[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]
[av_heading heading=’SC dismisses judge for misconduct, dishonesty ‘ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=’30’ subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=”]
BY GLENDA SOLOGASTOA
[/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=”]
ILOILO City – The Supreme Court (SC) ordered the dismissal from service of Municipal Trial Court in Cities Branch 5 presiding judge Ofelia M.D. Artuz for grave misconduct, dishonesty and falsification of official documents.
The complaint against Artuz was filed in 2006 yet by practicing lawyer Plaridel Nava, now city councilor. It specifically sought to nullify the nomination and appointment of Artuz as presiding judge of the MTCC Branch 5, for being patently illegal, improper and irregular.
Released just this Aug. 29, the Supreme Court decision stated that Artuz’s dismissal from service was “effective immediately, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or agency of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations, without prejudice to her criminal liabilities.”
Artuz was likewise required to show cause within 15 days from notice why she should not be disbarred for violations of Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Canon 7, Rile 10.01, Canon 10, and Canon 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as well as Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
According to Nava, his conflict with Artuz stemmed from a murder case of a client. On July 28, 2005 he filed a Request for Inhibition and re-raffle of the case before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Iloilo City on the ground that he and Artuz, as the then assigned prosecutor handling the case, were not on good terms; they were adversaries in various administrative and criminal cases.
In response to his request, Nava narrated in a petition for disbarment dated Feb. 10, 2006 (disbarment case), Artuz filed her comment where she maligned him and his father who was not a party to the case.
According to Nava, Artuz violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility that enjoins lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward their colleagues in the profession.
He further complained that Artuz:
- made malicious and false accusations in her comment when she accused him of crimes which were baseless and purely conjectural
-
maliciously filed criminal cases against him, along with others, before the Department of Justice intended to harass, annoy, vex, and humiliate him; and
-
maligned her former superior and colleague, City Prosecutor Efrain V. Baldado, which act constituted grave misconduct and violative of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Republic Act 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees).
“She sought my disbarment. I filed a case against her sa SC. As a result, pareho kami gin disiplina sang SC. I was able to serve mine five years ago pa, a 60-day suspension. Ang iya subong medyo masakti kay dismissal from service,” said Nava.
Meanwhile, in the petition for nullification of the nomination and appointment of Artuz as presiding judge of MTCC Branch 5 filed on Oct. 17, 2006, Nava alleged that Artuz was unfit and incompetent to be appointed as trial judge as she faced “several criminal administrative cases, the nature of which involved her character, competence, probity, integrity and independence which should not have been disregarded in her application to the judiciary.”
Nava said a document from the Judicial and Bar Council served as his basis in filing the case against Artuz.
“When she applied for judgeship, may question didto. It was ‘have you been charged, accused or found guilty of any charge?’ Ang sabat ‘ya, No. I was able to secure the document from the Judicial and Bar Council and amo to gin basehan ko sang gin-file ko nga kaso sa iya,” said Nava.
In her defense, Artuz alleged that the nullification case was a desperate retaliatory move by Nava because of the disbarment case she filed against him and for which he was found guilty of gross misconduct and suspended from the practice of law for two months.
Artuz claimed that the charges filed against her were already dismissed or outrightly not given due course. She then prayed that the nullification case be dismissed, since she met all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications for a judicial position.
However, according to the Supreme Court, Artuz “deliberately and calculatedly lied in her answers to the subject question in her two Personal Data Sheet (PDS) to conceal the truth and make it appear that she was qualified for the judgeship position which she now holds.”
“Time and again, the Court has emphasized that a judge should conduct himself or herself in a manner which merits the respect and confidence of the people at all times, for he or she is the visible representation of the law,” according to the Supreme Court decision.
Artuz could not be reached for comment as of this writing./PN
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
