Former Senator Leila De Lima leaves the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court after RTC Branch 206 granted a demurrer in her third and last remaining drug case on June 24, 2024. Jonathan Cellona, ABS-CBN News/File

MANILA — The Supreme Court (SC) has issued a stern warning against Muntinlupa City Regional Trial Court branch 256 presiding judge Romeo Buenaventura and ordered him to pay a total fine of P36,000 for simple misconduct and simple neglect of duty.

Leila de Lima free, but still fighting

The order of the SC First Division stemmed from the complaints of the counsels of former Sen. Leila De Lima in her illegal drug trading case.

The complainants, Teddy Rigoroso and Rolly Peoro, said Buenaventura caused undue delay in deciding on De Lima’s petition for bail.

They said Buenaventura should have immediately inhibited from the case due to conflict of interest as his brother, Emmanuel Ventura, played a direct role in the preparation of evidence against De Lima.

The complaint was initially brought before the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) which subsequently recommended the payment of fines and issuance of a stern warning against Buenaventura.

The JIB found that Buenaventura violated the New Code of Judicial Conduct and he should be held administratively liable for simple misconduct.

De Lima acquitted on last of three drug cases

The JIB also recommended that Buenaventura be held liable for simple neglect of duty for his undue delay in rendering a decision.  

“Respondent Romeo Buenaventura is sternly warned that a repetition of the same offense or the commission of a similar act shall be dealt with more severely,” the Supreme Court said in the resolution dated November 13, 2024. 

For his part, Buenaventura told the court that he had eventually inhibited from the case but not for the reasons stated by the complainants.

He reiterated that he was not disqualified and his brother was never a counsel on record nor associated with De Lima’s former driver Ronnie Dayan.

Buenaventura argued that his brother’s participation in the hearings at the House of Representatives failed to meet the requirement of “universal notoriety” as to be considered public knowledge.

He denied violating De Lima’s rights to due process, to a speedy disposition of her case and to a fair and impartial trial.

The Supreme Court, however, said the reasons mentioned by Buenaventura on the delay in the resolution of De Lima’s motion for bail did not justify the three years to hear and decide on the matter. 

The court added that the COVID-19 restrictions relatively eased in 2021.

“Moreover, the court released the Guidelines on the Conduct of Videoconferencing, which allowed the appellate, first- and second-level courts to use videoconferencing as a mode to conduct hearings and proceedings in lieu of in-person interaction,” the court said.

But the Supreme Court agreed with the JIB that Buenaventrua did not violate De Lima’s rights to due process, to a speedy disposition of her case, and to a fair and impartial trial.

RELATED VIDEO: