The Supreme Court has junked the appeal for clemency filed by Presiding Judge Rolando Mislang of Regional Trial Court of Pasig City following his dismissal from the service in 2016 after finding him guilty of gross ignorance of the law in issuing several orders favorable to detained Globe Asiatique president Delfin Lee.
In a 14-page en banc resolution, the SC noted that Mislang failed to show “prima facie circumstances” to warrant the grant of clemency and to allow him to retire with full benefits.
Mislang also sought the lifting of his disqualification to seek employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.
The high court noted that based on its operative guidelines for resolving requests for judicial clemency, a prima facie case may be said to exist when the petitioner sufficiently demonstrates that he or she has sincerely expressed remorse for his past infractions, has convincingly reformed in his or her ways and deserving of the clemency based on surrounding circumstances.
The SC said while Judge Mislang complied with the minimum five-year period to seek clemency for dismissal or disbarment, he failed to show “prima facie showing of his genuine repentance and remorse of his past infractions.”
“Accordingly, the Court cannot simply allow clemency cases to proceed without first thoroughly sifting through the petition and uncovering, at least, ostensible proof of a prima facie case. Indeed, to permit the contrary would undermine the public’s confidence in the genuineness of the clemency process and, in turn, reflect poorly on the sanctity of the judicial system,” the SC said.
Based on its records, Mislang is still insisting up to now his innocence and believes that he was unfairly meted with dismissal.
The SC cited Mislang’s letter to the Court en banc dated June 3, 2021, which was made only three months prior to the filing of his petition for clemency, wherein he insisted that he was innocent of the charges lodged against him.
Worse, the high court said, Mislang even sought the intervention of the President in a matter wholly within the jurisdiction of the judiciary.
It added that only in his present petition filed last September 22, 2021 that petitioner openly admitted that he was remorseful for his misdeeds and had accepted the Court’s verdict of dismissal against him.
It added: “As the Court see (sic) it, the lack of remorse of petitioner throughout the years negates a prima facie finding that he had genuinely repented for his ways.”
His bare statement in the petition that he “expressed his heartfelt apology and remorse for [his] misdeeds leaves much to be desired as it appears that he had only accepted the Court’s ruling to dismiss him in the present petition filed a few months ago,” according to the tribunal.
The high court also did not give weight to Mislang’s claim that since his dismissal he had been giving free legal advice for needy individuals and had been assisting the Lord’s Vineyard Covenant Community in their socio-civic legal services.
It noted that the certification submitted by Mislang in support of his claim lacked specific details such as the scope as to how these socio-civic legal services were actually rendered and how often these were conducted.
Besides, Misland failed to attach written testimonies of his rendition of free legal advice following his dismissal.
The court also did not give merit to Mislang’s claim he was under immense economic strain, owing to the enormous costs for his son’s medical procedure.
“However, the grant of clemency must still always be delicately balanced with the preservation of public confidence in the courts. When there is no showing of genuine remorse or that the petitioner has sufficiently reformed his ways, the Court must temper its grant of mercy with the greater interest of the public,” the SC declared.
On July 26, 2016, the SC unanimously ordered Mislang’s dismissal; the dismissal from the judiciary as well as the forfeiture of his retirement benefits.
Mislang’s dismissal stemmed from separate administrative complaints filed by Home Development Mutual Fund and the Department of Justice against him for issuing orders in 2011 that prevented the justice department from investigating and filing information of syndicated estafa constituting economic sabotage against Lee and several others allegedly involved in a multibillion housing scam through fraudulent take-out of housing loans for fake borrowers.
In their complaints, the HDMF and DOJ claimed that Mislang acted in patent disregard of the rules on injunctive relief and prejudicial question, exhibited gross ignorance of the law and/or procedure, and manifested partiality and gross misconduct in issuing the said orders.
According to the high court, Mislang issued a writ of preliminary injunction and a status quo orders, which both failed to satisfy the legal requisite for their issuance, in gross violation of established laws and procedures which every judge has the duty to be familiar with.
The SC had to order Mislang’s dismissal from the service considering a similar serious infraction in the past and several other administrative cases filed against him since 2007.
The Court said it had found Mislang guilty of gross ignorance of the law and ordered him to pay P20,000 with a stern warning that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more severely.
Mislang was also previously suspended by the SC for six months without pay after finding him guilty of gross ignorance of the law and warned him that a commission of a similar act shall be meted a more serious penalty.