Supreme Court of the Philippines of the Court of Appeals, and Adm.

[1]

Matter No. RTJ-93-959 to Deputy

Court Administrator Reynaldo L.
Suarez, for investigation, report and
[2]

A.M. No. RTJ-93-944 recommendation. In the meantime,

we directed respondent judge to go
EN BANC on leave. On 27 October 1993, we
[3]

ordered the consolidation of the

A.M. No. RTJ-93-944, July complaints. [4]

20, 1994 Thereafter, in compliance with our

RIZALIA CAPUNO AND THELMA
directives, Justice Corona Ibay-
VILLANUEVA, COMPLAINANTS, Somera and Deputy Court
VS. JUDGE AUSBERTO B. Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez
JARAMILLO, JR., RESPONDENT. submitted their reports. We shall
deal with respondent's administrative
[A.M. NO. RTJ-93-959. JULY 20, liability on the basis of the
1994] investigators' findings and
recommendations. [5]

PSM DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION AND CELIA I. Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-944
PAMPLONA, COMPLAINANTS,
VS. JUDGE AUSBERTO B.
The complaint in this case was
JARAMILLO, JR., RESPONDENT.
initiated by a "Sinumpaang Salaysay"
DECISION dated 28 August 1992 of
complainants Rizalia Capuno and
PER CURIAM: Thelma Villanueva, mother and
daughter, respectively, thus -
In these two (2) administrative
complaints, respondent Judge (1) Na si Pedro Calara Jr. ay
Ausberto B. Jaramillo, Jr., of the nagdemanda ng 'writ of possession'
Regional Trial Court, Br. 30, San laban kay Rizalia Capuno sa sala ni
Pablo City, is charged with various Judge Ausberto Jaramillo ng RTC-
corrupt practices detrimental to the San Pablo City.
administration of justice. (2) Na pagkatapos ng makapagbigay
Per resolutions of the Court, Adm. ng 'writ of possession' si Judge
Matter No. RTJ-93-944 was referred Jaramillo laban kay Rizalia Capuno
to Mme. Justice Corona Ibay-Somera sa nasabing kaso, ay nagpunta si
Sheriff Leonardo Ho sa bahay ni kanya ng alas 2:00 ng hapon noong
Rizalia Capuno at sinabi kay Rizalia araw na iyon din.
na gusto siyang makausap ni Judge
(7) Na sinabi ni Thelma kay Judge
Jaramillo.
Jaramillo na wala silang maibibigay
(3) Na nagpunta si Rizalia, na na ganoong halaga. Ang sabi ni
kasama ng kanyang anak na si Judge Jaramillo na kung ganoon ay
Thelma, at ni Gregorio Capistrano, wala na siyang magagawa.
sa sala ni Judge Jaramillo, mga alas
(8) Na ang demanda ni Rizalia
10:00 ng umaga at pinapasok sila sa
Capuno laban kay Pedro Calara, Jr.
kuwarto ni Judge Jaramillo.
na pa walang bisa ang pagkabenta at
(4) Sinabi sa kanila ni Judge pagka-ilit ng kanyang lupa ay
Jaramillo na kung gustong hindi bumagsak din sa sala ni Judge
mapaalis sa bahay si Rizalia, ay Jaramillo, kaya siya ay nakikiusap kay
magbigay ng halagang P200,000 cash Judge Jaramillo na ilipat ang
na kung maa-ari ay puro dadaanin, at nasabing kaso sa ibang hukuman. [6]

saka isang tsekeng P150,000 na

postdated 30 days. Required to comment, respondent
judge denies the charges against him.
(5) Na sinabi ni Thelma na wala He maintains that this complaint was
silang maibibigay na ganoong halaga, filed out of pure harassment.[7]

at ang sabi ni Judge Jaramillo kay

Thelma na subukan na maghanap ng On 19 November 1993, after due
nasabing halaga at bumalik sa loob investigation of the case, Justice
ng dalawang araw. Ibay-Somera submitted her report
(6) Nang mga alas 11:00 ng umaga, the pertinent portions of which
bumalik si Thelma at si Gregorio follow -
Capistrano sa kuwarto ni Judge
During the testimony of
Jaramillo pagkatapos ng dalawang
complainant Thelma Villanueva, she
araw, at sinabi ni Thelma kay Judge
only identified the Sinumpaang
Jaramillo na wala silang maibibigay
Salaysay she executed with her
na halagang takda ni Judge. Sabi ni
mother Rizalia Capuno, and affirmed
Judge na kung hindi kaya ni Thelma
the truth of the contents thereof.
ang P200,000 cash ay kahit na
P150,000 na cash na lang, puera xxxx
doon sa tsekeng P150,000 na
On cross-examination, complainant
postdated 60 days, pero dapat ang
Thelma Villanueva admitted that her
mga ito ay maibigay ni Thelma sa
mother, complainant Rizalia Capuno
borrowed the amount of P15,000.00 Decision on May 15, 1992 granting
sometime in 1987 from one Pedro the said petition (Exh. 11), and
Calara, Jr., for which the questioned ordering the issuance of the
property consisting of 85 sq. m. and corresponding writ of possession
originally covered by Tax and was implemented by Sheriff
Declaration No. 34-1260, was Aranguren (Exh. "15"). Said
mortgaged as a security thereof (pp. complainant met the respondent
9 & 12, tsn, July 28, 1993). It was Judge for the first time sometime in
also shown that despite partial March 1992, 'to know how much
payments on said loan (Exhs. B, B-1 more' the complainants were to pay
to B-6), the mortgaged property was Pedro Calara, Jr. (TSN, July 29,
extrajudicially foreclosed on August 1993, pp. 2 & 15), upon advice of
21, 1990 and a certificate of sale was the Sheriff Ho (tsn, p. 9, July 29,
issued by the respondent judge on 1993). Complainants, together with
the same date of August 21, 1990, one Gregorio Capistrano, went to
and registered with the office of the see the respondent Judge sometime
Register of Deeds on October 12, in May or June 1992 for the second
1990 (Tsn p. 16, July 28, 1993; Exh. time, who, in one of those meetings,
6), and that the buyer of said asked whether said complainants
property was Pedro Calara, Jr., in the 'could pay P350,000.00', P200,000.00
amount of P47,021.00 (Exh. 2-A, p. of which should be in cash, all in
17, tsn, July 28, 1993). Subsequently, P100-bills, to be displayed on his
an affidavit of consolidation of table "so that Pedro Calara's eyes will
ownership and deed of sale were bulge and I will take care of
made and executed by Pedro Calara, everything, and P150,000.00 in
Jr., and were registered with the postdated check (pp. 16-17, tsn, July
Register of Deeds on December 9, 29, 1993). Complainant Thelma
1991, which caused the cancellation Villanueva informed the Judge that
of Tax Declaration No. 541260 and she could not afford the amount,
a new one was issued, Tax thus the Judge reduced the proposal
Declaration No. 34-2753, in the to P150,000.00 in postdated check,
name of Pedro Calara, Jr. (Exh. 6). A which amount should be brought to
petition for the issuance of a writ of him at 2:00 p.m., and that they
possession filed by said Pedro (complainants) 'should not talk to
Calara, Jr., on February 24, 1992 was anybody' (p. 20, tsn, July 29, 1993).
assigned to the Branch of Because the complainant failed to
respondent Judge (p. 25, tsn, July 28, comply with the demand,
1993), who issued the corresponding complainant Rizalia Capuno was
evicted from the questioned against Pedro Calara, Jr., before the
premises and her house was Branch of respondent Judge, where
demolished. The testimony of the the complainant moved for
other witness for the complainants, respondent's inhibition, which
Gregorio Capistrano, was just motion he granted. Respondent
corroborative of the testimony of Judge vehemently denied that he
Thelma Villanueva, that he met the demanded money from the
respondent Judge on those two (2) complainants.
occasions when Thelma Villanueva
xxxx
went to see the respondent.
From the testimonies and
xxxx
documentary evidence adduced by
Respondent Judge Ausberto B. both parties, and considering their
Jaramillo, Jr., testified that he has (sic) demeanor of the parties during
been the Presiding Judge of Branch the hearings, this Court concludes
30, Regional Trial Court of San that there was indeed a color of truth
Pablo City, since January 30, 1987; in the complaint. The complainants
that he came to know Thelma are simple and ordinary people, who
Villanueva when she testified in Sp. prefer to live a simple life than
Proc. Case No. 852 in a prayer for engage themselves in complicated
issuance of a writ of possession over and perplexed lives. And should they
a parcel of land filed by one Pedro become part of complexed court
Calara, Jr.; that he issued the writ battles, it is not of their own
prayed for. Respondent Judge choosing but because of
further testified that he, in his effort circumstances. It may not be amiss
to settle the parties' differences, as to stress that the courts exist to
per request of Deputy Sheriff promote justice; and thus to aid in
Leonardo Ho, tried to mediate in securing the contentment and
order to help them settle for the happiness of the people. Their
purchase price (tsn, p. 5, Aug. 30, administration should be speedy and
1993). He likewise testified that it careful. Every judge should at all
was complainant Thelma Villanueva times be alert in his rulings and in
who voluntarily offered to pay Pedro the conduct of the business of his
Calara the amount of P200,000.00 court so far as he can, to make it
cash and to pay the balance in useful to litigants and to the
P150,000.00 in postdated checks community. He should avoid
(tsn, p. 6, Aug. 30, 1993). Another unconsciously falling into the
case was filed by the complainant attitude of mind that the litigants are
made for the courts instead of the The Investigating Justice is correct in
courts for the litigants. (Adm. Order finding respondent judge guilty of
No. 162, Canons of Judicial Ethics). the charge. As judge, respondent
The complainants failed to get the knows fully well that he should avoid
justice they are requesting from the such actions as would subject him to
respondent Judge for their failure to suspicion of interest in a case in his
deliver the amount asked of them. court. Yet, he threw all caution to
the winds, so to speak, and left
Hence, the complainants' allegation
nothing but telltale evidence of his
that the respondent Judge demanded
guilt.
from them money when they were
trying to seek his assistance in The active mediation of respondent
amicably settling their case and judge in Sp. Proc. No. 852 allegedly
which demand, when not met by to settle the differences between
them resulted to their eviction from complainants and Pedro Calara, Jr.,
the premises, is meritorious and was highly questionable. Firstly, the
credible. It is well-settled rule that mediation was initiated not by the
'acts of the respondent judge of parties themselves nor their lawyers
demanding x x x money from a but by respondent's sheriffs,
party-litigant before his court Leonardo Ho and Regalado
constitute serious misconduct in Aranguren, whose words were
office' (Office of the Court heavily relied upon by respondent. [9]

Administrator vs. Gaticales, 208 Secondly, the meetings were

SCRA 508). Likewise, under the unrecorded and unattended by
Canons of Judicial Ethics, 'a judge's counsel of the parties.[10]

official conduct should be free from Respondent's excuse that "in the
the appearance of impropriety, and (p)rovince, we mediate the
his personal behavior, not only upon differences of the parties, especially
the bench and in the performance of at that particular time the parties
judicial duties, but also in his have (sic) no counsel," is faulty and
everyday life, should be beyond unacceptable practice. Unless a judge
reproach. is conducting a pre-trial under Rules
20 and 118, his role in the
Finding respondent judge guilty of
administration of justice is to decide
the charge, the Investigating Justice
contentious cases with finality. In the
recommended his suspension for
absence of their lawyers, a judge
one (1) month without pay with
ought not to meddle in issues
admonition and reprimand. [8]

confronting the parties even on the

pretext of settling their cases. For to Q When Villanueva and Capuno
do so would compromise the appeared before you during the
integrity of his office which he is hearing of the petition for issuance
mandated to uphold. Once more,
[11] of the writ of possession, were they
judges are strongly reminded that the also represented by counsel?
office of a judge is a public office
A Yes, Your Honor.
and, as such, it is a public trust. A
[12]

judicial office demands that the Q During this first meeting, why
incumbent should conduct himself did you not require the lawyers to
in such a manner as to merit the appear before you for the
respect, reverence and confidence of arrangement?
the people.[13]
A The lawyer of the Capunos
Respondent's defense that the parties withdrew as counsel, Your Honor.
have no lawyers fails to convince us. Q Why did you not advise them
We gather from his testimonies that to get another counsel?
he intended to see the parties, alone,
A According to my Sheriff, I told my
thus -
sheriff 'I want their counsels to be
Justice Somera: present' my lawyer (sheriff) told me
'ayaw na ho wala na raw silang
Q During the first meeting you abogado dahil wala na daw silang
said the parties were not represented pambayad.'"
by counsel then there was a request
for a first meeting with you by the Q Who was always in contact with
parties. Capuno and Villanueva?
A They have no more lawyers at A My Sheriff, Your Honor. [14]

that time, Your Honor.

Yet, respondent in his earlier
Q But they were represented by a testimony revealed that complainant
lawyer during the hearing? had a lawyer -
A During the hearing. Justice Somera:
Q Why did you not require Calara Q After they (complainants) left,
to bring with him his counsel? did you have any occasion to meet
A Because I do not have time to them either Calara or Rizalia Capuno
talk to Calara, Your Honor. and her daughter, Thelma
Villanueva, altogether?
A There was a hearing of a impartially and with propriety but are
motion to dismiss that is the time I also perceived to be impartial and
realized a new case was filed by the proper.[16]

complainants mother and daughter.

In that hearing, the Calaras were Further, respondent judge insists on
absent, Rizalia Capuno was absent his good intention to help the parties
but Thelma Villanueva was present. agree on the repurchase price of the
lot. But, we find that his meetings
Q Before whom? were always with complainants and
A Before me, Your Honor. I not once did Pedro Calara, Jr.,
talk(ed) to Thelma asking her was it participate therein. Such situation
not that you are the same person gives us the impression that Pedro
who failed to meet the other party? Calara, Jr., did not have any notion
She answered in the affirmative, I at all of these conferences. This
ask(ed) her what is your pleasure suspicion is bolstered by (a)
now? Shall we wait for the Calaras respondent's testimony that x x x I
[17]

because she has a motion to dismiss likewise told them (complainants)

and to talk it over with the spouses that according to my sheriff they
and she reply (sic) that she will just have been promising cash to Calara
consult her lawyer and ask for time and further told them that if they
to file opposition.
[15] have cash they have to bring it
during an arranged meeting to Calara
Significantly, the rendezvous and show the money to Calara so
between respondent and that they will know they are
complainants took place in his negotiating in good faith." His
chambers without the attendance of statement clearly signified that he
his staff. Considering that there was had not as yet set up an appointment
still the question as to whether with Calara, Jr., and, (b) the
complainants could come up with contradictory stand among
the repurchase price of the lot, the respondent judge and his witnesses
meetings conducted inside the regarding the presence of Pedro
chambers of respondent were Calara, Jr., in the alleged conferences
uncalled for. We have cautioned of the parties.
judges to avoid in-chambers sessions
without the other party and his In his "Sinumpaang Salaysay" dated
counsel present, and to observe 16 February 1993, Sheriff Regalado
prudence at all times in their conduct M. Aranguren confirmed the
to the end that they not only act presence of Calara, Jr., in all the
conferences. He stated that "(n)a sa
[18] checks. He asserts that he could not
[21]

lahat ng beses ng conferencia ay palaging have demanded money from

dumarating si Pedro Calara, Jr., at laging complainants as they did not strike
naghihintay kay Thelma Capuno." For him as moneyed. [22]

his part, Sheriff Leonardo L. Ho, in

his "Sinumpaang Salaysay" dated 15 We note with interest that
February 1993, declared that "(a)t
[19] respondent then had a contrary
nang malaman ng mga naghabla ang opinion about the economic
kahilingan ng mga Capunos tungkol sa condition of complainants. He
pagbaba ng presyo ng bilihan, ako ay unwittingly disclosed in his comment
pinakiusapan ng mga naghahabla na that "[f]or whatever it is worth,
sabihin sa mga Capunos na sila ay according to reliable sources, Thelma
magkita sa hukuman para sa isang Villanueva was given by her sister
conferencia upang mapagusapan ang abroad to pay the repurchase price
tungkol sa presyo ng bilihang mabibiling of the Calaras; that Thelma
muli; (n)a, hindi nakatupad ang mga Villanueva used the money instead in
Capunos sa una nilang tipanan kung kaya constructing her own house x x x
ang conferencia ay nakansela," thus x" The reliable sources referred to
[23]

implying that Calara, Jr., was present were none other than his sheriff and
during the first meeting. However, the latter's wife. According to Sheriff
respondent judge rebutted these Aranguren, "[h]abang ang kaso ay
statements when he testified that nabibinbin pa sa hukuman hanggang sa
nobody appeared in both meetings ito ay natapos na, si Thelma Capuno
except complainants who came two (Villanueva) ay palagi pa ring pumupunta
days after the appointed date of the sa aking upisina upang siya ay bigyan pa
second meeting. [20] ng kaunting panahon dahilan sa iniintay
pa lanq niya ang peranq padala ng
Admittedly, the amount of kanyang kapatid na nasa America. Sinabi
P350,000.00 was the subject of pa rin niya na may hinihintay pa ring pera
conversation between respondent siya galing sa kanyang asawa na sabi niya
judge and the complainant Thelma ay hindi nagtatrabaho sa San Pablo."[24]

Villanueva. Respondent judge denies Concepcion L. Aranguren, utility

that he demanded such sum but that worker assigned to respondent's
complainant volunteered the court, supported her husband's
information that she had a checking statement by saying that "x x x Siya
account and that she was ready to (Thelma Villanueva) ay umiiyak habang
pay P200,000.00 in cash and the nakikipagusap na kung maari daw ay
balance of P150,000.00 in postdated bigyan siya ng palugit dahil may dadatinq
daw siyang pera galing sa kanyang kapatid from office for violation of: (1) Sec.
sa Amerika." With such
[25] 3, pars. (b), (c) and (j) of R.A. No.
information, it is not farfetched for 3019, (2) Sec. 7, pars. (a) and (d) of
respondent judge to demand money R.A. No. 6713, and, (3) Arts. 206
from complainant. Evidently, he was and 210 of The Revised Penal Code.
led by his sources to believe that
complainant had the money to buy Complainant Celia E. Pampolina,
back the property from the Calaras. President of PSM Development
Corporation and the duly designated
Verily, the act of respondent in and appointed Executrix of the Last
meeting with complainants without Will and Testament of Pastor S.
the presence of counsel and warning Marino, alleges that on 6 April 1992,
them not to tell anyone, and a decision was rendered by
demanding money under the guise of respondent judge dismissing Sp.
forging peace between her and Proc. No. 849(92), "IN THE
Pedro Calara, Jr., constitutes grave MATTER OF THE
misconduct. Additionally, his failure GUARDIANSHIP OF PASTOR S.
to uphold the integrity of the MARINO," for lack of merit; that
judiciary has undoubtedly diminished during the pendency of the case,
the faith of our people in the respondent ordered Jesus Azores,
administration of justice. Given nephew of Pastor S. Marino, to
these serious indiscretions, a more surrender, among other properties, a
severe penalty than one (1) month Mitsubishi Galant Super Saloon car
suspension without pay should be to the court; that after the car had
imposed. A judge who established a been surrendered to the court,
common fund purportedly for his respondent requested complainant
low income employees and who and the Board of the PSM
himself together with his employees Corporation to issue a resolution to
solicited contributions from litigants have the luxury car at his disposal
and visitors for such fund was during weekends and to use it as he
dismissed from the service. We can
[26] pleased; that the corporation
do no less in this case. appropriated the sum of P10,000.00
to pay for the reconditioning,
II. Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-959 adjustment and tune-up of the
engine of the car; that respondent
This administrative complaint seeks had the custody of the car from
to subject respondent judge to April 1992 to 5 May 1993; that he
disciplinary action or to dismissal also demanded and received food,
money, valuable properties prepared so he could still make use
(jewelries) from complainant and her of the car; that despite the fact that
grandfather, the late Pastor S. complainant was named executrix in
Marino; that further, respondent the will, respondent appointed
judge requested favors from Rosevelinda Calingasan and Antonio
complainant in securing an Azcarate as joint special
exemption from the Gun Ban during administrators; that such order was
the election period; that, in this issued without notice and hearing;
regard, respondent called up that her motion for reconsideration
complainant using the name "E. on this ground was denied; that,
Pilapil" and further extorted money; shortly after, respondent judge
that, upon the death of Pastor S. ordered complainant to produce
Marino, complainant filed a "Petition stock certificates in the name of the
for the Probate of the Will of the late Pastor S. Marino, the books of
Late Pastor S. Marino," docketed as the corporation, and other papers;
Sp. Proc. No. 859 (92); that the that she moved for reconsideration
petition was raffled to the of this order but the same was
respondent's sala; that one of the denied; that the joint special
basic issues raised in the petition was administrators filed a motion to cite
the mental capacity and the sound complainant in contempt for her
disposition of the testator; that this refusal to obey the order of
issue was already passed upon by respondent; that in view of the
respondent judge in Sp. Proc. No. insistence of the respondent to
849 (92); that during the pendency of continue hearing the probate
the probate proceeding, respondent proceedings, complainant moved for
judge called the parties to a the inhibition of respondent judge;
conference at Roo's Place, a public that respondent threatened to cite
restaurant in San Pablo City; that the complainant in contempt because of
meeting started at eight o'clock in her statement that respondent had
the evening and lasted until custody, possession and enjoyment
midnight; that the purpose of the of the luxury car of the corporation;
meeting was to discuss possible that he set the hearing for the
settlement of the probate case; that contempt proceeding on 29 January
shares and other properties were 1993 at eight-thirty in the morning;
discussed except the car; that and, that as a result, complainant
respondent intentionally omitted to filed with the Court of Appeals a
include the car in the list of petition for certiorari.
properties which he himself
In his answer, respondent submits because it was the site selected by
that complainant has no valid cause the parties.
of action against him. He explains
that the car was in the possession of On 8 July 1993, after due
the court, although on few investigation, Deputy Court
occasions, he drove it merely to Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez
inflate the tires or to recharge the submitted his report -
battery. The car also needed minor
repairs and the expenses were paid The complaint is an aftermath of the
for by the corporation which adverse Orders dated November 27,
appropriated P10,000.00 for the 1992, December 22, 1992 and
purpose. However, he insists, there January 25, 1993 issued by
was no instance that he demanded respondent Judge against Celia
money, food or valuables from Pampolina relative to SP 859(92) In
complainant. the Matter of the Petition to
Approve the Will of Pastor S.
With regard to the telephone call Marino, appointing Antonio
using the name "E. Pilapil," Azcarate and Rosevelinda Calingasan
respondent claims that he wanted to as Joint Special Administrators
be discreet with his calls. He only
[27] instead of the named executrix in the
wanted to get the names of the two will which (sic) is the complainant
(2) persons whom complainant herein.
mentioned earlier who could help Most of the issues raised by
him secure exemption from the Gun complainant in this administrative
Ban. He never called up complainant complaint are the very errors
to extort money. He got the assigned by complainant in her
exemption on his own efforts. petition filed before the Court of
Besides, complainant also used "E. Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. No.
Pilapil" when she called him up at 30073 entitled PSM Corporation
his residence. and Celia Pampolina vs. Hon. Judge
Ausberto Jaramillo (in his capacity as
Lastly, respondent contends that his
Presiding Judge of RTC, San Pablo
orders in the probate proceedings
City). (Rollo, pp. 35-57) Thus, the
were just and properly issued
undersigned cannot properly rule on
without bias. He admits that he set
complainant's assertions that
the pre-trial conference of the
respondent herein knowingly
probate proceedings at Roo's Place
rendered an unjust interlocutory
order because of the case being sub position as a Judge when he
judice on appeal. obligated upon himself the
recharging of its batteries and the
xxxx
inflating of its tires.
However, in A.M. No. RTJ-92-859
Thus, it is difficult to conceive how a
(Natividad Calauan Uy, et al. vs.
Judge would willingly go out of his
Judge Florentino M. Alumbre,
way to recharge the batteries and
Assisting Judge, RTC, Las Pias,
inflate the tires of a vehicle in custodia
Metro Manila), respondent Judge
legis by driving the car himself to the
Alumbre was imposed a FINE of
battery shop unless there is that
one thousand pesos (P1,000.00) for
intent on his part to use the car.
appointing a special administrator
without a hearing. Against the testimonies of his
witnesses, there is no doubt that
Admittedly, however, there were
indeed he used the car if not on all
mistakes or omissions in the acts of
occasions that he went home to
respondent Judge in his handling of
Paraaque where he resides coming
some incidents in the case. One
from his Court in San Pablo but at
mistake he made was conducting a
least on some occasions.
pre-trial conference of SP 859 (92) at
the Roo's place, a public place The appearance in the glove
(Restaurant), rather than inside his compartment of the car receipt of a
chambers and/or the Courtroom. beauty parlor located within the
While the Rules of Court does not vicinity of their house admittedly
specifically provide for the venue of patronized by the wife of the
pre-trial conferences, propriety respondent is a glaring proof that the
demands that it should be confined car must have been used and
within the four (4) walls of his sala to operated by the respondent.
avoid impropriety and appearance of
Regardless of whether the same was
impropriety in all his activities
used in his official capacity, his
(Iglesia ni Kristo vs. Judge Geronilla,
motive could still be misinterpreted;
July 25, 1981 and Canon 2, Rule
and, in the course of events, his
2.01, Code of Judicial Conduct).
actuations would come in conflict
Strangely, likewise, is (sic) the with the impartial performance of
actuations of respondent in the his official duties. In Adm. Matter
matter of the custody of the Super No. 690-CFI entitled 'Benito B. Nate
Saloon Car. He has demeaned vs. Hon. Enrique A. Agana, Sr., et.
himself and compromised his al.' (91 SCRA 1) the Honorable
Court there ruled that it is and/or received money, jewelries
misconduct for a judge to use a car and food from the complainant.
that it levied in execution by virtue
The claim of complainant that
of an order issued by him and was
respondent Judge demanded and
censured and admonished. In his
received money and jewelries from
separate opinion, however, then
her is not supported by independent
Justice Claudio Teehankee
testimonies and documents. In an
recommended that the
apparent effort to mislead this
commensurate penalty should be six
Office into believing her theory,
(6) months suspension considering
complainant resorted to annexing
the great responsibility and trust
various documents, which if taken
vested in respondent. Justice
separately will definitely lead into a
Herrera, on her part, recommended
different conclusion. One concrete
three months suspension. However,
example is her diary in which she
in the case of Nate, the judge
allegedly recorded all her
intended to acquire ownership of the
transactions such as appointments,
car. This does not appear to be the
telephone calls, withdrawals from
case here.
the bank, collections and every
Likewise, another aspect which is minute details that transpired in her
highly questionable is the use of life, yet the demand for Two Million
respondent Judge of an alias 'E. Pesos (P2,000.000.00) was never
Pilapil'. If indeed there were no recorded nor was the delivery of the
shady deals/transactions between advance two hundred fifty thousand
complainant and respondent, why pesos (P250,000.00) likewise
was there a necessity to use an alias recorded. When confronted on the
in their telephone conversations matter, she merely gave the excuse
and/or why would there be a need that the demand was almost
for a Judge to talk over the phone to everyday, hence, there was no need
a party who had a pending case to record the same. Likewise, the
before him. alleged delivery of the jewelries was
made on April 26, 1992 but the
The charges of bribery, violation of
unofficial receipt x x x was issued
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
only on July 20, 1992 or only after
Act, despite the vehemence of
three (3) months.
complainant's language, have not
been proven satisfactorily, there is Administrative charge against a judge
no clear showing and/or proof that is highly penal in nature. Such charge
indeed respondent Judge demanded must therefore be proved beyond
reasonable doubt, otherwise, the special administrators, petitioner
charge will be dismissed (Adm. Case (complainant) was nevertheless
No. 270-J, Enriquez vs. Araulla, in heard on her motion for
re: Horellano, 43 Phil. 212).[28] reconsideration of the appointment
of the special administrators; and,
On the basis of his foregoing that what the law prohibits is not the
findings, Deputy Court absence of notice but absolute
Administrator Suarez recommends absence thereof and lack of
that: (1) the charge for knowingly opportunity to be heard. However,
rendering an unjust order/decision the Court of Appeals ruled that
be DISMISSED for having been considering that respondent judge
prematurely filed; (2) the charge for admitted using the car, he should
bribery, violation of the Anti-Graft have immediately inhibited himself
and Corrupt Practices act be likewise once his objectivity and impartiality
DISMISSED for lack of factual were put in question by petitioner
evidence; and, (3) respondent judge (complainant) in line with Canon 2
be found guilty for the use of the car of the Code of Judicial Conduct. [29]

while in custodia legis and for the

issuance of an order appointing While respondent judge may not
Special Administrators without necessarily be held administratively
notice to the parties, submitting the liable for issuing the orders
appropriate penalty however to the complained of, he certainly is
discretion of the Court. accountable for violating Canons 1
and 2 of the Code of Judicial
We do not fully subscribe to the Conduct and of committing a
foregoing recommendations. corrupt practice under Sec. 7, par.
Respondent judge cannot be made (d), of R.A. No. 6713.
administratively liable for issuing the
order appointing the special The records sufficiently establish
administrators. On 13 July 1993, the that during the guardianship
Court of Appeals rendered a proceedings, respondent judge had
decision dismissing complainant's no qualms in taking advantage of the
petition for certiorari but at the same authority granted by complainant
time granting her plea for the and the Board of Directors of PSM
inhibition of respondent judge from Development Corporation for him
hearing the probate case. We agree to use the Mitsubishi Galant Super
that while there was no notice of the Saloon on weekends or as he
hearing for the appointment of the pleased. This fact alone would have
[30]
already raised valid speculations discussion. Understandably, no one
about his objectivity in acting on the dared to do so as they were fully
guardianship proceedings. Yet, he aware that respondent was in
did nothing to apprise complainant possession and enjoying the use of
and the Board about the impropriety the car. Besides, he should have been
of accepting the favor. Nor did he
[31] the one to call the attention of the
require them to forthwith withdraw parties about the existence of the
the authority granted him. [32] vehicle as belonging to the estate.
Undeniably, his free use of the car Obviously, he did not want to part
during and after the pendency of the with the vehicle.
guardianship proceedings for over a
year constituted a corrupt practice Respondent judge even personally
under Sec 7, par. (d), of R.A. 6713, [33] supervised the maintenance of the
i.e., acceptance by a public officer of car beyond what the duties of his
a favor from any person in the office would call for. He had the
course of his official duty. scratches of the car repainted, the
tires inflated and the battery
Respondent judge did not only recharged six (6) times. All the
exhibit a personal interest in the expenses for the reconditioning,
vehicle but also accepted the offer to adjustment and tune-up, repainting
use it. In fact, by his own admission, and battery recharging were charged
he drove it several times. In the against the P10,000.00 appropriated
conference held at Roo's Place, by the Board of Directors of PSM
respondent judge purposely omitted Development Corporation. The[35]

the car in the list of properties records do not however disclose

belonging to the estate of Pastor S. who kept the P10,000.00. Neither
Marino. We are not persuaded by his was there any accounting of the
argument that the car was not part of expenses nor any statement made on
the decedent's estate. His later the amount left of the P10,000.00.
testimony revealed that the parties Considering the extra pains taken by
then desired to include all properties respondent in the upkeep of the car,
even those which supposedly the possibility that the P10,000.00
belonged to the deceased but deeded was in his possession is not remote.
to the corporation. The car was one
[34] Respondent's conduct in this regard
such property, but respondent never cannot be any different from that of
volunteered its inclusion. He a judge who was removed from
justified his omission by saying that office because of manifest interest in
the car was not mentioned in the a vehicle in custodia legis by spending
for its repairs and thereafter using it justice, their last recourse where all
for her benefit and convenience. [36] other institutions have failed. Sadly,
[41]

respondent judge carelessly

Another reprehensible conduct of disregarded these stringent judicial
respondent which distresses us was norms. Worse, his acceptance of the
his availment of the battery Galant Super Saloon for his personal
recharging service of Cortes Battery use and convenience as well as his
Shop free of charge. In so doing,
[37]
evident personal interest in it have
respondent compromised his exalted defiled the "public trust" character of
position as a judge. It bears repeating the judicial office. These serious
that integrity in a judicial office is transgressions cannot be
more than a virtue; it is a necessity. countenanced. By his actions,
We dismissed a judge who not only respondent has clearly demonstrated
had the seats of his "Lite Ace" van his difficulty and inability to keep up
repaired but also received new seat with the conduct required of judges.
covers both for free from a litigant. [38]
Consequently, he should not be
Likewise, we terminated the services permitted to stay a minute longer in
of a judge upon finding that he office. We have repeatedly held that
accepted the benefit of riding there is no place in the judiciary for
regularly in Sarkies Tour Buses free those who cannot meet the exacting
of charge. [39]
standards of judicial conduct and
integrity.
[42]

Hence, the role of the judiciary in

bringing justice to conflicting WHEREFORE, for his gross
interests in society cannot be misconduct and violation of Canon
overemphasized. As the visible 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct in
representation of law and justice, A.M. No. RTJ-93-944, and his
judges are expected to conduct violation of Sec. 7, par. (d), of R.A.
themselves in a manner that would 6713, and Canons 1 and 2 of the
enhance the respect and confidence Code of Judicial Conduct in A.M.
of our people in the judicial system. No. RTJ-93-959, respondent
They are particularly mandated not JUDGE AUSBERTO
only to uphold the integrity and JARAMILLO, JR., Regional Trial
independence of the judiciary but Court, Branch 30, San Pablo City, is
also to avoid impropriety and the DISMISSED from the service with
appearance of impropriety in their prejudice to reinstatement or
actions. For judges sit as the
[40]
appointment to any public office,
embodiment of the people's sense of including government-owned or
controlled corporations, with [9] TSN, 30 August 1993, p. 4.
forfeiture of all retirement benefits
and privileges, if any. This dismissal [10] TSN, 2 August 1993, pp. 4-5.
shall be immediately executory.
Canon 1, Code of Judicial
[11]

SO ORDERED. Conduct.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Concurring opinion of Mr. Justice

[12]

Bidin, Regalado, Davide Jr., Romero, Padilla in De Julio v. Vega, A.M. No.
Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug, RTJ-89-406, 18 July 1991, 199 SCRA
and Kapunan JJ., concur. 315, 319.
Mendoza, J., no part.
Veronica v. Son, A.M. No. MTJ-90-
[13]

436, 17 October 1991, En Banc,

Min. Res.

Resolution dated 16 June 1993,

[1] [14] TSN, 30 August 1993, pp. 9-10.
First Division, Rollo, A.M. No. RTJ-
93-944, p. 42. [15] Ibid., p. 7.

Resolution dated 10 March 1993,

[2]
See Bibon v. David, A.M. No. MTJ-
[16]

First Division, Rollo, A.M. No. RTJ- 87-67, 24 March 1988, En Banc,
93-959, Vol. I. Min. Res.

[3] Id. [17] TSN, 30 August 1993, p. 7.

Resolution dated 27 October 1993,

[4]
[18] A.M. No. RTJ-93-944, Rollo, p. 13.
First Division, Rollo, A.M. No. RTJ- [19] Ibid., p. 16.
93-959, Vol. IV.
[20] TSN, 30 August 1993, pp. 5-6.
Resolution dated 20 June 1994,
[5]

these administrative cases were [21] Ibid., p. 6.

referred by the First Division to the
Court En Banc. [22] A.M. No. RTJ-93-944, Rollo, p. 29.
[6] Rollo, A.M. No. RTJ-93-944, p. 3. [23] Ibid., p. 30.
[7] Id., pp. 21, 27-31. [24] Ibid., p. 33.
[8] Id. [25] Ibid., p. 35.
Garciano v. Sebastian, A.M. No.
[26] [35] RTJ-93-959, Rollo, p. 32.
MTJ-88-160; Lopez v. Sebastian, A.M.
No. MTJ-88-244; Vivar v. Sebastian, Arcenio v. Pagorogon, A.M. MTJ-89-
[36]

A.M. No. MTJ-89-322; Lopez v. 270, and Office of the Court

Sebastian, A.M. No. MTJ-89-344; Administrator v. Pagorogon, A.M. No.
Gavia v. Sebastian, A.M. No. MTJ-90- MTJ-92-637, both promulgated 5
416; Office of the Court Administrator v. July 1993.
Sebastian, A.M. No. MTJ-92-661;
Administrative Complaint of MeTC
[37] TSN, 24 May 1993, p. 41.
Personnel, Br. 78, Paraaque v.
Ompoc v. Torres, A.M. No. MTJ-86-
[38]

Sebastian, A.M. No. MTJ-89-4-371,

111, 27 September 1989, 178 SCRA
all promulgated on 30 March 1994.
14.
[27] TSN, 24 May 1993, p. 46.
Felongco v. Dictado, A.M. No. RTJ-
[39]

A.M. No. RTJ-93-959, Rollo, Vol.

[28]
86-50; Lapak v. Dictado, A.M. No.
III, pp. 985-1004. RTJ-88-222; Ang v. Dictado, A.M. No.
RTJ-88-224; Jerez v. Dictado, A.M.
[29] Ibid., Vol. IV. No. RTJ-89-320; and, Ropeta v.
Dictado, A.M. No. RTJ-89-389, all
A.M. No. RTJ-93-959, Rollo, Vol.
[30] promulgated 28 June 1993.
III, pp. 860-A and 860-B.
Rule 1.01, Canon 1, and Rule 2.01,
[40]

[31] TSN, 24 May 1993, p. 6. Canon 2, Code of Judicial Conduct.

[32] Ibid. Office of the Court Administrator v.
[41]

Bartolome, A.M. No. RTJ-90-446;

An Act Establishing A Code of
[33]
Medina v. Bartolome, A.M. No. RTJ-
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public 90-494; Office of the Court Administrator
Officials and Employees to Uphold the v. Bartolome, A.M. No. RTC-90-504;
Time?Honored Principle of Public Office Ramon Tulfo's Column "On Target,"
Being a Public Trust, Granting Incentives A.M. No. RTC-90-1-021; and Letter
and Rewards for Exemplary Service, Request dated 24 July 1990 of
Enumerating Prohibited Acts and Provincial Governor Leonardo B.
Transactions and Providing Penalties for Roman, Bataan, seeking the transfer
Violation Thereof and for Other Purposes. of Judge Jose T. Bartolome to
another station, A.M. No. RTC-90-
[34] TSN, 24 May 1993, p. 56. 8-1909, all promulgated 7 November
1991, 203 SCRA 328.
Vistan v. Nicolas, A.M. No. MTJ-
[42]

87-79 and A.C. No. 3040, both

promulgated 13 September 1991,
201 SCRA 524.

Copyright 2016 - Batas.org