Judgment

A.M. No. MTJ-03-1479

Cea vs Paguio
Bellosillo, J.

Summarized by Kharina

Judge was charged for violating the Code of Legal Ethics and RA 3019, because
he allegedly asked for money in exchange of acquitting Cea’s daughter. SC found no
proof of any violation but he was nonetheless sanctioned because the judge delayed
the promulgation of the decision too much. SC said that Paguio should have
promulgated the decision in absentia and should not have waited for Cea’s daughter,
who was always abroad.

IMPORTANT PEOPLE
Atty. Melencio Cea – Counsel for his daughter in three criminal cases
Alicia Cea Tecson – daughter of Melencio accused of violating BP 22
Judge Orlando Paguio – Judge who decided the criminal cases

FACTS
1. In an Affidavit-Complaint, Melencio alleged that he was the counsel for his daughter
in 3 criminal cases involving a violation of BP 22. He said that at the instance of Paguio,
they met at Arks Restaurant in Marilao, Bulacan to discuss the status of the cases.
2. During one of the meetings, Paguio intimidated that he would lose the cases and
asked P100k in exchange of a favorable decision for Alicia.
3. Paguio felt insulted and said that the cases were meritorious and declined. He then
dared Paguio to proceed with the decision. Paguio did so and found Alicia guilty on all
counts.
a. To corroborate his claim, Melencio presented a receipt dated 5 Oct. 2000
indicating the food items which were supposedly ordered by Paguio
b. Alicia also testified about her alleged presence at the meeting at Arks
4. Complaint was endorsed to OCA. In Paguio’s comment, he denied ever meeting or
extorting money, He said that if the cases were indeed meritorious, then extorting
money would be useless bc a meritorious case is always a winning case. He also said
that the delay in promulgation was not due to any devious design but by the
Alicia’s continuous failure to appear in court for promulgation bc she was abroad.
5. SC directed Executive Judge of Malolos, Judge Herrera to submit a report. In his
report, he found Paguio guilty of gross misconduct and recommended the imposition of
sanctions.

1
ISSUE with HOLDING
1. Is Paguio guilty of gross misconduct? – NO
a. On the dearth of evidence (negligible issue)
- Other than Alicia’s oral testimony, there is no other extant proof adequately showing
that the meetings happened. The receipt cannot be given evidentiary weight bc it does
not show the name of the individual to whom it was issued nor of the person who
ordered the items.
- If the meetings indeed happened at Arks, a public place, then it was possible to gather
other witnesses such as waiters or restaurant employees. But this was not done and
instead, reliance was put on Alicia’s uncorroborated testimony.
o She did not even say who asked for the money and whether it was preceded by
a demand
o And if Melencio had good sense, then he would report the incident to the
authorities and set up an entrapment against the culprit
- Casta vs Escao: xxx an accusation of bribery is easy to concoct and difficult to
disprove, thus, to our mind, the complainant must present a panoply of evidence in
support of such an accusation… [i]n order that the allegation of a charge of this nature
may not be considered a fairy tale, evidence other than the doubtful and questionable
verbal testimony of a lone witness should be adduced. Entrapment should have been
pursued.
- The dearth of evidence against Paguio thus justifies his being absolved.
b. On the alleged delay in promulgation
- Melencio: Decision was dated 3 July 2000 but it was only on 4 December 2000 that
the same was promulgated. The delay was a ruse used by Paguio to give Melencio time
to gather the money.
- But Paguio has attributed the delay to Alicia’s non-appearance for promulgation.
Although Paguio is absolved of the charges, he is guilty of delaying promulgation.
- As pointed out by the investigation judge, the delay could have been avoided if
Paguio resorted to the remedy in Sec. 6, Rule 120 of RoC, which is to promulgate
the decision in absentia by recording the judgment in the criminal docket and
copy thereof served upon the accused’s counsel.
- For his inexcusable delay in promulgating the 3 criminal cases, Paguio deserves to be
sanctioned as his action is contrary to the mandate of the Constitution, which enshrines
the right of the accused to a speedy disposition of their cases. This is not Paguio’s first
administrative case. He was also found guilty of delay in promulgation in a previous
one.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
Complaint dismissed and Paguio to pay a fine of P3,000