See - http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/376675/judge-dismissed-for-opening-resolved-case
"x x x.
The Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed a regional trial court (RTC) judge who allowed a re-opening of a case that had been resolved with finality by the Court of Appeals (CA).
Dismissed with forfeiture of all retirement benefits except accrued leave credits was Judge Ofelia Pinto of the Angeles City RTC Branch 60.
Pinto was also barred from re-employment in any branch, agency or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
The SC acted on an anonymous complaint received by it in 2010.
An investigation conducted by the office of Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez found that Pinto “misapplied the law and disregarded the final and executor decision of the CA, a higher court” when she granted the motion of a convict to reopen his case.
According to the SC, “Judge Pinto had no jurisdiction to entertain the motion filed by the
accused-movant to reopen the case because the CA’s decision, which affirmed the accused-movant’s conviction, had become final and executor.”
It said under Section 24, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the re-opening of a criminal case may only be availed of “at any time before finality of the judgment of conviction.”
It pointed out that the judge no longer had jurisdiction over the case because “the matter of the accused-movant’s denial of due process, as the case may be, should have been brought up to the CA or with the Court (SC) in an appropriate petition. Judge Pinto cannot relax mandatory rules to justify the award of judicial reliefs that are beyond her judicial authority to give.”
“To be able to render substantial justice and maintain public confidence in the legal system, judges should be embodiments of competence, integrity and independence. Judges are also expected to
exhibit more than just cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules and to apply them properly in all good faith,” the SC said.
In 2004, Pinto had been reprimanded for gross inefficiency and neglect of duty. In 2010, she was fined for simple misconduct and gross ignorance of the law.
“Her escalating violations, taken collectively, raise the question on her competency in continuing to perform the functions of a magistrate,” the SC stressed.
x x x."
