NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE & SECURITY AUTHORITY (NISA) COMPLAINANT, VS. HON. VALENTINO G. TABLANG, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, TACURONG, SULTAN KUDARAT, BRANCH XX, RESPOND…

In these consolidated cases, the respondent is administratively
charged for irregular activities amounting to serious misconduct unbecoming of
a member of the bench.  The complaints
are for dismissal from office and disbarment.

The respondent, presently a practising
lawyer, was appointed as regional trial court judge of Tacurong,
Sultan Kudarat, Branch 20 on
January 17, 1983.  On January
30, 1987, he was purged from his position as Judge when his
courtesy resignation was accepted.  The
acts complained of in these cases pertain to lawsuits assigned to the
respondent when he was presiding judge of RTC, Sultan Kudarat,
Branch 20.

In Administrative
Case No. R-94-RTJ, the pertinent facts are as follows:

A letter-complaint dated February 2, 1984 (Exhibit 7) was filed
with the then Ministry of Justice (now Department of Justice) by Governor
Benjamin Duque of the Province of Sultan Kudarat and Regional Director of the National Intelligence
& Security Authority (NISA), Region XII for irregularities allegedly
committed by the respondent in connection with Criminal Case No. 1247 (later docketed as Criminal
Case No. 267) entitled “People v. Joseph Embalsado“,
for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act which was then pending before his sala.  The
letter-complaint stated, among others, that the respondent tried to extort
money from the parents of the accused in Criminal Case No. 267 in the amount of
P20,000.00 in consideration of a favorable judgment.

After the said letter-complaint was forwarded to us, we resolved,
on March 8, 1984, to refer
the case to the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation for investigation,
report and recommendation.

The NBI, through its Supervising Agent, Servillano
Mamauag, submitted its report dated April 13, 1984
(Exhibit “H”) and recommended, among others, that respondent be
inhibited from hearing or trying Criminal Case No. 267 after a finding that:

“The act of Judge VALENTINO G. TABLANG, by asking P20,000.00 from the father of an accused – son whose case is pending in the Court of the former
in consideration for (sic) the dropping or dismissal of the case is violative of the
provision of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) for which the
Judge is held criminally and administratively liable.” (Rollo, p. 16)

In a related development, the counsel for the accused in Criminal
Case No. 267 filed, on May 21, 1984, a motion to inhibit Presiding Judge (Tablang) from conducting further trial (Exhibit
“B”) on the ground that the said judge could not be expected to
display and exercise objectivity, fairness and justice in conducting further
trial inasmuch as he had attempted to extort and demand money from the accused’s parents in exchange for a judgment in favor of
the accused.

During the hearing on the motion to inhibit set on May 22, 1984, both the father and the
counsel of the accused were adjudged guilty of direct contempt and both the
oral and written motions for reconsideration made by the counsel for the
accused were denied on the same day and the following day, respectively.

On May 23, 1984, the respondent
also denied the motion to inhibit
while the accused’s father served his jail sentence
for the direct contempt charge.  The accused’s counsel was immediately released upon
recognizance of the president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
South Cotabato chapter.

On August 24, 1984,
a petition for certiorari with prayer for a preliminary mandatory
injunction against the respondent (Exhibit “K”) was filed before us
in connection with the above twin orders
of May 23, 1984.  The petition further prayed that a formal
investigation be conducted regarding the respondent’s despotic, capricious and
arbitrary manner in conducting
trial proceedings in Criminal Case No. 267.

On September 3, 1984,
we issued a temporary restraining order enjoining respondent judge from
conducting further proceedings in the aforestated
criminal case.

On January 16, 1985, acting on the petition for certiorari
filed by the accused in Criminal Case No. 267 after the respondent in his
answer prayed for exoneration from any liability for the charges imputed to
him, we resolved:  (1) to nullify and set
aside the twin orders of May 23, 1984 for having been issued by the respondent
in grave abuse of discretion; (2) to permanently enjoin the respondent from
conducting any further proceeding in Criminal Case No. 267; (3) to transfer the
venue of the said case to RTC, Branch 19, Isulan,
Sultan Kudarat for continuation of trial;  and (4) on the administrative aspect, to
refer the petition for our consideration en banc together
with AM No. R-94-RTJ entitled “NISA v. Judge Valentino Tablang.”
(Temporary Rollo, p. 48)

On January 13, 1987
we resolved to refer this administrative case (AM No. R-94-RTJ) along with
another related case entitled “Jose Lagon v.
Judge Valentino Tablang” (AM No. RTJ-86-24) to Justice Jaime M. Lantin of
the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation.  Pending investigation or until our further
orders, we also resolved to suspend the respondent from office.

In Administrative Case No. RTJ-86-24,
the following are the antecedent facts, to wit:

On October 16, 1986, a sworn administrative complaint for
dismissal from office and disbarment was filed by the complainant against the
respondent for grave and deplorable misconduct committed as follows:  that the respondent, aware that the
complainant had pending cases before him, demanded and received from the
complainant sacks of rice from the latter’s rice mill, tires for the
respondent’s tamaraw jeep and nine (9) anglonobian goats owned by the complainant; that in Civil Case No. 44 entitled “Menandro Lapuz v. Jose Lagon” for tort
on the ground that the
complainant allegedly induced the Heirs of one Bai Tonina Sepi to sell the subject
commercial building to him in breach of the lease contract on the said premises
between Lapuz and the deceased Bai
Tonina Sepi, the
respondent awarded damages more than double the amount prayed for therein; that
the respondent without any factual or legal basis ordered the execution pending
appeal of the highly excessive award in the said civil case; and that in the
same tort case, the respondent irregularly issued ex parte orders without
furnishing the complainant copies thereof.

In the same complaint, the complainant included the following
allegations:  that extortion cases
against the respondent had been filed by Jose Embalzado
(G.R. No. 68436), NISA (AM No. R-94-RTJ) and Rene Pelaez
(S-TB Case, Ref. P/15 – CEMRO 2-25-85, NBI CCN-C-85-01727); that as per NBI
records, the respondent as then Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Tuguegarao, Cagayan, was charged
before the Tanodbayan in TBP No. 8101-26-17 for estafa thru falsification of public documents; that as per
NBI records, the respondent has been charged with giving false testimony before
the local court of Tuao, Isabela
as published in the Daily Express issue of July 15,
1980; and that as per NBI records, the respondent, as notary public, notarized
a questioned document which contained a falsified signature.

On November 6, 1986, the complainant filed a Supplement to Complaint stating that
the respondent further committed illegal, anomalous and oppressive acts
allegedly in cahoots with Lapuz’ counsel in Civil
Case No. 44 with respect to the enforcement of the writ of execution pending
appeal therein despite the restraining order of the Court of Appeals.

On November 10 and 28, 1986, the respondent filed his
letter-answers which basically denied all the allegations against him and
interposed defenses relating to his good moral and professional standing.  He further averred that the present suit was
mainly aimed at destroying his reputation.

In a resolution dated January
13, 1987, after a prima facie finding warranting
investigation, we referred AM No. R-94-RTJ and AM No.
RTJ-86-24 to Justice Lantin of the Court of Appeals
as earlier mentioned.

On February 11, 1987,
the respondent filed a manifestation that he adopts all his answers in AM No.
RTJ-86-24 (the aforementioned two letter-answers, the formal answer dated December 4, 1986 and the formal
supplemental answer dated January 15,
1987) to serve as his answer in AM No. 94-RTJ.

On February 19, 1987, the respondent filed another manifestation
requesting that all notices of the hearings in these consolidated cases be sent
to Tuguegarao, Cagayan
inasmuch as effective January
30, 1987, he was considered resigned from his post as RTC Judge of Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat, Br. 20
upon acceptance of his courtesy resignation by President Aquino.

On March 12, 1987,
a second supplement to complaint was filed in AM No. RTJ-86-24 alleging that
the respondent judge further committed irregularities concerning the deposit in
court of the monthly rentals in Civil Case No. 44 consisting of the following
acts:  that the respondent, while
presiding judge of RTC, Branch 20 Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat illegally withdrew from time to time and
appropriated unto himself the total sum of P40,000.00 from the said rentals;
that on October 6, 1986, the respondent demanded from one Eliseo
Solitario, the officer-in-charge (OIC) of the
respondent’s court who collected and received the said rentals, the remaining
deposit of P32,000.00 to be turned over to Pelagio Hilarion, Jr. the court interpreter who was designated
acting OIC and who was made to acknowledge the receipt of the amount of
P72,000.00 not P32,000.00 from Solitario; that on the
same date, the respondent Judge granted the urgent ex-­parte
motion to withdraw rental deposits spuriously dated October 14, 1986 filed by
plaintiff Lapuz in Civil Case No. 44 by virtue of
which the latter signed a falsified receipt for P72,000.00 representing the
rentals deposited and collected in the said case.

After due hearing, Justice Lantin, on May 16, 1991, submitted his separate
reports in AM No. R-94-RTJ and AM No. RTJ-86-24
wherein he made similar recommendations, to wit:  (a) that the respondent judge be held guilty of serious misconduct in office; and (b) that all retirement and separation
benefits and privileges to which the respondent may be entitled be forfeited.

The report in AM No. R-94-RTJ by the
designated investigating officer maybe summarized as follows:

Scheduled hearings were held wherein four witnesses for the
complainant were presented, namely: 
Ernesto Embalsado, the father of the accused in Criminal Case No. 267 who related
in detail the circumstances regarding the respondent’s demand for P20,000.00 in
consideration of a favorable judgment for his son, the accused in the aforestated case; Corazon Lim Embalsado,
the mother of the accused, who corroborated Ernesto’s declarations in court on
the respondent’s acts of extortion; Atty. Oscar Dinopol,
counsel for the accused in Criminal Case No. 267 who stated that after he
learned of the respondent’s deplorable acts of extortion from his client’s
father, he did not immediately file a motion to inhibit the respondent since he
was expecting the head of complainant, Gov. Benjamin Duque,
to file a similar motion on which
the said counsel could base his own motion to inhibit and that when the said
counsel filed the same, the respondent judge, during the hearing of the said
motion, acted arbitrarily and was very despotic in having cited the said
counsel and Ernesto Embalsado for contempt and in
having ordered that both be put in jail;
and Rosario Bibat, a receivables clerk of Angga’s Marketing of which the accused’s
father is a Branch Manager who declared that on September 28, 1983, a certain
Coring Diaz went to their office looking for the accused’s
father who was not around then so Diaz came back the following morning and left
an unsealed note for Ernesto Embalsado (Exhibit
“A”) instructing Ernesto to cancel the earlier bed order for the
respondent because the latter needed cash instead.

Governor Benjamin Duque of Sultan Kudarat and NISA Director from December 1975 to June 30, 1984 clarified in rebuttal
that he did not instigate nor influence any of the complainants in the
administrative cases filed against the respondent.

The witnesses who appeared for the respondent were Fiscal Macabangan Alamada who attested
to the respondent’s regular handling of the criminal cases tried before him
which were mostly convictions and who stated that he had no knowledge of any
complaint against the respondent for extortion except the present case; Mayor
Benjamin Eliseo who testified that at the 35th
Foundation Day of the Municipality of Tacurong, the
respondent was one of the awardees for his legal and technical assistance
services; Geronimo Arzagon, Municipal Planning
Development Coordinator who corroborated Mayor Eliseo’s
testimony as to the “parangal” night since he prepared the mimeographed
copies of the souvenir program which included the respondent’s name as one of
the additional awardees at the 35th Foundation Anniversary of Tacurong;
Antonio Garcia, president of the Rotary Club of Tacurong
from July 1984 to July 1985 and member of the committee  concerning the said “parangal”
who also stated that the respondent was one of the special awardees and further
added that in 1985 the respondent was given by Garcia’s Rotary Club a plaque
for meritorious contributions to the community mainly for establishing the
court house of Tacurong; Perfecto Bautista, governor
of Sultan Kudarat since March 1986 who, in his
testimony, made the assessment that the respondent is an exemplary public
servant whose candor had incurred the ire of some people including those
connected with the complainant; and the respondent judge himself who insisted
in his statement in court that the instant case had no factual basis and was merely meant to harass him.

After considering all the evidence, both
testimonial and documentary in A.M. No. R-94-RTJ Justice Lantin
opined that the presumption of innocence in favor of the respondent had been
overturned by the substantial and convincing proofs adduced by the complainant
from whose witnesses no plausible reason exists to cause them to falsely
testify against the respondent.

Anent the 83-page report in AM No.
RTJ-86-24, following is a capsulized presentation
thereof, to wit:

During the hearings set so that the complainant can establish his
case, nine witnesses were presented, namely: 
the complainant himself whose testimony related specifically the
attendant circumstances with respect to all the irregularities allegedly
committed by the respondent as delineated in
the administrative complaint; Sergio Balofinos,
Assistant Manager of the DBP in Tacurong, Sultan Kudarat from August 1982 until October 1986 who testified
that sometime in April or May 1984, he and the complainant withdrew from the
Family Savings Bank P10,000.00 in P100.00 bills which  were placed in an envelope that was handed to
the respondent at his residence; Pedro Araneta, then
Manager of the DBP in Tacurong, who stated in court
that he was the one who encashed the two checks
amounting to P12,000.00 and delivered the same amount to the respondent
pursuant to a prior agreement that the respondent would lift the court order he
issued suspending the construction of the building inside the complainant’s
compound (projected new site of DBP, Tacurong) in
consideration of a month’s rental fee of DBP which was P12,500.00 and that the
balance of P500.00 was used by Araneta to buy some
“batik” clothing as per instructions of the respondent; Pelagio Hilario, a court
personnel in the respondent’s sala who disclosed the
anomalies in connection with the monthly rentals that were ordered deposited in court in Civil Case No. 44; Eliseo Solitario, another court
personnel in the respondent’s office who admitted his involvement in the
anomalous mishandling of the aforementioned money in Civil Case No. 44
including the acceptance of the falsified receipt purportedly for P72,000.00
(instead of the actual amount remaining on hand which was P32,000.00)
representing the amount turned over by Solitario to Hilario when the latter was designated by the respondent to
take the place of the former as OIC of the respondent’s court; PC Sgt. Danilo Porras presently stationed
at Gansing, Sultan Kudarat
who declared that on October 16, 1986, while he was on a mission order, he
happened to pass by the complainant’s ranch where he noticed a group of armed
men one of whom was masked and dressed in military uniform and that when he
asked the uniformed man to identify himself, a struggle ensued and Porras was able to wrest away the uniformed man’s M16 rifle
which turned out to be owned by the respondent; Benjamin Sitjar,
a businessman in Tacurong, who testified that he owned
the truck which was used to transport the cows of the complainant upon the
respondent’s orders and which truck was apprehended by the police in Marbel, South Cotabato pursuant
to the Court of Appeals’ order to return the said cows to the complainant; Colonel
Glicerio Sua, Commanding
Officer of the 38th Infantry Battalion stationed at Sultan Kudarat
who said in open court that sometime in October 1986, the respondent requested
for the detail of some of his soldiers to assist the sheriff in the
implementation of the orders
regarding the complainant’s case and that the respondent’s request was not
granted in view of the Court of Appeals’ order not warranting implementation
thereof; and Jose Jonald Lagon,
the complainant’s son who recounted how
the respondent drew gasoline from his gas station on a credit basis and how the complainant informed
him that the gasoline taken was for the complainant’s account.

For the respondent, six witnesses gave their testimonies.  They were Judge Herman Malcampo
who attested to the correctness of the certificate he issued when he was acting
Register of Deeds to the effect that the respondent had no real properties in
Sultan Kudarat; Luisa de Peralta, provincial budget
officer of Sultan Kudarat who presented and testified
on the photocopies of the different appropriations for the respondent’s sala for 1985; Lydia Gepte,
provincial assessor of Sultan Kudarat who declared
that there was no property in the name of the respondent as per records of the
province of Sultan Kudarat covering the period from
1983 to November 1986; Vicente Miguel, chief accountant of Sultan Kudarat who stated that he prepared the statement of
gasoline expenses of the respondent from January 1984 to December 1986; Carlito Abella an employee of the
Commission on Audit, Office of the Provincial Assessor, Sultan Kudarat who pointed out in his testimony the different
instances when Eliseo Solitario,
the respondent’s OIC, had been
short of funds with respect to his cash accountability and the deficiences in Solitario’s
management of the funds for which he was accountable; and the respondent
himself who denied the charges against him indicating how stupid and groundless
they were on account of his being a respectable and distinguished member of the
judiciary.

After weighing all the evidence submitted before him, Justice Lantin, as Investigating
Officer, made a finding in AM
No. RTJ-86-24 that the respondent’s acts were constitutive of serious
misconduct whereby no amount of character evidence
could exonerate the respondent inasmuch as the testimonies for the
complainant were given in a straightforward
manner without an indication of any
ill motive on their part
to falsely testify against the respondent.

However, with respect to the charge that the respondent demanded
and received sacks of rice, tires and goats from the complainant, the
Investigating Officer found no sufficient evidence to substantiate the
same.  Furthermore, the additional
allegations referring to the previous charges levelled
against the respondent as per NBI records were disregarded by Justice Lantin in the determination
of the merits of this case for lack of evidence.

After reviewing the records of these cases, we arrive at the
conclusion that the reports prepared by the Investigating Officer do not leave
anything to be desired, hence, we share his view that
the evidence of guilt against the respondent is crystal clear and extremely
strong.

Once again, we find this case an occasion to remind the members
of the Judiciary:

“x x x to
so conduct themselves as to be beyond reproach and suspicion, and be free from
any appearance of impropriety in their personal behavior not only in the
discharge of their official duties but also in their everyday life, for as we
have earlier stressed, ‘no
position exacts a greater demand on moral righteousness and uprightness of an
individual than a seat in the Judiciary’ so that (a) magistrate of the law must
comport himself at all times in such a manner that his conduct, official or
otherwise, can bear the most searching scrutiny of the public that looks up to
him as the epitome of integrity and justice.’” (Association of Court Employees
of Panabo Davao v. Tupas, 175 SCRA 292 [1989] citing Dia-Anonuevo
v. Bercacio, 68 SCRA 81; Quiz v. Castaño,
107 SCRA 196; Fonacier Abano
v. Ancheta, 107 SCRA 538; and Cabrera v. Pajares, 142 SCRA 127)

Moreover, as correctly stated by the Investigating Officer, the
mere denials and unsatisfactory
refutations on the part of the
respondent as regards the charges against him coupled with an attempt to
bolster his claim that he is innocent through evidence of his good character
cannot persuade us to disregard the finding of guilt inasmuch as the evidence
on record indubitably shows that the respondent’s acts amounted to serious misconduct warranting his
dismissal from office.  If the respondent
were still a Judge, he would have been dismissed with prejudice to re?employment
in the government service.  However, since the respondent had already
been removed from office upon acceptance of his courtesy resignation in 1987,
we deem it appropriate under the circumstances to mete out the penalty of
forfeiture of any and all retirement and separation benefits and privileges to
which the respondent may be entitled.

The evidence adduced in the records is likewise adequate to
sustain the complaint for disbarment and to bar the respondent from the
practice of law before all courts of justice and all administrative agencies
where membership in the Bar is a requisite for practice.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, this Court, on a clear finding
of guilt gleaned from the records, hereby ORDERS that all retirement and
separation benefits and privileges to which the respondent may be entitled be
forfeited.  This penalty carries with it
prejudice against re-employment in the government service including
government-owned or controlled corporations. 
The respondent is further barred from the practice of law.  The Clerk of Court is ordered to properly
disseminate the order of DISBARMENT and to furnish the Secretary of Justice a
copy of the decision to study whether or not appropriate criminal charges may
be filed against him.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa,
Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco,
Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, and Davide, Jr., JJ., concur.