G.R. No. RTJ-98-1402. April 3, 1998.
ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ, complainant, vs. JUDGE PRISCILLA C. MIJARES, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 108, PASAY CITY, respondent.

FACTS

Retired Justice Onofre A. Villaluz filed a verified complaint charging Judge Priscilla C. Mijares with dishonesty, corrupt practices, grave misconduct, and immorality. The specific charges were: (1) In Consignation Case No. 0940, she placed the plaintiff association’s rental deposits in her private bank account instead of turning them over to the City Treasurer, and kept the interest earned; she only turned over the accumulated amount of P222,377.18 via a cashier’s check in September 1989 after members sought certification. (2) She took cognizance of and decided Special Proceedings No. 3946, a petition for correction of entry in the birth record of her grandson, Joshua Anthony M. Gurango, despite her close relationship, and dispensed with the required publication. (3) In Special Proceedings No. 90-54652, a petition for declaration of presumptive death of her husband, she falsely declared her residence to be in Manila to illegally vest jurisdiction there, instead of in Quezon City where she actually resided. (4) She made a false declaration of her residence in Pasay City in her application for a marriage license to contract a sham marriage with complainant to defend against charges of immorality.
In her Comment, respondent denied the charges. On the first charge, she claimed the accusation was concocted by disgruntled employees and that it was the duty of the Branch Clerk of Court to collect deposits; she presented a bank certification denying issuance of the alleged cashier’s check. On the second charge, she asserted the rule on disqualification did not apply as the proceeding was merely for correction of an erroneous entry, and she granted exemption from publication to save costs. On the third charge, she denied false declaration, stating the Manila address was her husband’s former residence and a place where she could be served summons. On the fourth charge, she stated she considered Pasay City her second home due to her long appointment and stay there.
The case was referred to Justice Salvador J. Valdez of the Court of Appeals for investigation. He recommended that Judge Mijares be found guilty of grave misconduct under Charges No. 1 and No. 2 and be dismissed from service with forfeiture of benefits.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Priscilla C. Mijares is administratively liable for the charges against her.

RULING

The Court found respondent guilty of grave misconduct under the first and second charges, but modified the recommended penalty.
1. On the First Charge: The Court found the charge substantiated. The evidence, including testimony from court employee Anita Domingo and corroborating documents, established that respondent instructed court personnel to receive rental deposits and turn them over to her, and she deposited the funds in her personal bank account. She only turned over the total amount to the City Treasurer after a significant delay. Her defense, including the bank certification, was deemed insufficient to overcome the credible evidence against her. Her act of commingling court funds with her personal funds constituted grave misconduct. The Court imposed a fine of P20,000.00.
2. On the Second Charge: The Court found respondent liable for violating Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court on disqualification. A judge is disqualified from taking cognizance of a case where they are related to a party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity. As the grandmother of the minor subject of the petition, respondent was clearly within the prohibited degree. Her claim that the proceeding was merely clerical did not justify her participation. Furthermore, her order dispensing with publication was a violation of the rules. The Court imposed a fine of P10,000.00 for this violation.
3. On the Third and Fourth Charges: The Court found these charges not sufficiently substantiated. On the third charge, the declaration of residence for the petition for presumptive death was made in good faith, as residence and domicile are distinct concepts. On the fourth charge, the claim of a sham marriage was not proven.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent guilty of grave misconduct and resolves that: (1) Under the first charge, respondent Judge Priscilla C. Mijares is hereby FINED in the amount of P20,000.00. (2) Under the second charge, respondent Judge Mijares is hereby FINED P10,000.00 for violating Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court. (3) Respondent Judge is further WARNED that the commission of the same or a similar offense shall be dealt with more severely. Further, the OCA is instructed to institute appropriate administrative charges against Anita Domingo, former Acting Branch Clerk of Court.