SC Dismisses Complaint vs Camarines Norte Judges, Orders Rep. Tallado to Explain Contempt Charge

The Supreme Court has junked an administrative complaint filed by Camarines Norte Rep. Josefina Tallado against two local judges and has ordered the lawmaker to explain why she should not be cited for indirect contempt of court for attempting to interfere with judicial functions.

In a decision promulgated on February 18, 2025, the SC en banc directed Tallado to justify why she should not face contempt charges for requesting a judicial audit against Judges Winston Racoma and Arniel Dating of the Daet Regional Trial Court — a move the Court branded as harassment and an abuse of her position.

The Court agreed with the Judicial Integrity Board’s (JIB) finding that Tallado’s request was nothing more than “a ploy to intimidate, harass, demoralize, and influence” the judges. It warned that her actions “undermine and degrade the respect due the judicial office.”

The SC underscored that Tallado’s request for a judicial audit was baseless and noted that she is an interested party in a civil case being handled by Judge Racoma, where her husband former Governor Egay Tallado is one of the respondents.

Worse, the High Court stressed that as an elected official with influence in the locality, Tallado’s conduct amounts to undue interference with the independence of the judiciary.

“Considering the foregoing, the Court deems it proper to also direct Representative Tallado to explain why she should not be cited in contempt for requesting a judicial audit for unfounded reasons, which audit does not only interfere with the due performance of judicial functions but also undermines and degrades or impairs the respect due the judicial office,” the Court said in its ruling penned by Associate Justice Ricardo Rosario.

The administrative complaint filed by Tallado in 2021 accused the two judges of

anomalous issuances of temporary restraining orders (TROs), but both the Office of the Executive Director (OED) and the JIB recommended its dismissal for lack of merit.

The SC reiterated that if there were questions about the TROs, judicial remedies—not administrative harassment—were the proper course of action.

The ruling also noted that Tallado and her allies had filed other administrative complaints against the same judges, all of which had been dismissed, further strengthening the Court’s finding of harassment.

As of now, Rep. Tallado has been given a chance to explain her actions, failing which she risks being cited for indirect contempt of court.