Office of the Court Administrator

[ADMINISTRATORS] In OCA IPI No. 10-2335-MTJ, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended for the dismissal of two (2) complaints filed by Mrs. Gabina Punsalan - Luchavez against Judge Eliza B. Yu for Graft and Corruption, Knowingly Rendering Unjust Decision, Gross Ignorance of the Law approved by the Supreme Court on April 25, 2012. That gave her 2 wins and 0 loss in administrative cases.
Still she filed her Motion for Reconsideration as a Winning Judge in Administrative Cases due to legal errors on the issue of demand letter and issue waiver of counsel on collection suit.

Judge " A " was charged with Disrespect and Disregard of Authority tantamount to Grave Misconduct and Insubordination by an administrative office of the Supreme Court as the complainant for allegedly accusing in the protest letter against the Selection, Nomination and Promotion Board (Board) of certain irregularities committed by nominating court employee " B " who has a pending case involving grave offenses who did not secure court clearances and court employee " C " who did not comply with the basic requirements for application as Clerk of Court such as favorable recommendation of a Judge and Position Description Form (PDF) even going to the extent of branding the appointment of court employee " C " as "void ab initio " and a " big joke," to name a few, thereby casting doubts on the integrity of selection, nomination and promotion board; that even Judge " A " casts aspersion on board by saying "Board is funny, and it made me laugh. I rather laugh than be angry, than feel helpless, than look powerless in this awful and mean situation" ; that Judge " A " s act of ascribing ill motives to the Board degrades the integrity and confidence reposed by the public in it and her language used in expressing her displeasure is hardly the kind of circumspect words expected of a magistrate; and considering that the main function of the Board is merely to screen, evaluate and assess the competence and qualifications of a candidate for the appointment to a vacant position, the authority to appoint is still vested on the Chief Justice and the two (2) Senior Associate Justices; that Judge " A " s impugning the appointments of court employees " B " and " C " is a denigration of the actions of the Chief Justice and the two (2) Senior Associate Justices. Complainant prayed for a show cause order why Judge " A " will not be held administratively liable for Grave Misconduct and Insubordination. Did Judge " A " commit Disrespect and Disregard of Authority tantamount to Grave Misconduct and Insubordination in writing a protest letter on the irregularly appointed Clerk of Court? The answer is in the negative. Judge " A " did not commit a misconduct and insubordination in writing a protest letter that is a mere exercise of one's cherished freedom of speech, a constitutional right. In US vs. Bustos 37 PHIL 731, our Supreme Court said, "The people not obliged to speak of the conduct of their officials in whispers or with bated breath in a free government, by only in a despotism. Even if the statements are found to be false, if there is probable cause for belief in their truthfulness and the charge is made in good faith, the mantle of

Judge Eliza B. Yu is the one and only Judge who opposed the implementation of Jar on Criminal Cases in 2012.

SC stopped implementation of JAR on Criminal Cases  in 2013.
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/288538/news/nation/sc-halts-implementation-of-judicial-affidavit-rule-on-criminal-cases

SC stopped implementation of JAR on Criminal Cases  in 2014.
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/342171/news/nation/sc-extends-modified-judicial-affidavit-rule-for-another-year

The following are sexual harassment cases against judges in the Philippines: 1. Judge in violent kissing incident was dismissed. Based on the foregoing findings, the Investigating Justice made the following conclusions: a) that there is sufficient evidence to create a moral certainty that respondent committed the acts complained of, especially the violent kissing incident which transpired last December 6, 1995; b) that complainant and her witnesses are credible witnesses who have no ulterior motive or bias to falsely testify against respondent; c) that respondent's denials cannot prevail over the weight and probative value of the affirmative assertions of complainant and her witnesses; d) that respondent's poem has damned him, being documented proof of his sexual intentions towards the complainant; e) that by filing her charges imputing to respondent a crime against chastity and with her background as a lawyer and a court employee, complainant was well-aware that her honor would itself be on trial; f) that it is unbelievable that complainant, a demure newly-married lady and a religious person, would fabricate a story with such severe implications on respondent's professional and personal life just to get even with respondent for an alleged simple scolding incident;

In OCA IPI No. 10-2335-MTJ, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended for the dismissal of two (2) complaints against Judge Eliza B. Yu for Graft and Corruption, Knowingly Rendering Unjust Decision, Gross Ignorance of the Law approved by the Supreme Court on April 25, 2012. That gave her 2 wins and 0 loss in administrative cases.
Still she filed her Motion for Reconsideration as a Winning Judge in Administrative Cases due to legal errors on the issue of demand letter and issue waiver of counsel on collection suit.

The Philippine Supreme Court dismissed the charge of  failure to cite in contempt of lawyers who physically fought against each other inside the trial court against Judge Eliza B. Yu filed by four (4) Judges and seventy (70) court personnel.

Court Administrator " D " initiated an administrative complaint against Judge " A " for writing a protest letter about the night court operation in X City questioning its legality, rationality and productivity. Judges, like any other citizen in this country, have the constitutionally-enshrined freedom of speech and expression. However, there is a difference between freedom of expression and compromising the dignity of the Court through written or published emotional outbursts and destructive criticisms. From the standpoint of conduct and demeanor expected of a judge, resort to extreme and intemperate language only detracts from the respect due a member of the judiciary and becomes self-destructive. In the letter to Secretary of Tourism, Judge " A " disparaged the establishment of night courts in a manner which is critical, defiant and scathing, fully aware that the order which she is defying is an administrative order issued by no less than the Chief Justice himself. To quote the subject letter of Judge " A " : XXX XXX XXX This Court learned that you requested for the designation of night courts in X City that resulted to the issuance of Administrative Order No. 0-123 (Establishing Night Courts in the Metropolitan Trial Courts of X City and Y City). With due respect, there is insufficient basis for your request. There was no statistical data presented or there was no study conducted by your department recommending the necessity of establishing night courts in X City. For the record, this Court is yet to hear a case involving any tourist. Moreover, the tourists should be advised not to roam around the city at night so as not to be victims of various crimes. Usually, the perception of the tourists who are going around the city at night is negative, for they are likely to be engaging in unlawful nocturnal activities. They are at their own risk at night. There was no prior consultation with the police officers, public attorneys, public prosecutors, judges and their staff before your department requested for the creation of night courts in X City. There are many concerns which your department did not consider.

This is the final argument on violation of criminal privacy law  submitted on March 31, 2017 to the Supreme Court.  This paper is not covered by confidentiality rule because the subject matter involves public interest that was previously submitted to Department of Justice, Office of the Ombudsman and Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

The Philippine Supreme Court dismissed the charge of Gross Ignorance of the Law for allowing the parties without lawyers  to go to Philippine Mediation center filed against Judge Eliza B. Yu by four (4) Judges and seventy (70) court personnel.