This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2013-04-02 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| It is important to note that the audit team found out that Judge Rosabella M. Tormis ordered Celerina Plaza, a personal employee of the judge, to wait for couples outside the Hall of Justice and offer services.[133] Crisanto Dela Cerna also stated in his affidavit that Judge Tormis instructed him to get all marriage certificates and bring them to her house when she found out about the judicial audit.[134] In the language of the OCA, Judge Tormis considered the solemnization of marriages not as a duty but as a business.[135] The respondent judge was suspended for six (6) months in A.M. No. MTJ-071-962 for repeatedly disregarding the directives of this Court to furnish the complainant a copy of her comment. She was also fined the amount of five thousand pesos (P5,000) in A.M. Nos. 04-7-373-RTC and 04-7-374 RTC.[136] She was reprimanded twice in A.M. No. MTJ-05-1609 and in A.M. No. MTJ-001337.[137] Finally, in the very recent case of Office of the Court Administrator v. Hon. Rosabella M. Tormis and Mr. Reynaldo S. Teves, A.M. No. MTJ-12-1817, promulgated last 12 March 2013, Judge Tormis was found guilty of gross inefficiency, violation of Supreme Court rules, directives and circulars and gross ignorance of the law by this Court. She was dismissed from service, with forfeiture of all benefits and privileges, except accrued leave credits, if any, with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations. | |||||
|
2005-10-12 |
DAVIDE, JR., C.J. |
||||
| Also strange is the dismissal by the respondent judge of Criminal Case No. 2073, for Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Double Homicide, based on the affidavit of desistance executed by Capistrano Minoza, who was not a party or witness in the case. Affidavits of desistance are generally unreliable and are looked upon with considerable disfavor by the Court,[8] for they can be easily secured for financial considerations.[9] More so if they come from one who is neither an offended party nor a witness, such as in the subject criminal case. Significantly, there is no showing that the prosecution or the accused filed a motion to dismiss the case. In one case,[10] the Court considered as grave misconduct the act of a judge in dismissing a criminal case on the ground of the supposed desistance of the private complainant even without any motion to dismiss on the part of the prosecution. | |||||