SC clears judge from admin case

CEBU, Philippines - For insufficiency of evidence, the Supreme Court of the Philippines Third Division dismissed the administrative case filed against retired Judge Olegario Sarmiento of Regional Trial Court Branch 24, Cebu City, for gross ignorance of the law.

The case was earlier filed by an Australian national in relation to a child custody case.

Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr. found no evidence to hold Judge Sarmiento administratively guilty.

 â€œWith these, we see no reason to sustain the charge against respondent judge for gross ignorance of the law. For clearly, absent any evidence to the contrary, Geoffrey Jr. chose to live with his mother for a reason, which respondent judge, consistent with the promotion of the best interest of the child, provisionally granted through the issuance of the disputed March 15, 2011 order,” the decision reads.

Velasco’s decision was concurred by Associate Justices Diosdado Peralta, Roberto Abad, Jose Catral Mendoza and Marvic Mario Victor Leonen.

Earlier, Geoffrey Beckett, an Australian national filed a complaint before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) against the respondent for gross ignorance of the law, manifest partiality and dereliction and neglect of duty pertaining to the latter’s decision in relation to the special proceedings case entitled Geoffrey Beckett v. Eltesa Densing Beckett.

In his complaint, Beckett said he was married to Eltesa, a Filipina, on June 29, 2001. However, their union from the start was “far from ideal” and eventually became worst after they sued each other.

In 2006, he said Eltesa filed a case against him for violence against women and children act and a declaration of nullity of their marriage. Sarmiento handled the said cases.

On September 25, 2006, Judge Sarmiento rendered a decision based on a compromise agreement of the parties where both agreed that the father be given full and permanent custody of their child, Geoffrey Jr., then five years old, and subject to the visitorial rights of Eltesa.

In the Christmas of 2010, Geoffrey said he consented that their child will stay with Eltesa provided that the child be returned on January 9, 2011.

However, their child remained with Eltesa despite the date they agreed upon prompting the father to file a case against Eltesa.

During the pre-trial of the case on March 15, 2011, Geoffrey said he saw the close friend of Eltesa go inside the chamber of the respondent and in open court, the latter then issued an order giving Eltesa provisional custody over Geoffrey Jr. and directed the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) to conduct a social case study on the child.

Because of the order of the respondent, Geoffrey filed a motion for reconsideration citing respondent could no longer grant provisional custody to Eltesa citing it was in contrast with its earlier ruling based on a compromise agreement.

In its reply before the OCA, the respondent denied the complainant’s allegation. He said on June 21, 2011, he denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Geoffrey based on the report of the DSWD recommending the child “be in the care and custody of the mother” contrary to its statement.

After respondent’s reply, the OCA then recommended that the respondent “be adjudged liable for gross ignorance of the law and fined with stern warning.”

The ruling came after respondent issued an order granting the provisional custody of the child to its mother when Sarmineto already issued an earlier ruling that the child will be in the full and permanent custody of the father.

“Thus, a compromise agreement that has been made and duly approved by the court attains the effect and authority of res judicata (a matter already judged),” the OCA decision reads.

However, in the ruling, Velasco found no mistake in the decision of the respondent citing it’s the choice of the child where to stay.

“Respondent judge, in granting provisional custody over Geoffrey Jr. in favor of his mother, did not disregard the res judicata rule. In disputes concerning post-separation custody over a minor, the well-settled rule is that no child under seven years of age shall be separated from the mother, unless the court finds compelling reasons to order otherwise. And if already over seven years of age, the child’s choice as to which of his parents he prefers to be under custody shall be respected, unless the parent chosen proves to be unfit,” the decision reads.

Velasco added when the child refused to be turned over to his father he was then over seven years old and has the capacity of deciding with whom he wanted to stay. —(FREEMAN)