ATTY. PLARIDEL PLARIDEL C. NAVA II, COMPLAINANT COMPLAINANT,, VS. PROSECU PROSECUTOR TOR OFELIA OFELIA M. D. D. ARTUZ (now Judge Judge Artuz) SC Ruling:
Judge Artuz is GUILTY of Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Falsification of official documents. Accordingly, she is DISMISSED from service effective immediately, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or agency of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations, without prejudice to her criminal liabilities. The Court agrees with the findings and recommendations of the OCA in A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717 that Judge Artuz, deliberately and calculatedly lied in her answers to the subject questions in her two (2) Personal Data Sheet to conceal the truth, and is guilty of Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Falsification of official document for her false statements in her two (2) PDS and for her willful defiance of Court directives. Accordingly, Accordingly, the Court Court hereby hereby requires requires Artuz, Artuz, within a non-extendible non-extendible period period of fifteen fifteen (15) days from notice, to show cause why she should not be suspended, disbarred, or otherwise proceeded against, as a member of the Bar for her actions in A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717, and file her Comment in A.C. No. 7253. OCA Ruling:
In A.M. MTJ-08-1717, the OCA recommended that Artuz be found guilty of Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Falsification of Public Documents, and accordingly be dismissed from service effective immediately. Issues:
Whether or not Artuz is guilty of: ( a) Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Falsification of official document for her failure to disclose in the subject PDS (Personal Data Sheet) the material fact that she had been formally charged; and ( b) Grave Misconduct and violating the CPR and RA 6713. Held: (a) Yes. GUILTY of Grave Misconduct, Misconduct, Dishonesty, Dishonesty, and Falsification Falsification of official documents. (b) No. Court required required Artuz to file her comment comment before it takes action action on this disbarment case. Facts:
This involves two (2) consolidated cases, A.C. No. 7253 and A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717, filed by Atty. Plaridel C. Nava II against then Prosecutor, now Presiding Judge, Ofelia M. D. Artuz of MTCC Branch 5 Iloilo. A.C. No. 7253 - February 10, 2006 (disbarment case), Nava asserted that Artuz violated Canon 8 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) that enjoins lawyers to conduct themselves with courtesy, fairness, and candor toward their
colleagues in the profession. Nava added that Artuz violated the CPR and Republic Act 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) Nava filed before the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) an opposition dated January 4, 2006, to the application for judgeship of Artuz. Notwithstanding, Artuz was appointed on September 28, 2006 and took her Oath of Office as Presiding Judge of the MTCC, Br. 5 on October 9, 2006. Thus, the record of the disbarment case was retrieved from the DOJ and referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for appropriate action.
A.M. No. MTJ-08-1717 - Petition for nullification of the nomination and appointment of Artuz as Presiding Judge of MTCC, Br. 5 filed on October 17, 2006 (nullification case), Nava alleged that Artuz is unfit and incompetent to be appointed as a trial judge as she faces "several criminal and administrative cases, the nature of which involves her character, competence, probity, integrity and independence which should not have been disregarded in her application to the judiciary."
Prior to her appointment as Judge, Artuz had a number of cases filed against her, in which she was notified of the cases, and she have even filed her counter-affidavit and position paper appropriately. On October 23, 2003 and November 6, 2006 - Artuz lied when she answered NO to the question "Have you ever been formally charged? ” in the PDS. Notwithstanding the several opportunities given to her (through her May 28, 2007 and February 6, 2008 compliances and during the investigation of the nullification case), Artuz did not explain, in disregard of the Court's directive, why no disciplinary action should be taken against her for not disclosing in the subject PDS the fact that she has been formally charged and has pending cases. Artuz maintained that the cases against her had been dismissed or outrightly not given due course. She even argued and insisted that these charges were motivated by ill will and were initiated for the purpose of humiliating her and putting her under public contempt and ridicule. Finally, she adamantly denied committing perjury in her PDS and insisted that she has all of the qualifications and none of the disqualifications for appointment to the judiciary
