Office of the Court Administrator vs. Floro, Jr.

A judge may be separated from service due to a medically disabling condition of the mind that renders him unfit to discharge judicial functions, even without a finding of corruption or gross misconduct, and such separation is not a penalty but a necessary measure to preserve judicial integrity; further, a judge placed under preventive suspension is entitled to backwages beyond the 90-day period on equitable grounds, limited by his contribution to the delay and his culpability in the underlying charges.

Judge Floro was appointed as RTC Judge of Branch 73, Malabon City on November 4, 1998, despite having failed psychological evaluations in 1995 and 1998 conducted by the SC Clinic, which revealed "evidence of ego disintegration," "developing psychotic process," paranoid ideations, and perceptual distortions. The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) allowed him to seek a second opinion from private practitioners, which was favorable, paving the way for his appointment. Barely eight months into his term, he requested an audit of his sala, which led to the discovery of irregularities and the filing of administrative charges.

• Filed: Administrative complaint by the OCA, docketed as A.M. No. RTJ-99-1460, per SC Resolution dated July 20, 1999.
• Preventive Suspension: Judge Floro was placed under preventive suspension effective July 20, 1999, for the duration of the investigation.
• Investigation: Referred to Retired CA Justice Pedro Ramirez for investigation, report, and recommendation.
• Psychological Examination: The SC ordered Judge Floro to submit to psychological/mental examination by the SC Clinic on February 1, 2000; he complied on December 13 and 15, 2000 after initial resistance and threats of contempt.
• Partial Report: Justice Ramirez submitted a Partial Report on March 7, 2001, recommending dismissal due to insanity.
• Consolidation: The SC consolidated A.M. No. RTJ-06-1988 (Luz Arriego v. Floro) and A.M. No. 99-7-273-RTC (Re: Resolution Dated 11 May 1999) with the main case.
• Decision: SC En Banc rendered decision on March 31, 2006.

• Judge Floro circulated calling cards identifying himself as a "bar exams topnotcher (87.55%)" and "full second honors" graduate, and had his branch clerk announce these qualifications in open court during his first week on the bench.
• He allowed his driver/aide to use a folding bed in his chambers to rest during office hours.
• He granted motions for release on recognizance under P.D. No. 968 without reducing the orders to writing, without the presence of the trial prosecutor, and without awaiting the probation officer's investigation report.
• He declared to his staff and a Public Attorney's Office (PAO) lawyer that he was "pro-accused" in criminal cases due to sympathy for detention prisoners.
• He signed a pleading in a personal habeas corpus case (Civil Case No. 46-M-98) indicating his judicial title as "Presiding Judge" and attached a photo of his oath-taking with the President.
• He used highly improper and intemperate language during proceedings (e.g., "putang ina," "luka-luka") and openly criticized the Rules of Court and the Philippine justice system as "bulok" (rotten).
• He claimed to possess psychic powers, to see "dwendes" (dwarves) named Luis, Armand, and Angel with whom he had a covenant, to have the power of bilocation, to enter trances, and to be the "angel of death" capable of inflicting pain.
• SC Clinic evaluations (1995, 1998, 2000) consistently found evidence of psychosis, delusional disorder with paranoid features, low average intelligence, and impaired reality testing, rendering him unfit for judgeship.
• Private psychiatrists who initially cleared him admitted under cross-examination that had they known of his beliefs in psychic phenomena and dwendes, their evaluations would have been drastically altered to find him unfit.

• Judge Floro violated Canon 2, Rule 2.02 (seeking publicity for personal vainglory), Canon 2, Rule 2.01 (impartiality), Canon 5, Rule 5.07 (private practice), and Canon 1, Rule 1.01 (upholding integrity of judiciary) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
• He committed gross ignorance of the law by violating P.D. No. 968 and Rule 36, Section 1 regarding written orders for probation matters.
• His mental condition, evidenced by SC Clinic reports and his own admissions regarding psychic phenomena, constitutes a medically disabling condition rendering him unfit to remain a judge.
• He should be dismissed from the service.

• The calling cards were not circulated but given as tokens to friends; the announcements were suggested by his branch clerk and limited to the first week.
• He did not violate the Probation Law; his practice of interviewing custodians and not issuing written orders was consistent with local custom and former judges' practices.
• He was not "pro-accused" but merely commiserated with detention prisoners; there was no proof he decided cases with bias.
• He did not engage in private practice of law; the pleading in his personal case was signed inadvertently and later amended.
• The tape recordings used as evidence were obtained clandestinely in violation of R.A. No. 4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping Law) and were inadmissible.
• The SC Clinic evaluations were biased and unreliable; private psychiatrists found him mentally fit.
• His beliefs in psychic phenomena were culture-bound, did not amount to psychosis, and did not affect his judicial functions.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether tape recordings of Judge Floro's conversations are admissible evidence given R.A. No. 4200?
  • Whether Judge Floro is entitled to backwages for the entire period of his preventive suspension exceeding 90 days?
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether Judge Floro is guilty of simple misconduct for circulating self-laudatory calling cards and announcing his qualifications in court?
  • Whether he is guilty of gross ignorance of the law for handling applications for release on recognizance without written orders, without the prosecutor, and without the probation officer's report?
  • Whether he is guilty of unbecoming conduct for declaring himself "pro-accused," signing pleadings in a personal case with his judicial title, and using intemperate language/criticizing the judiciary?
  • Whether he engaged in the unauthorized private practice of law?
  • Whether Judge Floro is mentally fit to remain a judge based on evidence of psychosis, delusional disorder, and belief in psychic phenomena?
  • Whether equitable considerations entitle him to backwages despite contributing to the delay in the proceedings?

• Procedural:
  • The tape recordings are inadmissible under R.A. No. 4200 because they were unauthorized recordings of private conversations, not official court stenographic notes. However, the testimony of his Clerk of Court and other documentary evidence were sufficient to prove the charges regarding intemperate language and criticism of the judiciary.
  • Judge Floro is entitled to backwages, allowances, and economic benefits for three (3) years only, not the full seven years of suspension. While preventive suspension is not a penalty, and equity does not require blameless suitors, the award is limited because he contributed to the delay through his indiscriminate filing of cases against those involved in the investigation, and he was not found innocent of all charges.
• Substantive:
  • Simple Misconduct: Judge Floro is guilty of simple misconduct for circulating self-laudatory calling cards and announcing his qualifications in open court, violating Canon 2, Rule 2.02. The act was not corrupt but demonstrated a "persistent and unquenchable thirst for recognition" inconsistent with judicial modesty.
  • Gross Ignorance of the Law: Judge Floro is guilty of gross ignorance of the law for granting release on recognizance without written orders, without the prosecutor, and without the probation officer's report. These were basic procedural rules under P.D. No. 968 and Rule 36, Section 1 where good faith is not a defense because the errors were "beyond permissible margins."
  • Unbecoming Conduct: Judge Floro is guilty of unbecoming conduct for declaring bias for the accused (violating Canon 2, Rule 2.01), for signing pleadings in a personal case with his judicial title (violating Canon 2, Rule 2.04), and for using intemperate language and criticizing the justice system.
  • Private Practice of Law: Judge Floro is not guilty of private practice. The isolated act of signing a pleading in his personal case does not constitute the "frequent or customary action" required for private practice.
  • Mental Fitness: Judge Floro is unfit to remain a judge. The SC Clinic findings of psychosis/delusional disorder, corroborated by his admissions regarding "dwendes," psychic visions, bilocation, and trances, establish a medically disabling condition. Such beliefs, particularly his reference to "psychic phenomena" in a judicial decision, demonstrate a lack of objectivity and judicial temperament required to apply positive law.
  • Penalty: Judge Floro is separated from the service due to a medically disabling condition of the mind, effective immediately. This is not a penalty (like dismissal) but a necessary measure because he is incapable of performing judicial functions. He is fined P40,000.00 for the seven proven charges. His separation does not carry forfeiture of accrued benefits or disqualification from future public office not requiring judicial functions.
  • Consolidated Cases: A.M. No. 99-7-273-RTC is dismissed as moot; A.M. No. RTJ-06-1988 is dismissed for lack of merit.

• Equity does not demand that its suitors shall have led blameless lives — Equity may grant relief even to those with fault, though the relief may be tempered by their conduct. Applied in limiting backwages to three years despite Judge Floro's contribution to the delay.
• Preventive Suspension of Judges — Unlike other civil servants, judges may be preventively suspended until the final decision of the administrative case. Backwages for the period exceeding 90 days may be awarded if the judge is found innocent; if guilty of some charges but separated for medical reasons, the award is subject to equitable limitations.
• Gross Ignorance of the Law — Good faith and fallible discretion are not defenses where the legal principle is evident and the error is "out of all measure; beyond allowance; not to be excused; flagrant; shameful."
• Judicial Temperament and Objectivity — Judges must exhibit "cold neutrality" and objectivity; belief in psychic phenomena that influences judicial decisions (as evidenced by his reference to "psychic phenomena" in a criminal decision) renders one unfit.
• Psychological Fitness Standard for Judges — Judges must possess sound mental/psychological condition to perform the delicate task of administering justice; evidence of psychosis, delusional disorder, or impaired reality testing warrants separation from service.

• "Equity does not demand that its suitors shall have led blameless lives." (Justice Brandeis, Loughran v. Loughran)
• "Like Caesar's wife, a judge must not only be pure but above suspicion."
• "Psychic phenomena, even assuming such exist, have no place in a judiciary duty bound to apply only positive law and, in its absence, equitable rules and principles in resolving controversies."
• "The judge, even when he is free, is still not wholly free. He is not to innovate at pleasure. He is not a knight-errant, roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or goodness."

• Loughran v. Loughran — Source of the equity maxim applied to the award of backwages.
• Ulep v. Legal Clinic, Inc. — On permissible content of professional cards (simple and ordinary only).
• Poso v. Judge Mijares — On proper procedure for release on recognizance under the Probation Law.
• Echaus v. Court of Appeals — On requirement that orders be in writing to have juridical existence and on plenary power to recall/amend interlocutory orders.
• Gloria v. Court of Appeals — On preventive suspension not being a penalty and the 90-day standard for investigation.
• Re: Payment of Backwages... Judge Iturralde — On backwages for judges under preventive suspension as a matter of equity.
• Castillo v. Juan — On judicial objectivity and the duty to hold the balance true.
• State Prosecutors v. Muro — On judicial objectivity and the limits of judicial discretion.

• Constitution, Article VIII, Section 5(5) — SC's power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure.
• Constitution, Article VIII, Section 6 — SC's administrative supervision over all courts and personnel.
• P.D. No. 968 (Probation Law), as amended, particularly Section 7 — Period for submission of investigation report and conditions for temporary liberty.
• Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC — Classification of charges (serious, less serious, light) and penalties.
• Rule 36, Section 1, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Requirement that judgments and final orders be in writing and signed.
• Code of Judicial Conduct:
  • Canon 1, Rule 1.01 — Upholding integrity and independence of judiciary.
  • Canon 2, Rule 2.01 — Ensuring faith in impartiality and independence.
  • Canon 2, Rule 2.02 — Prohibition against seeking publicity for personal vainglory.
  • Canon 2, Rule 2.04 — Prohibition against influencing litigation in other courts.
  • Canon 3, Rule 3.03 — Maintaining order and decorum in court.
  • Canon 5, Rule 5.07 — Prohibition against private practice of law.
  • R.A. No. 4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping Law) — Inadmissibility of evidence obtained in violation of the Act.
  • Administrative Circular No. 1 — Guidelines on special raffle of cases.