Prosecutor Romana R. Reyes vs. Judge Julia A. Reyes

A judge may be dismissed for gross ignorance of the law and grave misconduct where bad faith is shown by the vindictive use of contempt powers, illegal arrest and detention, excessive bail, unethical conduct, and failure to render a written judgment; the power of contempt is protective, not retaliatory. Court employees may be administratively penalized for gambling within court premises under Administrative Circular No. 1-99.

Judge Julia A. Reyes was the Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 69, Pasig City; Timoteo A. Migriño was her Branch Clerk of Court; Prosecutor Romana R. Reyes was the public prosecutor assigned to the branch; and the other complainants were court employees, a litigant, and an accused in cases pending before the branch. The administrative complaints were consolidated and referred to Justice Romulo S. Quimbo, consultant of the Office of the Court Administrator, for investigation, report, and recommendation. The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary and Administrative Circular No. 1-99 provide the regulatory backdrop for the charges.

Judge Julia A. Reyes was the Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 69, Pasig City. Timoteo A. Migriño was the Branch Clerk of Court. Prosecutor Romana R. Reyes was the public prosecutor assigned to Branch 69. Armi M. Flordeliza, Juliet C. Villar, and Ma. Concepcion Lucero were court employees. Andree K. Lagdameo was the private complainant in Criminal Case No. 42030 for physical injuries. Florencio Sebastian, Jr. was an accused in Criminal Case No. 19110 for falsification of public document. The administrative complaints arose from incidents in 2003 and 2004.

Not long after her appointment, Judge Reyes began to exhibit unexplained prejudice and hostility toward Migriño, telling the MeTC Clerk of Court that Migriño would be detailed at the Office of the Clerk of Court, and on several occasions, the latest on August 24, 2004, barring him from entering the court premises and staff room. On October 1, 2004, during lunch break, Migriño, Deputy Sheriff Joel K. Agliam, and Dandy T. Liwag were arrested without warrant upon orders of Judge Reyes for allegedly playing "tong-its" in violation of Presidential Decree No. 1602 or the Anti-Gambling Law. PO1 Sandy Galino, Judge Reyes's security officer, arrested them and brought them to the Pasig City Police Station, where they were detained by virtue of the affidavits of PO1 Galino and Judge Reyes. Judge Morallos issued an Order of Release after they posted bail. Judge Reyes tried to prevent their release, insisting that Migriño had a complaint for malversation of public funds, infidelity in the custody of documents, qualified theft, and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act allegedly committed in November 2002, and presenting the affidavit of Ariel Nuestro and a joint affidavit she executed with court employees. Prosecutor Reyes and Atty. Domingo S. Cruz explained that the alleged offense occurred in 2002, was not covered by the rule on warrantless arrest, and could not be the subject of an inquest. Inspector Icuin ordered Migriño's release. Migriño stayed in jail from October 1, 2004, a Friday, until October 4, 2004. Judge Reyes then issued an October 4, 2004 Order requiring Migriño to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt for illegal gambling during office hours, infidelity in the custody of documents, qualified theft and/or malversation, violation of R.A. 3019, and defiance; set the hearing on October 8, 2004; and directed the process server, sheriff, and any officer of the law to take custody of him if he refused to receive the Order. On October 8, 2004, she issued another Order giving blanket authority to take custody of Migriño. On October 14, 2004, she ordered him to show cause why he should not be cited for at least 2,330 acts of indirect contempt, including 1,510 acts for failure to act on People vs. Marcos Rivera. In an undated letter received by the OCA on October 4, 2004, Judge Reyes recommended Migriño's separation from service for illegal gambling during office hours, qualified theft and/or infidelity in the custody of documents, and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

On October 1, 2004 at past 6:00 p.m., Prosecutor Reyes met Judge Reyes at the office of Police Inspector Jovita V. Icuin. Judge Reyes asked Prosecutor Reyes to conduct an inquest against Migriño for malversation based on a photocopy of Ariel Nuestro's affidavit purportedly executed and sworn before Judge Reyes on September 15, 2004. Prosecutor Reyes explained that malversation may not fall under warrantless arrest, that inquest could not be conducted after 6:00 p.m. without authorization, and that because the crime was allegedly committed in 2003, Migriño would have to undergo preliminary investigation. Judge Reyes insisted that the preliminary investigation be conducted immediately and that Migriño be detained over the weekend; the police detained him. On October 5 and 6, 2004, Prosecutor Reyes did not appear in court due to severe headache and chest discomfort but informed the court through a staff member. On October 11, 2004, before hearing, Judge Reyes asked for a medical certificate; Prosecutor Reyes explained she did not personally see a doctor but called him. Judge Reyes then brought up the October 1 incident, and without a contempt case or inclusion in the calendar, issued an Order requiring Prosecutor Reyes to explain in writing within 24 hours why she should not be cited for contempt for refusing to conduct the inquest. Judge Reyes stated in open court that she would not order Prosecutor Reyes's arrest that day but would coordinate with the office of Gen. Aglipay to send a police officer to take custody of her pending contempt proceedings. Prosecutor Reyes was hospitalized from October 11 to 14, 2004. On October 13, 2004, while Prosecutor Reyes was confined, Judge Reyes issued an Order noting no valid explanation and issuing a warrant of arrest for her failure to attend, with bail set at P1,000 per case for 119 delayed cases, or P119,000, plus P25,000 each for two counts of apparent contempt. On October 27, 2004, four police officers served a warrant purportedly issued on October 11, 2004 in Criminal Case Nos. 02164-02173, all entitled People vs. Prosecutor Romana R. Reyes; verification showed no pending case against her and that the numbers pertained to cases against 10 individuals for offenses ranging from violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 6 to reckless imprudence. Also on October 27, 2004, Prosecutor Reyes received copies of Orders dated October 11 and 13, 2004 directing her to show cause and issuing a warrant with bail of P2,000 per case, or P238,000. On December 7, 2004, Judge Reyes ordered Prosecutor Reyes detained for one day at the Pasig City Police Headquarters for direct contempt, denied her motion for a five-minute recess, and ordered the courtroom doors locked. After the hearing, police officers brought Prosecutor Reyes to the police station; her lawyer showed an Order dated November 22, 2004 by Judge Celso Lavina stating that warrants issued by Judge Reyes would not be enforced. She was released at about 7:00 p.m. after the Sheriff served a Writ of Preliminary Prohibitory and Mandatory Injunction. On December 9, 2004, Judge Reyes shouted "Arrest her! Arrest her!" and called Prosecutor Reyes an escaped convict and fugitive from justice in the lobby. On December 13, 2004, Prosecutor Reyes wrote the OCA charging Judge Reyes with violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or order, and gross ignorance of the law or procedure.

Flordeliza, Villar, and Lucero charged Judge Reyes with residing in chambers; borrowing money from staff; instructing the stenographer to collect a minimum amount for ex-parte cases; frequently bringing staff to nighttime gimmicks; unethical conduct; conduct unbecoming a lady judge; unfriendliness to litigants; anti-public service; inability to control emotions during hearings; uttering invectives in front of staff and lawyers; conducting staff meetings in unsightly attire; and gross inefficiency/laziness. They alleged that she resided in her chambers, where a big aparador was eventually removed after three Supreme Court lawyers investigated; that she slept in chambers after evening gimmicks and was fetched by a certain Col. Miranda at midnight and returned at 4:00 a.m.; that in May 2003 she instructed Juliet Villar to act as co-maker in loan applications; that she borrowed P500 from Villar and P20,000 from the branch process server; and that she told Armi Flordeliza that she was weak in collecting from ex-parte cases and should ask at least P2,000, after which ex-parte cases were assigned to Leah Palaspas. She also remarked, "Sino pa ba ibang pwedeng pagkakitaan dito? O ikaw Oswald, sheriff." They further alleged that she habitually invited staff to night gimmicks from 10:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m., causing them to be absent or late; that on December 23, 2003, Juliet joined her at a comedy bar until 4:00 a.m.; that on January 2, 2004, she insistently gave Maria Concepcion red wine at her residence; that she uttered "Ano kaya kung mag-hearing ako ng hubo’t hubad tapos naka-robe lang, pwede kaya?" and "Hayaan mo, Farah, pag natikman ko na siya, ipapasa ko sa iyo, ha ha ha!"; that she invited staff to drinking sprees in the courtroom on three consecutive Fridays in February 2004; that on March 2, 2004, Juliet saw her about to leave and later learned she was seen inebriated sleeping on a bench outside the office with empty bottles in the garbage; that she was unfriendly to a litigant during inventory, saying "Nag-iimbentaryo kami, bawal mag-verify. Pag hindi ka umalis, iko-contempt kita!"; that she locked the staff room and did not answer phone calls during hearings; that she stormed out of a hearing while Assistant City Prosecutor Fernando Dumpit was talking; that she uttered "PUTANG INA NILA, PUTANG INA TALAGA NILA!" in front of staff; that she conducted staff meetings in T-shirt, slippers, and faded maong; and that she delegated decision-writing to Juliet and had promulgated only three or four decisions of her own writing. In a Supplemental Complaint dated January 28, 2005, Armie Flordeliza added that she was jailed on a warrant of arrest dated October 8, 2004 issued by Judge Reyes for ten counts of indirect contempt; that she failed to attend the October 8, 2004 hearing out of fear; that she was apprehended and confined at the Pasig City Police Station; that bail was fixed at P250,000, which she considered excessive; that the warrant supposedly carried case numbers 02154 to 02163, which did not pertain to her or to contempt; that her motion to reduce bail was not acted upon; and that she was released on November 16, 2004 after 12 days upon posting a P50,000 cash bond granted by Judge Divina Gracia Lopez-Peliño.

Andree Lagdameo was the private complainant in Criminal Case No. 42030 for physical injuries pending before Branch 69. The case was originally set for promulgation on May 19, 2004 but was reset to July 13, 2004, September 14, 2004, and November 23, 2004. Lagdameo filed an Urgent Motion to Set Promulgation of Judgment and furnished the OCA a copy. Judge Reyes moved the promulgation from November 23 to October 20, 2004, then reset it to October 16, 2004. After eight postponements, judgment was promulgated on December 7, 2004. Before the proceedings that day, Judge Reyes ordered the arrest and detention of Prosecutor Romana Reyes; Lagdameo heard Judge Reyes forbid Prosecutor Reyes from calling her lawyer and order PO1 Galino and PO2 Lavadia to close the courtroom doors. Judge Reyes then ordered Leah Palaspas to promulgate judgment in Lagdameo's case. Lagdameo was shocked by the intemperate and derogatory words used to describe her and left the courtroom. She later requested a copy of the decision but was barred from re-entering by PO1 Galino. She waited, asked Leah Palaspas, and was told the folder was in the judge's chambers. The decision was not in the file. At almost noon, Palaspas said "Eto ho Judge, las doce na ho e." Judge Reyes shouted "Don’t try me, come back at 1:00 PM, GET OUT!" Lagdameo commented "O baka ma contempt pa ako" and walked away. PO1 Galino suddenly grabbed her arm; Judge Reyes shouted "HULIHIN NIYO YAN, IKULONG NINYO YAN!" Lagdameo was forcibly brought out of the Justice Hall and to the Pasig Police Station. The blotter entry dated December 7, 2004 at 12:30 p.m. stated she was brought in for direct contempt of court issued by Judge Reyes, with "Order will follow." No written order or commitment order was issued. She was released on December 8, 2004 at 12:30 p.m., the blotter noting she was detained without written commitment order and released without written release order. Lagdameo received a copy of the decision on December 16, 2004, only after writing a letter to Judge Reyes and furnishing the Chief Justice and the OCA copies. In the decision, Judge Reyes wrote that judging from the demeanor and character of the accused, who appeared quiet with a pleasant disposition, and that of the private complainant, who looked loud, rash, and even vulgar in language, the Court found the version of the accused more credible. Judge Reyes had merely relied on the records in writing the decision because Judge Alex Quiroz was the presiding judge when the case was tried.

Florencio Sebastian, Jr. was accused in Criminal Case No. 19110 for falsification of public document pending before Branch 69. On February 18, 2004, police officers served on Sebastian and his wife Alicia warrants of arrest issued by Judge Reyes on October 28, 2003. After overnight detention at Camp Caringal in Quezon City, they learned the warrants were issued for their failure to appear on October 28, 2003 as directed in an August 15, 2003 Order that they and their counsel, Atty. Jaime Vibar, did not receive. The August 15, 2003 Order reiterated an unsigned May 9, 2000 Order and set the case for hearing on October 28, 2003, even though the case had long been submitted for decision. Judge Reyes did not lift the warrants despite a Motion for Reconsideration, Compliance and Entry of Appearance filed by Atty. Vibar. At the promulgation of judgment on September 7, 2004, the branch clerk read only the decretal portion of the decision convicting the couple. Atty. Vibar requested a copy, but Judge Reyes said the decision had not yet been printed and offered a diskette, which he refused. Judge Reyes later read the judgment from a computer screen inside the chambers without giving the couple a written copy or computer print-out. The couple appealed, raising the trial court's failure to comply with Rule 120 of the Rules of Court and Section 14 of Article VIII of the Constitution requiring a written and signed decision with a clear statement of facts and law. These incidents led to the consolidated administrative complaints.

• Grave Abuse of Authority and Grave Misconduct (Prosecutor Reyes): Prosecutor Reyes charged Judge Reyes with grave abuse of authority and/or grave misconduct for directing an inquest outside office hours, insisting on Migriño's detention, issuing contempt orders and warrants without a pending case, fixing excessive bail, and ordering Prosecutor Reyes's arrest and detention despite an RTC order that Judge Reyes's warrants would not be enforced.
• Oppression, Abuse of Authority, Illegal Arrest and Detention (Migriño and Cruz): Migriño and Atty. Cruz charged Judge Reyes with gross ignorance of the law, oppression, abuse of authority, and illegal arrest and detention for the warrantless arrest for alleged tong-its, efforts to prevent Migriño's release, and use of contempt powers to harass him, including show-cause orders for at least 2,330 acts of indirect contempt, which they argued was one continuing act of omission rather than 1,510 separate acts.
• Conduct Unbecoming a Judge (Flordeliza, Villar, and Lucero): The court employees charged Judge Reyes with residing in chambers, borrowing money from staff, soliciting ex-parte fees, frequent nighttime gimmicks, unethical remarks, unfriendliness to litigants, anti-public service, inability to control emotions, uttering invectives, unsightly attire during staff meetings, and gross inefficiency; Flordeliza added that she was illegally detained for contempt with excessive bail.
• Illegal Arrest and Detention (Lagdameo): Lagdameo charged Judge Reyes with grave misconduct and abuse of authority after being ordered arrested for alleged direct contempt without a written order, detained for 24 hours, and insulted in the promulgated decision.
• Grave Misconduct, Gross Ignorance, Incompetence, and Inefficiency (Sebastian): Sebastian charged Judge Reyes with grave misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, incompetence, and inefficiency for issuing warrants based on an unsigned order and an unnotified hearing, failing to lift the warrants, and promulgating judgment without a written and signed copy, reading it from a computer screen.
• Migriño's Separation (Judge Reyes as complainant): In A.M. No. P-09-2693, Judge Reyes recommended Migriño's separation from the service for illegal gambling during office hours, qualified theft and/or infidelity in the custody of documents, and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

• Judge Reyes — Waiver: The Court declared Judge Reyes to have waived her right to answer or comment on the allegations against her and to adduce evidence because of her absence and unknown whereabouts.
• Migriño — No Pending Case and Dismissal: Migriño presented a certificate that no case was pending against him before the MeTC of Pasig City and admitted that an illegal gambling case had been filed against him, which may have been dismissed.

• Gross Ignorance and Grave Misconduct: Whether Judge Reyes is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and grave misconduct in her use of contempt powers, issuance of warrants, and fixing of bail.
• Judicial Conduct and Decorum: Whether Judge Reyes's conduct—residing in chambers, borrowing money from staff, soliciting ex-parte fees, nighttime gimmicks, vulgar language, emotional outbursts, and inefficiency—violated the New Code of Judicial Conduct and warranted dismissal.
• Written Judgment and Due Process: Whether Judge Reyes violated the Constitution and the Rules of Court by failing to provide a written, signed judgment in Criminal Case No. 19110 and by reading the judgment from a computer screen.
• Illegal Arrest and Detention: Whether Judge Reyes's verbal orders to arrest and detain Prosecutor Reyes, Migriño, Flordeliza, and Lagdameo without written orders or legal basis constituted grave misconduct.
• Migriño's Administrative Liability: Whether Migriño should be fined for gambling within court premises under Administrative Circular No. 1-99.
• Penalty: Whether Judge Reyes should be dismissed from service with forfeiture of benefits and prejudice to re-employment.

• Gross Ignorance and Grave Misconduct: Yes. Judge Reyes is liable; her contempt orders, warrants, and excessive bail were contrary to law and jurisprudence and attended by bad faith.
• Judicial Conduct and Decorum: Yes. Her conduct violated the New Code of Judicial Conduct and rendered her unfit to remain in office.
• Written Judgment and Due Process: Yes. A verbal judgment is ineffective; failure to provide a written and signed decision violated Article VIII, Section 14 of the Constitution and Rule 120 of the Rules of Court.
• Illegal Arrest and Detention: Yes. The verbal orders and detentions without written commitment orders were illegal and constituted grave misconduct.
• Migriño's Administrative Liability: Yes. Migriño is liable for gambling in court premises under Administrative Circular No. 1-99; he is fined one month's salary.
• Penalty: Dismissal. Judge Reyes is dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, if any, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

• Gross Ignorance and Grave Misconduct: To constitute gross ignorance of the law or procedure, the subject decision, order, or actuation of the judge in the performance of official duties must be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence, and the judge must be moved by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or corruption. Judge Reyes's bad faith was apparent from the facts. The power to declare a person in contempt is inherent in all courts to preserve order and uphold the administration of justice, but judges must exercise it judiciously and sparingly, with utmost restraint, for correction and preservation of the dignity of the court, not for retaliation or vindication. Judge Reyes used contempt against Prosecutor Reyes, Migriño, Flordeliza, and Lagdameo; issued warrants under unrelated case numbers; fixed excessive bail of P119,000, P238,000, and P250,000; and ordered arrests and detentions without written orders. Tiongco vs. Salao instructs that carelessness and lack of circumspection in ordering arrest and detention warrant administrative penalty. Her orders betrayed gross ignorance of the rules on contempt, capricious arrogance, and a despotic nature antithetical to an ideal arbiter. Thus, gross ignorance and grave misconduct were established.
• Judicial Conduct and Decorum: The New Code of Judicial Conduct, effective June 1, 2004, requires judges to maintain order and decorum in all proceedings and to be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, witnesses, lawyers, and others; it also requires judges to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety and to conduct themselves consistently with the dignity of the judicial office. Judge Reyes used vulgar and curt language, including remarks about hearing naked in a robe, passing a man to another after tasting him, and shouting "PUTANG INA NILA, PUTANG INA TALAGA NILA!"; she walked out of hearings, shouted invectives, conducted staff meetings in inappropriate attire, frequented night gimmicks with staff, borrowed money from staff, solicited ex-parte fees, resided in chambers, and was unfriendly to litigants. These acts violated judicial decorum and showed lack of patience, courtesy, self-restraint, and civility. Borrowing money from staff was conduct unbecoming because of her moral ascendancy over them. Her comments on ex-parte fees smacked of commercialism. Her night gimmicks impaired the respect due her and disrupted service. Thus, she failed to maintain judicial temperament and was unfit to sit on the bench.
• Written Judgment and Due Process: Article VIII, Section 14 of the Constitution provides that no decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. Rule 120, Sections 1 and 2 of the Rules of Court require a judgment to be written in the official language, personally and directly prepared and signed by the judge, and to contain clearly and distinctly a statement of the facts and the law upon which it is based. Judge Reyes read the judgment from a computer screen inside the chambers without giving the accused a written copy or print-out and offered a diskette to counsel. A verbal judgment is, in contemplation of law, ineffective. Due process requires that parties to a litigation be informed of how it was decided, with an explanation of the factual and legal reasons, so that the losing party may know why he lost and may appeal. A decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and law leaves the parties in the dark and is especially prejudicial to the losing party. Thus, Judge Reyes violated the Constitution and the Rules of Court.
• Illegal Arrest and Detention: The power to punish for contempt is intended as a safeguard for the functions of the court, not for the judge as a person. Judge Reyes ordered the arrest and detention of Prosecutor Reyes, Migriño, Flordeliza, and Lagdameo without written orders or commitment orders. For Lagdameo, the alleged remark was made outside the courtroom after the court was no longer in session and could not be the basis for direct contempt; she was detained without a written commitment order and released without a written release order. For Migriño, his continued detention after Judge Morallos's release order was arbitrary. For Flordeliza, the warrant carried case numbers that did not pertain to her or to contempt, and bail was fixed at P250,000. For Prosecutor Reyes, warrants were issued under unrelated case numbers and bail was fixed at excessive amounts. For Sebastian and Alicia, the warrants were issued for failure to appear on a date set by an unsigned order that they and their counsel did not receive, and the case had already been submitted for decision. These acts deprived the complainants of liberty without legal basis and constituted grave misconduct. Justice Quimbo's report characterized the verbal order to arrest and jail Lagdameo as a violation of Article 124 of the Revised Penal Code, with Judge Reyes as a principal by inducement.
• Migriño's Administrative Liability: Administrative Circular No. 1-99 provides that courts are temples of justice and that court officials and employees must never permit gambling, drinking of alcoholic beverages, or any other form of improper or unbecoming conduct within court premises. Migriño admitted that an illegal gambling case had been filed against him and that he was seen playing tong-its with two others within the court premises. Even if the illegal gambling case was dismissed, he remained administratively liable under the circular. He was therefore fined an amount equivalent to his one-month salary and warned that repetition or a similar offense would be dealt with more severely.
• Penalty: Judge Reyes's gross ignorance of the law, grave misconduct, violations of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, illegal arrests and detentions, and failure to render a written judgment rendered her unfit to discharge her functions as judge. Dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, if any, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations, was the appropriate penalty.

• Gross Ignorance of the Law or Procedure — A judge is liable for gross ignorance when the decision, order, or actuation in the performance of official duties is contrary to existing law and jurisprudence and the judge is moved by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or corruption. The Court applied this to Judge Reyes's contempt orders, warrants, excessive bail, and illegal detentions, finding bad faith apparent.
• Power of Contempt — The power to declare a person in contempt is inherent in all courts to preserve order in judicial proceedings and uphold the administration of justice. It must be exercised judiciously and sparingly, with utmost restraint, for correction and preservation of the dignity of the court, not for retaliation or vindication. Judge Reyes's use of contempt was vindictive and punitive, not protective.
• Judicial Decorum and Temperance — Judges must be temperate in language, refrain from inflammatory or excessive rhetoric or vilification, and maintain order, decorum, patience, dignity, and courtesy in all proceedings. Judge Reyes's vulgar remarks, shouting, walking out of hearings, and intemperate conduct violated this standard.
• Propriety and Appearance of Impropriety — Judges must avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities, accept personal restrictions that may be burdensome to ordinary citizens, and conduct themselves consistently with the dignity of the judicial office. Judge Reyes's night gimmicks, borrowing from staff, residing in chambers, and soliciting ex-parte fees violated this doctrine.
• Due Process and Written Judgment — The Constitution and the Rules of Court require a decision to be written, personally and directly prepared and signed by the judge, and to state clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. A verbal judgment is ineffective. Judge Reyes's failure to provide a written signed judgment in Criminal Case No. 19110 violated due process.
• Administrative Circular No. 1-99 — Gambling, drinking alcoholic beverages, and other improper or unbecoming conduct within court premises are prohibited. Migriño was held administratively liable for playing tong-its within the court premises even though the illegal gambling case may have been dismissed.
• Conduct Unbecoming a Judge — Borrowing money from court staff constitutes conduct unbecoming a judge because the judge exerts moral ascendancy over them; soliciting or encouraging ex-parte fees smacks of commercialism and is incompatible with the judiciary's aim of speedy and inexpensive justice. The Court applied this to Judge Reyes's acts.
• Dismissal for Unfitness — Gross ignorance of the law, grave misconduct, and violations of judicial conduct that render a judge unfit to discharge official functions warrant dismissal from service with forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits and prejudice to re-employment.

• "The administration of justice is a lofty function and is no less sacred than a religious mission itself. Those who are called upon to render service in it must follow that norm of conduct compatible only with public faith and trust in their impartiality, sense of responsibility, exercising the same devotion to duty and unction done by a priest in the performance of the most sacred ceremonies of a religious liturgy." — This passage states the high standard of conduct expected of judicial officers and frames the Court's condemnation of Judge Reyes's behavior.
• "It is also well-settled that the power to declare a person in contempt is inherent in all courts so as to preserve order in judicial proceedings and to uphold the administration of justice. Judges, however, are enjoined to exercise such power judiciously and sparingly, with utmost restraint, and with the end view of utilizing the same for correction and preservation of the dignity of the court, and not for retaliation or vindication." — This is the ratio decidendi on the contempt power, explaining why Judge Reyes's use of contempt was unlawful.
• "A verbal judgment is, in contemplation of law, in esse, ineffective." — This passage defines the legal status of a verbal judgment and supports the finding that Judge Reyes violated the constitutional and procedural requirement of a written decision.
• "If judges were allowed to roam unrestricted beyond the boundaries within which they are required by law to exercise the duties of their office, then the law becomes meaningless. A government of laws excludes the exercise of broad discretionary powers by those acting under its authority." — This passage articulates the principle that judicial power must be exercised within legal limits and supports the dismissal for gross misconduct.

• People vs. Bedia, 83 Phil. 909, 916 (1949) — Cited for the principle that the administration of justice is a lofty function and that those rendering service in it must follow a norm of conduct compatible with public faith and trust.
• Ramirez vs. Macandog, 228 Phil. 436, 452 (1986) — Cited for the expectation that members of the judiciary be fearless in rendering justice and equipped with moral fiber strong enough to resist temptations in office.
• Office of the Solicitor General vs. De Castro, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2018, August 3, 2007, 529 SCRA 157, 174; Officers and Members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Baguio-Benguet Chapter vs. Pamintuan, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1961, November 19, 2004, 443 SCRA 87, 101 — Cited for the rule that gross ignorance of the law or procedure requires the act to be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence and the judge to be moved by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or corruption.
• Tiongco vs. Salao, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2009, July 27, 2006, 496 SCRA 575, 586 — Cited for the principle that carelessness and lack of circumspection in peremptorily ordering arrest and detention warrant administrative penalty.
• Lumibao vs. Judge Panal, 377 Phil. 157, 179 (1999) — Cited for the requirement that judges use circumspect language; vulgar and curt language does not befit a judge viewed by the public as a person of wisdom and scruples.
• Seludo vs. Fineza, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1864, December 16, 2004, 447 SCRA 73, 82; Negros Grace Pharmacy, Inc. vs. Judge Hilario, 461 Phil. 843, 852 (2003) — Cited for judicial decorum, which requires magistrates to be temperate in language and to refrain from inflammatory or excessive rhetoric or vilification.
• Re: Anonymous Complaint dated February 18, 2005 of a "Court Personnel" against Judge Francisco C. Gedorio, Jr., RTC, Br. 12, Ormoc City, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1955, May 25, 2007, 523 SCRA 175, 182 — Cited for the requirement that judges maintain composure and equanimity and exercise judicial temperament at all times.
• Macrohon vs. Ibay, A.M. No. RTJ-06-1970, November 30, 2006, 509 SCRA 75, 89-90 — Cited for the principle that lack of patience and courtesy has no place in the government service.
• Corpus vs. Sandiganbayan, 484 Phil. 899, 914 (2004) — Cited for the rule that a verbal judgment is ineffective in contemplation of law.
• Nicos Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88709, February 11, 1992, 206 SCRA 127, 132 — Cited for the due process requirement that parties be informed of how a case was decided, with an explanation of the factual and legal reasons, so that the losing party may appeal.
• People vs. Veneracion, G.R. Nos. 119987-88, October 13, 1995, 249 SCRA 244, 251 — Cited for the principle that a government of laws excludes the exercise of broad discretionary powers by those acting under its authority.
• In re: Partial Report on the Results of the Judicial Audit Conducted in the MTCC, Branch 1, Cebu City, A.M. No. MTJ-05-1572, January 30, 2008, 543 SCRA 105 — Cited for the principle that professionalism, respect for the rights of others, good manners, and right conduct are expected of all judicial officers and employees.

• New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, Canon 6, Section 6 — Requires judges to maintain order and decorum in all proceedings and to be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, witnesses, lawyers, and others. Applied to Judge Reyes's courtroom outbursts, invectives, and intemperate behavior.
• New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, Canon 4, Sections 1-2 — Requires judges to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities, accept personal restrictions, and conduct themselves consistently with the dignity of the judicial office. Applied to Judge Reyes's night gimmicks, borrowing from staff, residing in chambers, and soliciting ex-parte fees.
• 1987 Constitution, Article VIII, Section 14 — Provides that no decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. Applied to Judge Reyes's failure to provide a written and signed judgment in Criminal Case No. 19110.
• Rules of Court, Rule 120, Sections 1-2 — Require a judgment to be written in the official language, personally and directly prepared and signed by the judge, and to contain clearly and distinctly a statement of the facts and the law upon which it is based. Applied to the same failure to render a written judgment.
• Administrative Circular No. 1-99 — Prohibits gambling, drinking of alcoholic beverages, and any other form of improper or unbecoming conduct within court premises. Applied to Migriño, who was fined for playing tong-its within the court premises.
• Rules of Court, Rule 71, Section 3(d) — Defines indirect contempt to include improper conduct tending directly or indirectly to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice. Referenced in Judge Reyes's show-cause order against Migriño, which the Court found to be part of her gross ignorance and vindictive use of contempt.
• Rules of Court, Rule 113, Section 5 — Governs warrantless arrests. Referenced in the facts when Prosecutor Reyes explained that the alleged malversation was not covered by the rule on warrantless arrest and could not be the subject of an inquest.
• Presidential Decree No. 1602 — The Anti-Gambling Law under which Migriño was arrested for alleged violation. Referenced in the facts as the basis for the initial arrest.
• Republic Act No. 3019 — The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which Judge Reyes alleged Migriño violated. Referenced in the facts and in Judge Reyes's recommendation for Migriño's separation.

Per Curiam. The following Associate Justices concurred: Renato C. Corona, Conchita Carpio Morales, Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, and Roberto A. Abad. No separate concurring opinions are indicated in the text. Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Antonio T. Carpio, Minita V. Chico-Nazario, and Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. were on official leave, no part, or both, as noted in the decision.