PRESIDING JUDGES TOMAS EDUARDO B. MADDELA III AND MERINNISA O. LIGAYA, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCHES 5 AND 1, RESPECTIVELY, OLONGAPO CITY, ZAMBALES, COMPLAINANTS, VS. PRESIDING JUDGE NORMAN V. PAMINTUAN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 73, OLONGAPO CITY, ZAMBALES.

Ruling

Accordingly, Investigating Justice Inting made the following recommendations to the Court: A. In [A.M. No. RTJ-19-2559 formerly] OCA IPI No. 11-3810-RTJ DISMISSAL OF THE COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF OCA CIRCULAR 87-2008 for lack of sufficient basis that respondent Judge Pamintuan's failure to solemnize the marriages raffled to him on the dates specified is tantamount to "shirking from judicial duty" under paragraph (c) of the circular. B. In [A.M. No. RTJ-19-2561 formerly] A.M. No. 15-02-49-RTC DISMISSAL OF THE CHARGE OF BRIBERY for insufficiency of evidence; SUSPENSION OF RESPONDENT JUDGE PAMINTUAN FROM OFFICE WITHOUT SALARY AND OTHER BENEFITS FOR SIX (6) MONTHS for inefficiency and undue delay in rendering decisions assigned to him; and IMPOSITION UPON RESPONDENT JUDGE PAMINTUAN OF A FINE IN THE AMOUNT OF P10,000.00 for violation of Section 4 of Canon 1 and Section 1 of Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, WITH A WARNING THAT ANY SIMILAR VIOLATION IN THE FUTURE SHALL BE DEALT WITH MORE SEVERELY. [43] Report and Recommendation of the OCA In its November 23, 2016 Resolution, [44] the Court resolved to refer the administrative matters to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation. [45] In its June 6, 2017 Memorandum, [46] the OCA recommended that respondent "be ADJUDGED GUILTY of gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, undue delay in rendering decisions, and violation of Supreme Court rules, directives and circulars, and be METED the penalty of DISMISSAL from the service, with forfeiture of his retirement benefits, except his accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reinstatement in any branch of the government, including government­-owned and controlled corporations." [47] First , as to respondent's failure to solemnize marriages raffled to his sala, the OCA held that his failure is hardly justified and may, in fact, be construed as " shirking from judicial duty ." It noted that fourteen (14) requests for solemnization of marriage raffled to respondent were re-raffled to other judges. These 14 marriages were scheduled for solemnization before respondent on nine (9) separate days from June to October 2011: three (3) days in June, i.e. , on the 15th, 16th and 21st; one (1) day in July, on the 20th; two (2) days in August, i.e. , on the 10th and 20th; two (2) days in September, i.e. , on the 8th and 22nd; and one (1) day in October, on the 20th. The OCA concluded that, contrary to respondent's claim that all his absences resulting in his failure to solemnize the marriages assigned to him were " due to his ailment ," the records of the Employees' Leave Division, OCA, Office of Administrative Services show that out of the nine (9) days that respondent was absent, he was on sick leave for four (4) days only, i.e. , on August 10, 2011, September 8 and 22, 2011, and October 20, 2011; and on forfeitable leave for three (3) days, i.e. , June 15, 16, and 21, 2011. There is no sh