OCA v.

Lerma
A.M. No. RTJ-07-2076 – 2080 – October 12, 2010
Per Curiam

Topic: General Concepts - Relevance

Doctrine: Relevancy is, therefore, determinable by the rules of logic and human experience…Relevant
evidence is any class of evidence which has ‘rational probative value’ to the issue in controversy."

Petitioners: OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR

Respondents: JUDGE ALBERTO L. LERMA

Case Summary: These are 5 consolidated administrative cases against Judge Lerma for making
untruthful statements, violating Supreme Court directives, for gross ignorance of the law, for delay in
rendering order. etc. The SC took up the facts of each one separately. I think the important part is just
A.M. No. RTJ-07-2079 (last case discussed). In that case, Judge Lerma dismissed a case of estafa
ruling that the loan was actually already paid by the accused when the latter gave the complainant 2
condominium units. However, the condominium units actually do not exist. The SC said that Judge
Lerma should have conducted an ocular inspection first before dismissing the case.

Note: Hindi ata talaga relevant yung first 4 cases :((

Note: These are 5 consolidated administrative cases against Judge Lerma for making untruthful
statements, violating Supreme Court directives, for gross ignorance of the law, for delay in rendering
order. Etc. The SC took up the facts of each one separately.

A.M. No. RTJ-07-2076

 Judge Lerma (Muntinlupa RTC) was the judge (after raffling the case) to whom the SC directed
the arraignment proceedings for a certain Ruperto Pizarro, accused of violating PD1866. His case
was with RTC Rosales, Pangasinan, but his detention facility was moved to Muntinlupa.
 Pizzaro was subsequently arraigned, and thereafter, Lerma proceeded to receive the evidence of
the prosecution.
 2005: The defendant’s lawyer filed a demurrer to evidence (firearm) because the prosecution
failed to offer it formally, which then ultimately led to the dismissal of the case on Feb. 2007 due
to insufficiency of evidence.
 September 2007: The OCA charged Lerma with exceeding his authority, because the authority
given to him by the SC was limited to the arraignment of the accused, and not to render judgment
based on the merits.
o In his answer, Lerma interposed that he, through inadvertence, forgot the limits of the
referral made to him, and that he ruled on the merits of the case in a way not tainted with
fraud, dishonesty or corruption. He said that it would have been wrong for him to add to
the penalty already being served by the accused when there was no evidence to warrant
the detention.
 SC Ruling: The demurrer to evidence filed by the prosecution included the information which
clearly states that the crime was committed in Rosales, Pangasinan, thus, RTC Muntinlupa did
not have jurisdiction over the case. The records should have reminded him that his court was only
authorized to arraign the accused, to receive the evidence in the said case, and to return the
records of the case to the RTC Rosales, Pangasinan for continuation of the proceedings
o Respondent judge was found wanting in the diligence required of him, and we impose
upon him a fine of ₱15,000.00.
A.M. No. RTJ-07-2080
 On separate letters, Godofredo Galindez (President, Alabang Country Club) and Hrofumi Hotta
(Operations Manager, TAT Filipinas Golf Club) showed that Judge Lerma played golf in said
clubs 24 times from 2000-2006, and six (6) of these dates were dates when he did not file his
leave of absence.
 The OCA asserted that on the days that respondent judge played golf, he was lost to the judiciary
for half the working/session hours on those days, positing that this is not merely truancy but also
dishonesty and falsification of certificates of service.
 In his comment, Lerma said that he only played golf 18 times from 2000-2006, and that played
golf on days when no other place was available for him to carry out his official functions given
that he was sharing a court room with other judges. Likewise, he explained that, in 1996, his
physician advised him to exercise more vigorously after he was diagnosed with diabetes and
hypertension.
 Galindez testified that the records were from the logbook entries made by the starter in the
country club. On cross-examination, he also admitted that he is not the custodian of the logbook,
nor was we the starter nor the person who wrote on it. On the other hand, Hirofumi testified that
the front desk receptionist made the listing for TAT Filipino.
 SC Ruling: The testimony of Aquino, along with the certification issued by Hermogena, that
respondent judge did not file any leave of absence on the dates indicated in Hirofumi’s letter,
indubitably established that respondent judge violated Supreme Court Memorandum Order dated
November 19, 1973, Administrative Circular No. 3-99, and Administrative Circular No. 5-88.
o Supreme Court Memorandum Order dated November 19, 1973 provides for the
observance by judges, among other officials and employees in the judiciary, of a five-day
forty-hour week schedule which shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and from 12:30
p.m. to 4:30 p.m. from Mondays to Fridays.
o Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars, and making untruthful
statements in the certificate of service are considered less serious charges, and Lerma was
imposed a fined of ₱15,000

A.M. No. RTJ-07-2077

 Atty. Perez, the counsel/administrator of Van Twest (who’s now believed to have been killed),
filed a Motion for Execution of Decision, which awards Van Twest a sum of money from a
certain Gloria Anacleto. This was granted by Judge Lerma.
 Subsequently, Union Bank of the Philippines filed a separate motion, and prayed for Atty. Perez’
power as administrator of absentee Van Twest to be held in abeyance while the motion was
pending. Judge Lerma being on official leave of absence, another Judge (Judge Aguinaldo)
granted Union Bank’s motion on May 28, 2007.
 June 1, 2007: Because of this, Atty. Perez filed an Omnibus motion (1) to set aside Judge
Aguinaldo’s ruling because it was made without jurisdiction, and (2) to cite Union Bank’s
counsel (Atty. Ona) for indirect contempt
o June 6, 2007: Judge Lerma ordered Atty. Ona to file her opposition to the omnibus
motion within 10 days. HOWEVER, on the same day, Judge Lerma issued another order
(second order) stating already that the bank had not shown any legal basis to set aside the
May 28 judgment.
 Because of this, Atty. Ona filed OCA a complaint alleging that the judge’s issuance of the second
order on June 6 was irregular because: (1) Union Bank was given 10 days to file its opposition,
(2) the second order was secretly railroaded to give Atty. Perez a ground to oppose Union Bank’s
motion in another case, (3) even Judge Lerma’s staff did not know about the second order until
much later, and (4) the second order contradicted the first order
  SC Ruling: Judge Lerma was found that the actions of Judge Lerma constitute gross negligence
and/or gross ignorance of the law. The issuance by respondent of divergent orders raises serious
questions of impropriety that taint respondent judge’s credibility, probity, and integrity. Coupled
with the clandestine issuance of the second order — where the Union Bank counsel and even the
judge’s own staff were left completely in the dark — the action of respondent judge gives rise to
an inference of bad faith.
o SC imposed the penalty of dismissal from the service and perpetual disqualification from
reemployment in the government service, including government-owned and controlled
corporations.

A.M. No. RTJ-07-2078

 The case “Mateo v. The Board of Governors of Ayala Alabang Village Association” (for the
declaration of the General Election in Ayala Alabang as void ab initio) was raffled to the RTC
branch presided by Judge Lerma. Judge Lerma ruled in favor of Mateo, thus (1) declaring the
election as void ab initio, and (2) ordering the elected officers to vacate their positions. The
defendants filed an appeal with the CA.
 On the other hand, Mateo filed a motion to cite the defendants with indirect contempt of Court for
not vacating their positions, which Judge Lerma initially granted, but later reversed upon MFR.
 On CA Appeal: Overruled Judge Lerma’s ruling, stating that it has no JD over the subject
matter. It was with the HLURB.
 Because of the decision, Mateo filed a complaint with the Supreme Court against Judge Lerma,
stating that the matter of JD was brought up to him, but due to his being grossly ignorant of
existing laws and rules, he still took cognizance of the case.
 SC Ruling: It is true that to constitute gross ignorance of the law, it is not enough that the subject
decision of the judge is contrary to existing law and jurisprudence but, most importantly, he must
be moved by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or corruption. HOWEVER, when the law is so
elementary (such as jurisdiction), not to be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.
o In this case, The SC found Judge Lerma guilty of gross ignorance of the law, and
imposed upon him a fine of ₱40,000.00.

A.M. No. RTJ-07-2079

 Accused Cuason was charged with Estafa for defrauding complainant Goyena re: an investment
on condominiums, where the latter was promised that the money loaned (P20M) would be
returned with interst. The case was raffled to an RTC presided by Judge Juanita Guerrero.
 Feb 14, 2006: Subsequently, Cuason filed with the RTC an entry of appearance with a plea to
determine whether or not probable cause exists for the purpose of issuance of a warrant of arrest,
and Goyena, on the other hand, filed a Motion to deny the such application and to cite Cuason in
contempt for forum shopping.
 May 2, 2006: The case was re-raffled to the sala of Judge Lerma.
 September 4, 2006: Judge Lerman dismissed the criminal case, stating that it appears that the
payment of the principal was already made by delivering to the complainant 2 condominium
units.
o September 6: Goyena filed an urgent motion to conduct ocular inspection arguing that
the condominium units alleged to have been used to pay do not exist.
 September 18, 2006: Goyena filed a complaint with the Supreme Court, charging respondent
judge with abuse of judicial authority and discretion, serious irregularity, and gross ignorance of
the law, allegedly shown by the latter’s act of willfully and knowingly reversing the well-
grounded finding of probable cause
  SC Ruling: This Court finds that respondent judge’s delay in the determination of probable cause
clearly runs counter to the provisions of Section 6, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure
o By allowing forty-eight (48) days to lapse before issuing the two-page omnibus order
dated September 4, 2006, respondent judge should be held liable for undue delay in
rendering an order, which is classified as a less serious charge
o Furthermore, the Court agrees with the OCA that the respondent judge is guilty of abuse
of judicial discretion and authority.
 [IMPT] The main issue in the criminal case really was W/N the condominium units exist, and the
incontrovertible proof of this are the condominium units themselves. Judge Lerma should have
ordered an ocular inspection of the condominium units before he dismissed the case.
o Section 4, Rule 128 of the Rules of Court provides that "evidence must have such a
relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence."
"Relevancy is, therefore, determinable by the rules of logic and human experience…
Relevant evidence is any class of evidence which has ‘rational probative value’ to the
issue in controversy."
o Logic and human experience teach us that the documents relied upon by respondent do
not constitute the best evidence to prove the existence or non-existence of the
condominium units. To repeat, the best evidence would have been adduced by an ocular
inspection of the units themselves.

Ruling:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court RULES, as follows:

1) In A.M. No. RTJ-07-2076, Judge Alberto Lerma is found GUILTY of violating a Supreme Court
directive, and we impose upon him a FINE in the total amount of FIFTEEN THOUSAND PESOS
(₱15,000.00);

2) In A.M. No. RTJ-07-2080, Judge Alberto Lerma is FINED in the total amount of FIFTEEN
THOUSAND PESOS (₱15,000.00) for violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars, and for
making untruthful statements in his certificate of service;

3) In A.M. No. RTJ-07-2077, Judge Alberto Lerma is found GUILTY of gross misconduct and punished
with the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service, with forfeiture of all benefits, except earned leave
credits, with prejudice to reemployment in any government agency or instrumentality.

4) In A.M. No. RTJ-07-2078, we find Judge Alberto Lerma GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law, and
impose upon him a FINE of FORTY THOUSAND PESOS (₱40,000.00); and

5) In A.M. No. RTJ-07-2079, we find Judge Alberto Lerma GUILTY of grave abuse of authority and
undue delay in rendering an order, and impose upon him a FINE of TWENTY–ONE THOUSAND
PESOS (₱21,000.00).