complaints against Judge Dinah Evangeline B. Bandong of the RTC Lucena City, Branch 59.

The first letter-complaint alleged various issues, including Judge Bandong's excessive use of telenovelas and unreasonable demands for salary and allowance checks.

The second letter-complaint made similar allegations and mentioned Judge Bandong's preference for Criminal Case Clerk-in-Charge Eduardo Febrer.

Another anonymous letter-complaint was received, against Febrer and Court Interpreter Francisco Mendioro, accusing them of misconduct and involvement in schemes for personal gain.

The Office of the Court Administrator conducted discreet investigations, and the Executive Judge recommended the dismissal of charges against Febrer and Mendioro but not against Judge Bandong.

Judge Bandong denied the charges and criticized the investigation report, insinuating that the Executive Judge might be responsible for the anonymous complaints.

Among the many charges against Judge Bandong, the OCA aptly found that only the following were supported by substantial evidence: (1) Judge Bandong's habit of watching television during office hours; (2) her predeliction to delegate mediation of cases to court personnel; and (3) her delegation to Process Server Atienza the performance of the functions and duties pertaining to Clerk III Febrer.

Held:

Judge Bandong's habit of watching television programs during office hours

Competence and diligence are prerequisites to the due performance of judicial office.

Hence, for a judge to allow an activity, and an unofficial one at that, to take precedence over the conduct of hearings is totally unacceptable. It is a patent derogation of Sections 1 and 2 of Canon 6 and a blatant disregard of the professional yardstick that "all judicial [officials and] employees must devote their official time to government service.

Additionally, Judge Bandong's habit of watching television during office hours violates Section 7 of the same Canon 6 which requires Judges "not to engage in conduct incompatible with the diligent discharge of judicial duties." Watching telenovelas surely dissipates away Judge Bandong's precious time in the office, which, needless to say, has an adverse effect on the prompt administration of justice.

Judge Bandong's predeliction to delegate mediation of cases to court personnel

Trial courts, therefore, cannot just indiscriminately refer for mediation any case to just anybody. For one, there are cases which shall and shall not be referred to court-annexed mediation. For another, mediatable cases where amicable settlement is possible must be referred by the trial courts to the PMC, who in turn, shall assist the parties in selecting a mutually acceptable mediator from its list of duly accredited mediators. Here, Criminal Case No. 2005-1127 involving frustrated homicide is apparently not a mediatable case. Clearly on this score alone, Judge Bandong had already violated A.M. No. 01-10-05-SCPHILJA. Worse, Judge Bandong entrusted the settlement of the case to Parfan, a Court Stenographer, who obviously was not a qualified, trained, or an accredited mediator

Judge Bandong committed a patent deviation from the rules when she wrongfully referred a non-mediatable case to her staff, a court stenographer, who was not an accredited mediator. This was despite the expectation that as a member of the bench, she not only knows the rules and regulations promulgated by this Court but also faithfully complies with it. Indeed, Judge Bandong is guilty of grave misconduct.

Judge Bandong's delegation of the functions and duties of Clerk III Fehrer to Process Server Atienza

Judge Bandong violated Supreme Court circulars, rules and directives when she delegated to Atienza the duties of Febrer as Clerk III.  Evidently, a Clerk III's duties are not directly related to, and significantly vary from, the functions of a Process Server. Such arrangement diminishes the court personnel's professional responsibility and peak efficacy in the performance of their respective roles in the administration of justice.

Ruling:

WHEREFORE, the instant complaints are RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter. Retired Judge Dinah Evangeline B. Bandong, formerly of Branch 59, Regional Trial Court, Lucena City, Quezon is hereby found GUILTY of Gross Misconduct, Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and Violation of Supreme Court Rules, Directives and Circulars for which she is imposed a FINE of ₱40,000.00 to be deducted from whatever retirement pay and other benefits which may be due her. The Financial Management Office of the Office of the Court Administrator is directed to release Judge Bandong's retirement pay and other benefits after deducting the fine herein imposed, unless withheld for some other lawful purpose.