CONCERNED LAWYERS v. PRES. JUDGE VILLALON-PORNILLOS

Concerned Lawyers of Bulacan Vs. Presiding Judge Victoria Villalon-Pornillos, etc.

A.M. No. RTJ-09-2183

February 14, 2017

Facts

On July 7, 2009, the Court rendered a Decision,dismissing respondent from service, after having been found guilty of gross misconduct, i.e., borrowing money from a lawyer in a case pending before her court, aggravated by undue delay in rendering decisions or orders, and violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars.

On August 8, 2016, respondent filed a Petition for Absolute Pardon from 'Dismissal from the Service Sentence'4accompanied by a letter5 dated August 4, 2016 addressed to the Office of the President (OP), which was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), for appropriate action. In a Resolution7 dated November 8, 2016, the Court denied the said petition for being an improper pleading. Meanwhile, on November 3, 2016, respondent also filed a letteraddressed to the OCA, informing the OP's transmittal of her petition for judicial clemency to the Court, and requesting that the same be subject for judicial review and, consequently, the subject Decision be reversed in her favor. The Court, in a Resolution9 dated November 29, 2016, noted the said letter without action.

On December 28, 2016, respondent filed another letter, reiterating her plea for judicial clemency.

Issue

Whether or Not the Respondent is liable for judicial clemency.

Ruling

Judicial clemency is an act of mercy removing any disqualification from the erring judge. It can be granted only if there is a showing that it is merited; thus, proof of reformation and a showing of potential and promise are indispensable. There must be proof of remorse and reformation. There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall include but should not be limited to certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, judges or judges associations and prominent members of the community with proven integrity and probity. A subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case for the same or similar misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of non-reformation.

The Court, in numerous cases, has come down hard and wielded the rod of discipline against members of the judiciary who have fallen short of the exacting standards of judicial conduct.2 Judicial clemency is not a privilege or a right that can be availed of at any time,2 as the Court will grant it only if there is a showing that it is merited.2Verily, clemency, as an act of mercy removing any disqualification, should be balanced with the preservation of public confidence in the courts.