Tormis says SC decision is unfair

CEBU, Philippines - All accusations are unjust and unfair.

This was according to Judge Rosabella Tormis of Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) Branch 4 who was ordered dismissed by the Supreme Court en banc for several administrative cases.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno found Tormis, 63, guilty of gross inefficiency, violation of Supreme Court (SC) rules, directives and circulars for failure to dispose of cases within the mandatory period.

She was also found guilty for gross ignorance of the law for issuing warrant of arrest against an accused without informing her of the crime charged.

Tormis explained that she issued a warrant after the accused failed to appear during her arraignment despite notice.

But the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) issued an order requiring the accused to appear and submit her counter-affidavit and those of her witnesses within ten days upon receipt of the order.

Tormis said OCA issued the warrant although the order was not yet served.

In her 17-page decision, Sereno said the issuance of a warrant of arrest was a violation of the Rule on Summary Procedure. She said the accused should first be notified of the charges and to give them time to answer.

“Every judge is required to observe the law. When the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to simply apply it; and anything less than that would be constitutive of gross ignorance of the law,” the decision reads.

In an interview, Tormis said she was not taking her work for granted adding the decision of the  SC en banc was unfair.

She said her court records will show that she has no lapses and no pending cases for decision.

“I trust God. I know truth will prevail,” she said.

The OCA audit team revealed that Tormis has 5,120 criminal and civil cases pending before her sala as of May 28, 2008.

Out of 5,120, two cases remained undecided for ten years; 195 cases had yet to be decided despite having been submitted for decision for more than the mandatory period of 90 days; 90 cases submitted for decision beyond the mandatory period but were yet to be resolved.

There were 223 cases that were filed in court but Tormis allegedly failed to make “even just” initial action for a considerable period and 3,491 cases no further action for a considerable time.

Tormis said her failure to dispose of cases within the mandatory period was due to her suspension for six months in 2007 for dishonesty and grave misconduct and preventive suspension for judicial audit on solemnization of marriages.

The records of the case were inventoried on May 28, 2008 by the OCA Audit Team.

Tormis said she will be filing a motion for reconsideration before the SC.

MTCC Executive Judge Francisco Seville Jr. told the media that Tormis can file a motion for reconsideration.

However, there is no assurance that the SC will reverse its decision.

“It’s up to the SC if they will reverse their decision. However, it’s very seldom for them to reverse ruling,” he said.

Seville said he was saddened by the report considering that Tormis was experiencing difficult times these days.

Tormis’ husband was confined in a private hospital after he suffered stroke and underwent surgery last month.

Seville also said that since he assumed as executive judge in 2010, Tormis was performing her duties well.

In fact, Tormis was part of the raffle committee.

In the absence of Tormis, the pairing judge will replace her if there will be urgent motions to be filed and in the absence of pairing judge, the executive judge will take over.

Tormis’ son, Francis, who is a staff of the Office of the MTCC, told the media that he wanted her mother not to file motion for reconsideration because it might be denied by the SC.

Aside from Tormis, the SC also dismissed MTCC Branch 4 Clerk of Court Reynaldo Teves from the service.

He was found guilty for two counts of simple neglect of duty.

Sereno earlier directed Teves to explain why he failed to comply with his duty to conduct actual semestral physical inventory of case records, keep general docket book pursuant to Section 8, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court and why he allowed the practice in their court of not promulgating decisions in criminal cases in violation of the Rules on Criminal Procedure and Revised Rules on Summary Procedure.

In his reply, he explained that “the alleged error in his reports can be attributed to the discrepancy in procedure or appreciation in the preparation of the reports.”

He said their court did not maintain a general docket book because they were not provided with the needed supplies.

About the non-promulgation of cases, he said the rules were not applicable in their court because most of their cases were resolved out of compromise agreement, guilty plea and affidavit of desistance.

In her decision, Sereno still ruled to hold Teves administratively guilty for his failure to perform his duty. — (FREEMAN)