Supreme Court reprimands retired judge Paredes

For remarks made in class; Paredes explains importance of discussing marriage scam

THE Supreme Court (SC) admonished retired Regional Trial Court Judge Meinrado Paredes for depicting another judge as a “corrupt and ignorant magistrate.”

The SC Second Division found Paredes guilty of conduct unbecoming of a judge for his “intemperate language and unnecessary comments” against dismissed judge Rosabella Tormis.

The high court sacked Tormis in 2013 for undue delays in the disposition of cases and mismanagement of court and case records. Before that, she was suspended for her involvement in the marriage scams in Cebu City.

In its ruling against Paredes, the SC noted that discussing marriage scams in his classes may appear noble but Paredes' objectives were carried out “insensitively and in bad taste.”

“He (Paredes) should have avoided unnecessary and uncalled for remarks in his discussions and should have been more circumspect in his language,” read the decision penned by Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza .

Associate Justices Antonio Carpio, Presbitero Velasco Jr., Mariano del Castillo, and Marvic Leonen concurred.

Sought for his reaction, Paredes said he was unfazed by the decision.

“I may or may not appeal the decision. The Cebuano lawyers know who is Judge Paredes and who is Judge Tormis,” Paredes told Sun.Star Cebu in a phone interview.

Citing the 1980 SC ruling in Tobias vs Velos, Paredes pointed out that admonition is not a penalty but merely "a gentle or friendly reproof, a mild rebuke, warning or reminder, counselling, on a fault, error or oversight, an expression of authoritative advice or warning".

Tormis' daughter Jill filed the complaint accusing Paredes, the former Cebu City RTC executive judge, for grave misconduct for discussing the marriage scam in class.

Jill was Judge Paredes' student in political law review during the first semester of school year 2010-2011 at the Southwestern University.

In her complaint-affidavit, Jill said that in August 2010, Paredes named her mother as one of the judges involved in the marriage scams.

Jill said that Paredes also mentioned that her mother was abusive of her position as a judge, corrupt, and ignorant of the law.

Paredes reportedly mentioned Tormis several times in his class discussions.

To avoid humiliation in school, Jill decided to drop Paredes' class and transfer to another law school in Tacloban City.

Replying to the charges, Paredes said Tormis used her daughter to get back at him for investigating her in various administrative cases.

He said he never personally attacked Tormis in his class.

“The marriage scams constituted a negative experience for all the judges and should be discussed so that other judges, court employees and aspiring lawyers would not emulate such misdeeds,” said Paredes.

He believed that there was nothing wrong with discussing the administrative cases involving Tormis because these were known to the legal community.

Some of Tomis' cases were even published in the Supreme Court Reports Annotated and other legal publications.

When Jill was still his student, Pare- des said she did not complain about it or dispute his discussions in class regarding the administrative liabilities of her mother.

Paredes said that the discussions relative to the administrative cases of Tormis could not be the subject of an administrative complaint because it was not done in the performance of his judicial duties.

In the decision, the SC justices adopted the recommendation of the Court of Appeals-Cebu Station finding Paredes administratively liable for conduct unbecoming of a judge.

When Paredes discussed the marriage scams involving Tormis in 2010, the high tribunal said that the investigation on the issue had not been concluded.

The decision on the case was promulgated only on April 2, 2013.

“The pendency of the administrative case of Tormis and the publicity of the marriage scams did not give Paredes unrestrained license to criticize (Tormis) in his class discussions,” the justices ruled.

“Furthermore, a magistrate should not descend to the level of a sharp-tongued, ill-mannered petty tyrant by uttering harsh words, snide remarks and sarcastic comments,” the justices ruled.