You are on page 1of 28

SECOND DIVISION Judges of the Municipal Trial Courts or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may

perform their functions as notaries public ex-officio only in the notarization of


documents connected with the exercise of their official functions. They may not
[A.M. No. MTJ-00-1294. July 31, 2000.]
undertake the preparation and acknowledgment of documents which bear no
(Formerly OCA IPI No. 00-859-MTJ) relation to the performance of their functions as judges. Undoubtedly, the Answer
filed with the DARAB that was notarized by respondent judge is a perfect example
of a document which bears no relation to the performance of Judge Galapon's
HORST FRANZ ELLERT, complainant, vs. JUDGE
functions as a judge. Since respondent's actuation of notarizing the aforestated
VICTORIO GALAPON, JR., Municipal Trial Court, Dulag,
pleading is not in connection with the exercise of his official duties, consequently,
Leyte, respondent.
he acted beyond the scope of his authority as notary public ex-officio.

2.ID.; ID.; EXCEPTION. Circular No. 1-90 clearly provides that it is only when
SYNOPSIS
there are no lawyers or notaries public in the municipality or circuit that an MTC
and MCTC judge may act as a notary public provided that, the notarial fees are
In a letter-complaint dated January 8, 2000 and an affidavit-complaint dated turned over to the government and a certification is made in the notarized
January 10, 2000, Horst Franz Ellert charged Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr. with documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in such municipality
grave misconduct, abuse of judicial authority, ignorance of the law, unlawful or circuit.
notarization, perjury and false testimony. The Office of the Court Administrator,
3.SUPREME COURT; OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR; DEALS
after due investigation found respondent judge to have notarized a pleading in a
MAINLY WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS OF THE COURTS. The
case not pending before his sala and recommended that respondent be fined for
Office of the Court Administrator, as the name suggests, deals mainly with
this act.
administrative functions of the courts. It can act on matters concerning the judicial
Judges of the Municipal Trial Courts or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may perform discipline of judges of the MTC, among others. Criminal cases are out of its
their functions as Notaries Public Ex-Oficio only in the notarization of documents hands. aCSEcA
connected with the exercise of their official functions. They may not undertake the
preparation and acknowledgment of documents which bears no relation to the
performance of their functions as judges, such as the Answer filed with the
DECISION
DARAB that was notarized by respondent judge. As to the charge of False
Testimony and Perjury, the complainant is advised to institute a criminal case with
the proper trial court.
BUENA, J p:

SYLLABUS Before us is a letter-complaint dated January 8, 2000 1 and an affidavit-complaint


dated January 10, 2000, 2 both filed by Horst Franz Ellert, charging Judge Victorio
1.JUDICIAL ETHICS; JUDGES OF THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS OR L. Galapon, Jr. of the Municipal Trial Court at Dulag, Leyte with grave misconduct,
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS MAY NOT UNDERTAKE THE abuse of judicial authority, ignorance of the law, unlawful notarization, perjury, and
PREPARATION AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF DOCUMENTS WHICH BEAR false testimony.
NO RELATION TO THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR FUNCTIONS AS JUDGES.
This case originated from two (2) cases, namely: DARAB Case No. VIII-169-L-91 Municipal Trial Court in Cities at Tacloban City,
entitled "Lualhati V. Ellert vs. Marina Roca, et al." and Criminal Case No. 97-07- Branch I;
CR-161 entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Horst Franz Ellert."
2.In the course of the trial conducted by the said court and
I.Re: DARAB Case No. VIII-169-L-91 entitled "Lualhati V. Ellert vs. Marina Roca presided by Judge Romulo Casiber, herein
and Odeth Roca." respondent falsely stated in his Affidavit-Complaint
that Horst Franz Ellert is a resident of Barangay
Complainant alleged that in the "Answer" 3 filed by Marina Roca and Odeth Roca
Tabu, Dulag, Leyte. In other documentary and
with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), the
testimonial evidence, respondent testified and
signature of Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr., herein respondent, was affixed in the
admitted that Ellert was indeed actually residing at
jurat.
Sitio Payapay, Barangay 90, San Jose, Tacloban
In his complaint, Horst Franz Ellert avers that "a Municipal Trial Court judge is only City. DASCIc
authorized to administer oaths, or sign jurats to documents only for submission
3.Respondent judge, in the course of his testimony given in
before his court, in cases pending before his court, such as complaints for filing
open court and under oath, said that he helped Ellert
with his court, sworn statements of witnesses in cases pending or to be filed with
by writing to the manager of the Development Bank
his court, affidavits of all kinds, provided that they are for filing/submission to his
of the Philippines concerning Ellert's problem on a
court, but definitely, not all other documents. Even as an Ex-oficio Notary Public,
piece of land, and also said that it was because of
he is authorized to notarize (sign acknowledgments) documents, conveyances of
this letter that the bank returned the amount in the
very limited nature, . . ." 4
deed of sale. There is a Certification made by the
It is the understanding of the complainant that not all kinds of documents can be DBP manager that no such letter was sent to and/or
notarized (acknowledged before) by a Municipal Trial Court judge, like herein ever received by his office;
respondent. But, despite the fact that Judge Galapon is not duly authorized even
4.In the same judicial proceedings, respondent judge falsely
by the Notarial Law to sign a document such as the aforementioned Answer,
testified under oath that he first came to know Ellert
respondent knowingly, wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously subscribed to, and
when Lualhati V. Ellert (wife of herein complainant)
administered the oaths of Marina Roca and Odeth Roca by signing the jurat at the
filed a case against her own brother Domingo
bottom of the Verification of the Answer.
Villaronte in his (Judge Galaton) court prior to March
He points out that by unlawfully and illegally doing so, respondent judge 23, 1997 or sometime between 1994 to 1996.
committed grave misconduct, abuse of judicial authority, and exhibited his When the case between complainant's late wife and
ignorance of the law. her brother was filed and pending, complainant Ellert
was still out of the country as he was working
II.Re: Criminal Case No. 97-07-CR-161 entitled "People of the Philippines vs. overseas and only came to the country occasionally
Horst Franz Ellert for Light Threats. for brief vacations;
Complainant Ellert made the following allegations and rationalizes why it is his 5.Judge Galapon falsely testified and declared in open court
opinion that respondent judge gave a false testimony as well as perjured himself: that a property involving the DBP came to his
1.He knows respondent Judge as the latter is the complainant knowledge and attention because it was the subject
in Criminal Case No. 97-07-CR-161 filed with the of a civil case before his court. That property was
never the subject of any civil case before his court or
before any other court;
6.Respondent judge falsely declared and testified that he Ellert, in his complaint, alleges that during the hearing of the criminal case,
does not know Barangay Tabu, Cabatuan, or any respondent judge stated that it was because of his (Judge Galapon) letter that the
other barangay in Dulag, Leyte. bank returned the amount in the Deed of Sale. In refutation, Ellert presented a
The Barangay Captain of Barangay Tabu is Certification by the Development Bank of the Philippines to the effect that
the "compadre" of the respondent and, as a judge of respondent never appeared before the DBP nor wrote a letter relative to the
the Municipal Trial Court of Dulag, Leyte, he was property acquired by a Mrs. Carlota Cabacang.
even the one who notarized the Application for
Locational Clearance of
the BarangayChairman/Captain of Barangay Tabu. Respondent judge thus contends that as will be noticed in the transcript, he did
This was not however submitted to the HLURB not mention the property of Mrs. Carlota Cabacang. This is because he was not
because there was no building permit applied for referring to her land, as he did not know if Mrs. Cabacang owns a piece of land.
and issued. Instead, he was referring to a land subject of Civil Case No. 230
entitled "Development Bank of the Philippines, represented by Manuel G.
In his Comment dated February 7, 2000, 5 Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr. reveals
Braseleno and Lualhati Ellert vs. Salvador Corsino" pending before the Municipal
that the present complaint is perhaps the tenth in a series of continuous and
Trial Court at Dulag, Leyte. CTSAaH
relentless harassment cases filed against him by Horst Franz Ellert.
According to the respondent, it is not important whether or not the DBP received
He avers that the reason why complainant Ellert unceasingly vilifies and harasses
the letter adverted to. The fact is the bank returned the money to Lualhati Ellert as
him is because of the criminal case he has filed against the latter (Criminal Case
shown in the Order dated February 26, 1990. As admitted by the DBP, thru its
No. 97-07-CR-161 entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Horst Franz Ellert") for
lawyer, the sale was indeed rescinded. This is a clear case of misinformation
Light Threats, wherein Ellert was duly convicted and sentenced by the court to
resorted to by Ellert.
suffer imprisonment ranging from five (5) months and eleven (11) days as
minimum, to six (6) months as maximum ofArresto Mayor, and to pay the cost. 6 In all the complaints wherein complainant Ellert mentioned Criminal Case No. 97-
07-CR-161, he never stated that respondent judge was the private complainant
To refute each and every allegation made in the complaints, respondent judge
therein nor that he was convicted by the court.
points out that insofar as the residence issue is concerned, he believed that, at the
time the Information in Criminal Case No. 97-07-CR-161 was filed in court, Ellert's As to the charge that respondent judge administered the oath in the Verification
residence was at Barangay Tabu, Dulag, Leyte; thus it was the same address he portion of the Answer of respondents Marina Roca and Odeth Roca in DARAB
wrote when he executed his affidavit-complaint to support the criminal case Case No. VIII-159-L-91, respondent judge candidly admits it. He believes that
against herein complainant. He did not know that the complainant has already there was nothing wrong nor was there any abuse of authority in administering
settled elsewhere. In fact, this issue of residence was made the basis of another such oath. There never was any malice or bad faith attending such act. He
complaint against him. honestly believes that merely administering an oath in the jurat is not actionable by
any administrative sanction.
Respondent judge states that it is highly incredible for him to state in open court
during the hearing of the aforementioned criminal case that he did not know Judge Galapon declares that the series of complaints are the rantings of a
Barangay Tabu, Dulag, Leyte. There was an error in the transcription of his depraved mind of a person who is now in serious jeopardy of going to prison, and
testimony, for what he said and meant was that he did not know the exact place in who faces deportation as he is now a convicted felon. Although complainant Ellert
the barangay where complainant's house was situated. While respondent does appealed his conviction, there is the danger that his conviction will be sustained.
know the Barangay Chairman of Tabu, Dulag, Leyte, this person is not
his "compadre" as claimed by Ellert. Respondent judge furthermore says that Ellert is an alien, whom the country can
do without. He has abused all the laws from which he seeks protection by
continuously and relentlessly harassing not only respondent judge, but also public the exercise of their official functions and duties [Borre v.
officials who disagree with him and do not give in to his demands. Mayo, Adm. Matter No. 1765-CFI, October 17, 1980, 100
SCRA 314; Penera v. Dalocanog, Adm. Matter No. 2113-MJ,
Judge Galapon hopes that the complainant would be condemned by this Court in
April 22, 1981, 104 SCRA 193.] They may not, as notaries
the strongest words possible that he will no longer pose a threat and can no
public ex oficio, undertake the preparation and
longer continue the ceaseless vilification and harassment against him. Likewise,
acknowledgment of private documents, contracts and other
respondent hopes that the lawyer helping the complainant in the harassment
acts of conveyances which bear no direct relation to the
campaign against him would be sanctioned. After all, this lawyer, being an officer
performance of their functions as judges. The 1989 Code of
of the court, should shield the courts from fabricated and malicious harassment.
Judicial Conduct not only enjoins judges to regulate their
Respondent laments that the time, effort and money devoted to answering the extra-judicial activities in order to minimize the risk of conflict
numerous malicious and fabricated complaints diminished, to a great extent, the with their judicial duties, but also prohibits them from
time he could have devoted fruitfully to studying and deciding cases, especially engaging in the private practice of law (Canon 5 and Rule
since he has, for the past three and a half years, been the Acting Judge of the 5.07). IDTcHa
Municipal Trial Court at Tolosa, Leyte.
"However, the Court, taking judicial notice of the fact that
Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr. prays for the dismissal of the complaints filed by there are still municipalities which have neither lawyers nor
complainant Horst Franz Ellert. notaries public, rules that MTC and MCTC judges assigned to
municipalities or circuits with no lawyers or notaries public
The act of notarizing a pleading in a case which is not pending before the sala of may, in the capacity as notaries public ex oficio, perform any
Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr. constitutes an unlawful practice of law. Deputy act within the competency of a regular notary public, provided
Court Administrator Bernardo T. Ponferrada, in his memorandum dated March 13, that: (1) all notarial fees charged be for the account of the
2000, 7 thus recommended that the respondent be ordered to pay the fine of Five Government and turned over to the municipal treasurer
Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) with a warning that repetition of similar acts in the (Lapena, Jr. vs. Marcos, Adm. Matter No. 1969-MJ, June 29,
future will be dealt with more severely. 1982, 114 SCRA 572); and, (2) certification be made in the
We find respondent guilty of the charge against him, that he engaged in notarized documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or
unauthorized notarial work. notary public in such municipality or circuit." 8

Circular No. I-90 specifically delineates the power of Municipal Trial Court Judges Judges of the Municipal Trial Courts or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may perform
and Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judges to act as notaries public ex oficio, thus: their functions as notaries public ex-oficio only in the notarization of documents
connected with the exercise of their official functions. They may not undertake the
"Municipal trial court (MTC) and municipal circuit trial court preparation and acknowledgment of documents which bear no relation to the
(MCTC) judges are empowered to perform the functions of performance of their functions as judges.
notaries public ex oficiounder Section 76 of Republic Act No.
296, as amended (otherwise known as the Judiciary Act of Undoubtedly, the Answer filed with the DARAB that was notarized by respondent
1948) and Section 242 of the Revised Administrative Code. judge is a perfect example of a document which bears no relation to the
But the Court hereby lays down the following qualifications on performance of Judge Galapon's functions as a judge. Since respondent's
the scope of this power: actuation of notarizing the aforestated pleading is not in connection with the
exercise of his official duties, consequently, he acted beyond the scope of his
"MTC and MCTC judges may act as notaries public ex authority as notary public ex-oficio.
oficio in the notarization of documents connected only with
Circular No. 1-90 clearly provides that it is only when there are no lawyers or xxx xxx xxx
notaries public in the municipality or circuit that an MTC and MCTC judge may act
II.Matters to be attended by the Court En Banc
as a notary public provided that, the notarial fees are turned over to the
government and a certification is made in the notarized documents attesting to the A.Disciplinary Matters
lack of any lawyer or notary public in such municipality or circuit.
1.Justices and Judges Judicial discipline matters involving
In the case at bar, there is no showing that there was no lawyer or notary public in the justices and judges of all lower courts (Court of Appeals,
Dulag, Leyte. Therefore, respondent judge's action as a notary public cannot Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, Regional Trial Courts,
qualify as an exception to Circular No. 1-90. Metropolitan Trial Courts, MTCC, MTC, Shari'a Courts) filed
with the Office of the Court Administrator or the lower courts
The defense interposed by the respondent that he sees nothing wrong with what
shall be immediately referred to the Court En Banc for
he has done, nor that he abused his authority when he notarized the subject
appropriate action.
pleading, is unmeritorious. Judge Galapon should know what the duties of a judge
acting as an ex-oficio notary public are, and, if he was uncertain of what they are, The Office of the Court Administrator, as the name suggests, deals mainly with
he should have first verified from the Office of the Court Administrator the extent of administrative functions of the courts. It can act on matters concerning the judicial
his authority to notarize documents. discipline of judges of the MTC, among others. Criminal cases are out of its
hands. EcDSTI
As to the charge of False Testimony and Perjury, the complainant is advised to
institute a criminal case with the proper trial court. WHEREFORE, for unauthorized notarization which constitutes an unlawful
practice of law, respondent Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr. of the Municipal Trial
In Circular No. 30-91 which outlined the Guidelines on the Functions of the Office
Court at Dulag, Leyte is hereby ordered to pay a FINE of Five Thousand Pesos
of the Court Administrator, we read:
(P5,000.00). He is further warned that a repetition of the same or similar
I.General Considerations infractions will be dealt with more severely.

A.The Supreme Court exercises administrative supervision SO ORDERED.


over all lower courts. In the discharge of its administrative
Mendoza, Quisumbing, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
functions, the Court is assisted by the Court Administrator
and the Deputy Court Administrators (P.D. No. 828, as Bellosillo, J., on official leave.
amended by P.D. No. 842). The Court thus acts through the
court administrators in the exercise of its administrative ||| (Ellert v. Galapon Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-00-1294, [July 31, 2000], 391 PHIL 456-
functions. (See A.M. No. 343-RTJ In Re: Regional Trial Court 466)
Judge of Balanga, Bataan).

xxx xxx xxx

C.The work attended to by the Office of the Court FIRST DIVISION


Administrator, either on its responsibility or with the approval
of the Court En Banc, may be classified into the following
categories: [A.M. No. RTJ-99-1500. October 20, 1999.]
(formerly AM OCA IPI 97-261-RTJ)
1.Judicial discipline of lower court justices, judges and
personnel;
VICTORIANO B. CARUAL, complainant, vs. JUDGE 1. JUDICIAL ETHICS; RESPONDENT JUDGE VIOLATED CANON 5 OF THE
VLADIMIR B. BRUSOLA, Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT WHICH ENJOINS MEMBERS OF THE BENCH
Legazpi City, respondent. TO REGULATE THEIR EXTRA-JUDICIAL ACTIVITIES TO MINIMIZE THE RISK
OF CONFLICT WITH THEIR JUDICIAL DUTIES. After a thorough examination
and evaluation of the testimonial and documentary evidence submitted by the
SYNOPSIS parties, we find that respondent judge violated Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct which enjoins members of the bench to regulate their extra-judicial
Complainant Victoriano Carual filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a sworn activities to minimize the risk of conflict with their judicial duties. In his comment to
complaint against respondent Judge Vladimir B. Brusola, Regional Trial Court, the administrative complaint, as well as in his testimony before the investigating
Branch 6, Legazpi City, for violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Anti- Justice of the Court of Appeals, respondent judge admitted that he has been the
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019). Complainant alleged that the house of administrator of the properties of the heirs of Victor Bocaya since 1976 and he did
a certain Andres Bo had encroached a portion of his son's lot located at Barangay not resign from such position even after his appointment to the judiciary on March
Fatima, Albay. Complainant sought the assistance of lawyer Julian Cargullo who 23, 1990. This was affirmed by the testimony of Rodolfo Buban that on November
wrote Andres Bo ordering him to remove his house from the lot. Andres Bo 27, 1995, respondent judge, signing as administrator, wrote the Barangay Captain
allegedly engaged the legal services of respondent judge who wrote Atty. Cargullo of San Roque, Tabaco, Albay to inform him that Buban had no right to lot 1656 of
stating that the lot in question had been sold to Crispin and Ursula Bo, landlord of the Tabaco Cadastre. This is a clear violation of Rule 5.06 of the Code of Judicial
Andres Bo. Complainant contended that respondent's act amounted to private Conduct. As a general rule, a judge is prohibited from serving as executor,
practice of law. The Office of the Ombudsman referred the complaint to the Office administrator, trustee, guardian or other fiduciary. The only exception is when the
of the Court Administrator. The Court required respondent judge to comment on estate or trust belongs to, or the ward is a member of his immediate family, and
the complaint. Respondent Judge denied the charges and explained that he wrote only if his service as executor, administrator, trustee, guardian or fiduciary will not
the letter to Atty. Cargullo not as counsel for a party but in the concept of an owner interfere with the proper performance of his judicial duties. The Code has defined
since he was the administrator of the property in question. who may be considered as members of his immediate family and they are the
spouse and relatives within the second degree of consanguinity. It does not
After a thorough examination and evaluation of the testimonial and documentary appear in this case that Victor Bocaya or his heirs are members of respondent
evidence submitted by the parties, the Court found that respondent judge violated judge's immediate family.
Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which enjoins members of the bench to
regulate their extra-judicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with their 2. ID.; ID.; WHEN THE MEMBER OF THE BENCH SERVES AS
judicial duties. According to the Court, respondent's act of representing and ADMINISTRATOR OF THE PROPERTIES OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS, HE RUNS
defending the interest of a private individual in the disputed property constitutes THE RISK OF LOSING HIS NEUTRALITY AND IMPARTIALITY, ESPECIALLY
practice of law. The Court stressed that under Section 35, Rule 138 of the Revised WHEN THE INTEREST OF HIS PRINCIPAL CONFLICTS WITH THAT OF THE
Rules of Court, judges are prohibited from engaging in the private practice of law LITIGANT WHO COMES BEFORE HIS COURT. We disagree with
or giving professional advice to clients. The said rule, according to the Court, is respondent's argument that the proscription refers only to judges acting as judicial
based on public policy because the rights, duties, privileges and functions of the administrator. The Code does not qualify the prohibition. The intent of the rule is to
office of an attorney are inherently incompatible with the high official functions, limit a judge's involvement in the affairs and interests of private individuals to
duties, powers, discretion and privilege of a judge. Respondent judge was fined in minimize the risk of conflict with his judicial duties and to allow him to devote his
the amount of P5,000.00 with warning that the commission of similar or other undivided attention to the performance of his official functions. Judges have the
offenses shall be dealt with more severely. duty to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. When a member of
the bench serves as administrator of the properties of private individuals, he runs
the risk of losing his neutrality and impartiality, especially when the interest of his
SYLLABUS principal conflicts with that of the litigant who comes before his court.
3. ID.; ID.; THE RULES OF COURT PROHIBITS JUDGES FROM ENGAGING IN that Francisco Carual gave complainant a special power of attorney to represent
THE PRIVATE PRACTICE OF LAW OR GIVING PROFESSIONAL ADVICE TO him in the civil action for quieting of title involving said lot; that complainant
CLIENTS; IN CASE AT BAR, RESPONDENT'S ACT OF REPRESENTING AND discovered that the house of Andres Bo had encroached a portion of said lot; that
DEFENDING THE INTEREST OF A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL IN THE DISPUTED complainant sought the assistance of Atty. Julian Cargullo who wrote Andres Bo
PROPERTY CONSTITUTES PRIVATE PRACTICE OF LAW. We also find merit ordering him to remove his house from the lot; that Andres Bo engaged the legal
in complainant's contention that respondent's act of writing to Atty. Cargullo and services of respondent judge who, on June 11, 1995, wrote Atty. Cargullo stating
defending the right of Andres Bo to possess the lot in dispute amounts to private that the lot in question had been sold to Crispin and Ursula Bo, landlord of Andres
practice of law. The tenor of the letter shows that respondent, as representative of Bo; that respondent judge's act amounted to private practice of law, in violation of
Andres Bo, was defending the latter's right over the disputed property. the Code of Judicial Conduct. Complainant also suspected that all the pleadings
Respondent's act of representing and defending the interest of a private individual filed by Andres Bo in the civil case pending before RTC Branch 16, Tabaco, Albay
in the disputed property constitutes private practice of law. It has been ruled that involving said lot were prepared by respondent judge as the style of writing
"the practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court or participation in showed that they were drafted by a lawyer or judge. Complainant further alleged
court proceedings but also includes preparation of pleadings or papers in that respondent judge violated RA 3019 by being partial and giving undue favor to
anticipation of a litigation, giving advice to clients or persons needing the same, a private individual. cdasia
etc." Under Section 35, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, judges are
On October 21, 1996, the Office of the Ombudsman referred the complaint to the
prohibited from engaging in the private practice of law or giving professional
Office of the Court Administrator. 2
advice to clients. This is reiterated in Rule 5.07 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
As in Rule 5.06, this rule is also based on public policy because the rights, duties, On February 5, 1997, the Court required respondent judge to comment on the
privileges and functions of the office of an attorney-at-law are inherently complaint. 3
incompatible with the high official functions, duties, powers, discretion and
privileges of a judge. It also aims to ensure that judges give their full time and In his Comment 4 dated April 11, 1997, respondent judge denied the charges
attention to their judicial duties, prevent them from extending special favors to their against him. He argued that a public officer or employee may be held liable for
own private interests and assure the public of their impartiality in the performance violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 when he causes any undue injury or gives
of their functions. These objectives are dictated by a sense of moral decency and any party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference in the discharge of
desire to promote the public interest. CAaDSI his official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident
bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. He said that he could not have given
any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference to either complainant or Andres
Bo in the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial functions as they had
DECISION no pending case before his sala. Furthermore, he stated that since the civil case
filed by complainant against Andres Bo was pending before Branch 16, RTC,
Tabaco, Albay presided by Judge Caesar Bordeos and since the lot in question
PUNO, J p: was outside his territorial jurisdiction, it was impossible for him to favor a party in
the performance of his official, administrative or judicial function.
On August 14, 1996, complainant Victoriano Carual filed with the Office of the
Ombudsman a sworn complaint 1 against respondent Judge Vladimir B. Brusola,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Legazpi City, for violation of the Code of Judicial Respondent judge likewise denied the charge of violation of the Code of Judicial
Conduct and the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019). The complaint Conduct. He said that Andres Bo did not approach him for legal assistance as he
alleged that complainant's son, Francisco Carual, was the owner of a parcel of had his own counsel, Atty. Levi M. Ramirez. He explained that he wrote the letter
land measuring 3,607 square meters located at Barangay Fatima, Tabaco, Albay; to Atty. Cargullo dated June 11, 1995 not as counsel for a party but in the concept
of an owner since he was the administrator of the property in question. He stated and that the latter would even be provided with money to
that he has been the administrator of the properties of the heirs of Victor Bocaya assist him in his transfer; that Andres Bo consulted Judge
since 1976, long before his appointment to the Judiciary. Respondent judge Vladimir B. Brusola of Branch 6, City Court of Legazpi, Albay
submitted that his "management of the properties entrusted to him by his principal and the latter wrote a letter to Atty. Cargullo on June 11, 1995
and attending to transferees of these properties when the same is or are claimed and, that the acts of Judge Brusola constituted a violation
by other persons are . . . plain and simple acts of ownership and possession of of Republic Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
any property owner." and Code of Judicial [Conduct] (Exh. 'B'; Rollo, pp. 2-3) This
'Sinumpaang Habla' was prepared in the Office of the
Complainant filed a reply to respondent's comment on December 29, 1997. He
Ombudsman and complainant Carual was not assisted by
reiterated his allegation that respondent judge has been engaging in private
Atty. Cargullo for reasons the latter did not disclose. (TSN,
practice of law by preparing pleadings in connection with the cases involving the
May 7, 1999, pp. 31-32) prLL
properties under his administration. 5
"Upon cross-examination of complainant Carual, it was
On August 3, 1998, the Court referred the complaint to the Court of Appeals for
established that the letter of Judge Brusola dated June 11,
investigation, report and recommendation. 6 The case was assigned to Justice
1995 preceded the institution of the complaint against Andres
Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.
Bo. (Ibid., pp. 49-51) Carual also admitted that he did not see
Justice Velasco conducted a hearing on May 7, 1999. He limited the investigation who prepared the pleadings but he can see that they were
to the factual issue of whether respondent judge is engaging or has engaged in made by an intelligent person. Andres Bo could not have
private practice of law. prepared the pleadings because he was neither educated nor
knowledgeable. (Ibid., p. 53) As to which specific documents
The complainant presented two witnesses: complainant himself and Rodolfo were similar or were prepared by one person,
Buban. The respondent, on the other hand, presented three witnesses: complainant Carual was referring to the letter of
respondent himself, Judge Cesar Bordeos and Atty. Levi Ramirez. Justice Velasco JudgeBrusola dated June 11, 1995 and the Answer of Andres
summarized the testimonies of the witnesses as follows: Bo in the civil case. (Ibid., p. 56)
"Complainant Victoriano Carual adopted his 'Sinumpaang "Rodolfo Buban, complainant's witness, testified that
Habla' dated August 14, 1996 as his direct testimony, to wit: respondent Judge Brusola was involved in a case involving a
that he was given a Special Power of Attorney by his son, parcel of land described as Lot 1656. A certain Araceli
Francisco Bueno Carual, to institute appropriate action Bocaya Centeno was claiming ownership over the same.
involving a parcel of land located in Barangay Fatima, Tabaco, Hence, a case was instituted to settle the dispute and the
Albay, which the latter owned; that the case was originally contending parties therein were Domingo Buban, witness'
assigned to Judge Bordeos and later transferred to Judge father, Cecilia Centeno and Ursula Bo. In 1974, respondent
Cabredo in exchange for a criminal case from which the latter Judge Brusola represented Cecilia Centeno on said case.
inhibited himself, (Ibid., pp. 37-42); that a certain Andres Bo Presently, witness Rodolfo Buban is in possession of the land
constructed a house on said land seven or eight years ago; in dispute. However, he claims that his possession was
that Victoriano Carual caused said land to be surveyed and threatened by Judge Brusola by virtue of a letter written by
as a result thereof, it was shown that Andres Bo's house was him on November 27, 1995. (Ibid., pp. 60-69) In this letter,
actually encroaching on Francisco Bueno Carual's land; that Judge Brusola, as administrator, advised Leoncio
he consulted a lawyer, Atty. Julian C. Cargullo, who in turn, Buenconsenjo, Barangay Captain of San Roque, Tabaco,
wrote a letter to Andres Bo telling him to vacate the premises Albay, that the witness, Rodolfo Buban, who was ejected from
Lot 2367, is encouraging people to occupy Lot 1656 for a personally knows JudgeBrusola; and, that Judge Brusola did
certain consideration or price. (Exh. 'F'; Rollo, p. 95) not approach him or talk to him about Civil Case No. T-1815
nor any other case and that he (Judge Brusola) does not
"On cross-examination, witness Rodolfo Buban testified that
meddle in any of the cases pending before him (Judge
the case involving Lot 1656 was instituted in 1974; that a
Bordeos). (Exh. '1'; Rollo, p. 130)
certain Vladimir Brusola, then practicing lawyer, represented
the Centenos and the Bos in said case; that a decision on "On cross-examination, Judge Bordeos declared that he was
said case was rendered in 1989 and the same was appealed already presiding judge in Civil Case No. T-1815 when the
to the Court of Appeals; that respondent Brusola was not yet 'Answer' was filed by Andres Bo. According to Judge Bordeos'
a judge in 1989 when the case was decided; that when testimony, upon finding out that Andres Bo had no lawyer, he
respondent JudgeBrusola was appointed as a judge, another instructed his staff to get in touch with Andres Bo for him to
lawyer in the name of Aurora Benamira Parcia took over the hire one. In his testimony, it was also noted that after the
case; and that nothing in the letter dated November 27, 1995 "Answer" was filed, several other pleadings were submitted by
would show that Judge Brusola was doing any act of Andres Bo, all of which were signed by Mr. Bo without the
lawyering to the opponents of witness' father. (TSN, May 7, assistance of a lawyer. However, the filing of the pleadings
1999, pp. 73-76) For the record, Judge Brusola was was a prerogative of Andres Bo which the court could not
appointed as a judge on March 23, 1990 and took his oath on refuse. The witness later issued an order to the defendant
April 2, 1990. (Ibid., pp. 74-75) With respect to Lot No. 2367, ordering him to submit pleadings signed by a lawyer,
witness Rodolfo Buban admitted that his wife owned a house otherwise, he will be held in contempt. (TSN, May 7, 1999,
thereon and said house was caused to be demolished by pp. 105-112) As to the highly technical contents of the
Celia Bocaya Centeno, the former client of Judge Brusola. pleadings, Judge Bordeos testified that he did not know
(Ibid., pp. 78-81) Andres Bo personally so he could not tell whether the
pleadings were prepared by him or another person. (Ibid., pp.
"On re-direct examination, witness Buban testified that when
114-117) cdphil
the letter dated November 27, 1995 was written, respondent
Judge Brusola was already a judge and he represented "Respondent's second witness, Atty. Levi M. Ramirez also
himself as an administrator when he was already occupying adopted his Affidavit executed on March 18, 1999 as part of
said position. (Ibid., pp. 81-82) his direct testimony. Said affidavit stated that he is the counsel
of record for defendants Andres Bo, et al. in Civil Case No. T-
"For his defense, private respondent Judge Brusola presented
1815; that the pleadings filed by the defendants in said case
Judge Cesar A. Bordeos, Presiding Judge of the Regional
were all prepared or caused to be prepared by him as counsel
Trial Court of Tabaco, Albay, Branch 16, and Atty. Levi
for the defendants and no other; and, that he personally
Ramirez, counsel of Andres Bo, as witnesses.
knows JudgeBrusola and that the latter did not interfere in the
"Judge Cesar Bordeos adopted the Affidavit he executed on preparation or filing of any of the pleadings and in the manner
February 23, 1999 as his direct testimony which stated that the case should be handled. (Exh. '2'; Records, p. 131)
he is the judge of the court where Civil Case No. T-1815 is
"Atty. Ramirez also testified that he prepared the 'Answer' and
pending which is entitled 'Francisco Carual vs. Andres Bo, et
the 'Comment on Plaintiff's Motion for Production and
al.' for Quieting of Title, Recovery of Possession, Preliminary
Inspection of Documents,' both of which were filed and signed
Mandatory Injunction and Damages; that the counsel of
by Andres Bo. He prepared these pleadings without
record for the defendant is Atty. Levi Ramirez; that he
anybody's assistance, except that he elicited information from administrative case; that neither Victoriano Carual nor Andres
Mr. Bo. (TSN, May 7, 1999, pp. 121-125) He stated that he Bo has any case pending before his sala and he did not
entered his formal appearance on December 4, 1996 as cause undue injury or gave unwarranted benefit, advantage
counsel of Andres Bo only after the latter was able to make or preference to either of these two individuals in the
partial payments. Since the case was filed in Legazpi City and discharge of his official functions; that the case between
considering the distance from Tabaco to Legazpi City, he complainant Carual and Andres Bo is pending before the
needed such partial payment to ensure that he would have Regional Trial Court of Tabaco, Albay, Branch 16 where
money for his gasoline and initial appearance. Regarding the Judge Cezar Bordeos is the presiding judge; that he
Answer filed by Andres Bo, Atty. Ramirez said that the former confirmed that he did not interfere in the preparation and filing
asked him to file the Answer, otherwise, he would be declared of the pleadings in Civil Case No. T-1815 nor did he render
in default. This is the reason Atty. Ramirez accommodated any legal assistance to any of the defendants therein, his
Andres Bo. In the meantime, Andres Bo promised Atty. interest being limited to his being an administrator of the
Ramirez that he would make the partial payments and the property subject of said case. (Exh. '3'; Rollo, pp. 132-133)
latter told him that only after payment will he formally enter his
"On cross-examination, Judge Brusola admitted that he was
appearance as counsel. Atty. Ramirez personally knows
engaged in the practice prior to his appointment as a judge.
Judge Brusola and has two or three cases before his sala.
As regards the administration of Bo's property, he did not find
Andres and Ursula Bo told him that Judge Brusola is the
it necessary for him to withdraw as administrator because this
administrator of the properties when he was still a practicing
is not required by law. Besides, it does not conflict with his
lawyer.
duties and functions and the property is outside of his
territorial jurisdiction. When he sent the letter to the Barangay
Captain referring regarding Lot 1656, he was acting as
"On cross-examination, Atty. Ramirez reiterated that he was
administrator of the lot, not as judge nor a lawyer. Regarding
the one who prepared the pleadings signed by Andres Bo.
Andres Bo's consultation with him, Judge Brusola explained
Moreover, he stated that he never talked to
that the former came to him because Atty. Cargullo, then
Judge Brusola regarding the case from the time Ursula Bo
complainant Carual's counsel, was asking for documents
went to his office up to the time he entered his appearance.
which were in his possession. He believed that it was within
The only occasion that he and Judge Brusola discussed the
his prerogative as administrator of the property to contest any
case was when the latter informed him that an administrative
claim against the property being administered by him. Lastly,
case was filed against him (JudgeBrusola) regarding the
Judge Brusola clarified that while
preparation of the pleadings filed by Andres Bo. In response,
complainant Carual questions his involvement in the
Atty. Ramirez told Judge Brusola that he would be willing to
preparation of the pleadings filed in Civil Case No. T-1815,
testify that he was the one who prepared all the pleadings.
the fact remains that the latter did not see him prepare any of
(Ibid., pp. 142-143)
those pleadings. (TSN, May 7, 1999, pp. 149-150) 7
"Judge Brusola also submitted himself as his own witness
After the hearing, complainant and respondent filed their respective
and adopted his Affidavit executed on March 17, 1999 and his
memoranda. LLpr
Comment to the Supreme Court as his direct testimony. He
stated therein that he is the presiding judge of Regional Trial After a thorough examination and evaluation of the testimonial and documentary
Court Branch 6, Legazpi City and the respondent in his evidence submitted by the parties, we find that respondent judge violated Canon 5
of the Code of Judicial Conduct which enjoins members of the bench to regulate functions. Judges have the duty to uphold the integrity and independence of the
their extra-judicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with their judicial duties. judiciary. When a member of the bench serves as administrator of the properties
of private individuals, he runs the risk of losing his neutrality and impartiality,
In his Comment to the administrative complaint, as well as in his testimony before
especially when the interest of his principal conflicts with that of the litigant who
the investigating Justice of the Court of Appeals, respondent judge admitted that
comes before his court.
he has been the administrator of the properties of the heirs of Victor Bocaya since
1976 and he did not resign from such position even after his appointment to the We also find merit in complainant's contention that respondent's act of writing to
judiciary on March 23, 1990. 8 This was affirmed by the testimony of Rodolfo Atty. Cargullo and defending the right of Andres Bo to possess the lot in dispute
Buban that on November 27, 1995, respondent judge, signing as administrator, amounts to private practice of law. The letter 10 reads:
wrote the Barangay Captain of San Roque, Tabaco, Albay to inform him that
"June 11, 1995
Buban had no right to lot 1656 of the Tabaco Cadastre. 9 This is a clear violation
of Rule 5.06 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which provides: "Atty. Julian C. Cargullo

"Rule 5.06 A judge should not serve as the executor, Bishop Ariola Drive
administrator, trustee, guardian, or other fiduciary, except for
the estate, trust, or person of a member of the immediate Karanghan Blvd., Tabaco, Albay
family, and then only if such service will not interfere with the "Dear July:
proper performance of judicial duties. "Members of immediate
family" shall be limited to the spouse and relatives within the "This is in connection with your letter dated June 9, 1995 to
second degree of consanguinity. As a family fiduciary, a judge Mr. Andres Bo of Fatima, Tabaco, Albay with respect to his
shall not: occupancy of lot no. 7 Tabaco Cadastre.

(1) serve in proceedings that might come before the court of "Please be informed that Lot No. 7 was among those sold by
said judge; or Pantaleon Bueno and all his children to Victor Bocaya before
the Japanese war which was in turn sold by the heirs of Victor
(2) act as such contrary to Rules 5.02 to 5.05." Bocaya to the spouses Crispin Bo and Ursula Bo, landlord of
As a general rule, a judge is prohibited from serving as executor, administrator, Andres Bo and who instituted Andres Bo as the riceland
trustee, guardian or other fiduciary. The only exception is when the estate or trust tenant of their nearby lot 1656 and his house on lot no. 7 had
belongs to, or the ward is a member of his immediate family, and only if his service been there since 1950. A copy of the document of sale is in
as executor, administrator, trustee, guardian or fiduciary will not interfere with the my possession as the administrator of all the properties of the
proper performance of his judicial duties. The Code has defined who may be heirs of Victor Bocaya at San Roque, Tabaco, Albay. A copy
considered as members of his immediate family and they are the spouse and of the sale was shown to VictorianoCarual during their
relatives within the second degree of consanguinity. It does not appear in this case confrontation at the office of the barangay captain of Fatima,
that Victor Bocaya or his heirs are members of respondent judge's immediate Tabaco, Albay last Wednesday June 7, 1995.
family. "I do hope this will clarify the matters. Mr.
We disagree with respondent's argument that the proscription refers only to judges Victoriano Carual has no right whatsoever to lot no. 7 and his
acting as judicial administrator. The Code does not qualify the prohibition. The documents if any could not have been secured if not by fraud.
intent of the rule is to limit a judge's involvement in the affairs and interests of The truth is that Mr. Victoriano Carual has never set foot on
private individuals to minimize the risk of conflict with his judicial duties and to any portion of lot no. 7 yet even up to now. His documents are
allow him to devote his undivided attention to the performance of his official reminiscent of the late 'Flores documents and titles.'
"My best regards.

Very truly yours, Nonetheless, it has not been proved that respondent judge has regularly engaged
in private practice. Although complainant suspects that it was respondent who
(sgd.)VLADIMIR
prepared the pleadings filed by Andres Bo and Ursula Bo in connection with the
B. BRUSOLA"
civil case for quieting of title pending before the RTC of Tabaco, Albay, such
The tenor of the letter shows that respondent, as representative of Andres Bo, was suspicion has remained a suspicion and was not proven to be a fact. There is no
defending the latter's rights over the disputed property. Respondent's act of direct evidence, testimonial or documentary, to show that respondent judge
representing and defending the interest of a private individual in the disputed prepared said pleadings. Complainant admitted during the hearing that he did not
property constitutes private practice of law. It has been ruled that "the practice of see who prepared the pleadings and he merely presumed based on their content
law is not limited to the conduct of cases in court or participation in court and appearance that they were prepared by an intelligent person. 14 Neither did
proceedings but also includes preparation of pleadings or papers in anticipation of he present any witness to testify that respondent judge authored these pleadings.
a litigation, giving advice to clients or persons needing the same, etc." 11 Complainant's documentary evidence consists of respondent's letter to Atty.
Cargullo dated June 11, 1995, 15 respondent's letter to Mr. Leoncio Buenconsejo
Under Section 35, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, judges are prohibited dated November 27, 1995, 16 Answer signed by Andres Bo and filed in relation to
from engaging in the private practice of law or giving professional advice to clients. the civil case, 17 and Comment on Plaintiff's Motion for Production and Inspection
This is reiterated in Rule 5.07 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. As in Rule 5.06, of Documents 18 also signed by Andres Bo and filed in relation to the civil case.
this rule is also based on public policy because the rights, duties, privileges and Although it appears that these documents were written by one who has knowledge
functions of the office of an attorney-at-law are inherently incompatible with the and training in the law, they do not conclusively show that it was respondent judge
high official functions, duties, powers, discretion and privileges of a judge. It also who prepared them. These documents do not show any distinctive style of writing
aims to ensure that judges give their full time and attention to their judicial duties, peculiar to respondent judge. Even the similarity in the type of print used in these
prevent them from extending special favors to their own private interests and documents do not prove complainant's allegation for it is of judicial notice that
assure the public of their impartiality in the performance of their functions. These computers do produce the same types of print. LexLib
objectives are dictated by a sense of moral decency and desire to promote the
public interest. 12 As regards the charge of violation of RA 3019, the records show that complainant
did not adduce any evidence to show that respondent judge has been partial to a
Respondent's pretext that he wrote the letter as administrator of the property is party or has given any unwarranted benefit or favor to a party in the exercise of his
belied by the records. It appears that the property in question was originally owned judicial functions.
by a certain Pantaleon Bueno. Before the Japanese War, Bueno sold the land to
Victor Bocaya who was later succeeded by his heirs Cecilia Centeno, Victoria IN VIEW WHEREOF, a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) is hereby
Jocson and Antonio Bocaya. The property was later transferred to Crispin and imposed upon respondent judge for violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, with
Ursula Bo who instituted Andres Bo as their tenant. On March 20, 1976, Cecilia warning that the commission of similar or other offenses shall be dealt with more
Centeno appointed respondent judge who was then a practicing lawyer as severely. Respondent judge is further ordered to cease from serving as
administrator of their properties.13 It is therefore clear that at the time respondent administrator of the properties of private individuals except those allowed by the
judge wrote to Atty. Cargullo, the land in dispute was no longer under his Code.
administration as ownership thereof had already been transferred by the heirs to
SO ORDERED.
the Bo spouses. The terms of the General Power of Attorney provide that
respondent's office as administrator shall extend only over authority to interfere in Davide, Jr., C.J. and Pardo, J., concur.
the dispute between complainant and Andres Bo unless he did act as counsel and
Kapunan and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., are on official business abroad.
representative of Andres Bo.
Footnotes Million Pesos, the two of us will receive a commission of
||| (Carual v. Brusola, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1500, [October 20, 1999], 375 PHIL 464- P100,000.00 each while the remaining amount or net gain be
479) retained by Judge Barte as his commission based on his
agreement with the vendors. 3

When requested to put their agreement in writing, respondent judge allegedly


answered: "A municipal trial judge occupies the forefront of the judicial arm
THIRD DIVISION that is the closest in reach to the public he serves and he must accordingly
act at all times with great constancy and utmost probity." Complainant did not
insist on her request after hearing this.
[A.M. No. MTJ-02-1452. April 6, 2005.]
The three of them subsequently conferred with Bobby J. Villalobos, the district
(formerly OCA IPI No. 01-1119-MTJ) president of the Church. They offered the parcels of land owned by Bitoon Cezar
and Aurea Clarin in Sibalom, Antique. 4
EDITHA O. CATBAGAN, complainant, vs. JUDGE
Thereafter, on January 18, 2001, the Church agreed to purchase lots 336-A and
FELIXBERTO P. BARTE, Municipal Circuit Trial Court,
336-B owned by Bitoon Cezar for P1,120,300. 5
Tobias Fornier, Antique,respondent.
Lot 334 owned by Aurea Clarin was also sold for P2,199,000 on February 19,
2001. 6

RESOLUTION Meanwhile, lot 5555 located in Hamtic, Antique owned by Eleanor M. Checa-
Santos was sold on February 12, 2001 for P2,300,000. 7

For the first two sales, complainant claimed she was entitled to a P300,000
CORONA, J p: commission. cISDHE

In a verified letter-complaint 1 dated September 17, 2001 addressed to the Since the Church transacted with respondent only, it paid the price of the
Honorable Chief Justice, through the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), properties to him. Respondent then delivered the amount due to the vendors.
complainant Editha O. Catbagan charged respondent Judge Felixberto P. Barte of
When complainant heard that the vendors had been paid, she demanded her
the 1st Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Tobias Fornier, Antique with "grave
commission from respondent. However, respondent offered her only P25,000 for
and serious misconduct." 2
the two transactions, excluding the one in Hamtic.
In the first week of May 1999, complainant received information that the Church of
Complainant later learned that respondent received a P435,226.55 commission
Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Inc. (Church) was interested in buying land in
from the Aurea Clarin transaction alone. 8
the Province of Antique. She immediately approached respondent judge and
requested him to assist her in the prospective transaction. Together with a certain Complainant reminded respondent of their agreement but respondent challenged
Abraham Pedria, the three agreed that in case they succeeded in brokering the complainant "to go to court." Instead of pursuing her claim in a civil suit, however,
sale of the properties to the Church, their commission would be divided in this complainant opted to file the present administrative case against respondent on
manner: September 17, 2001.

. . . the three of us agreed in the house of Judge Barte that for


every sale transaction if the purchase price exceed One
In a 1st Indorsement 9 dated October 18, 2001, Court Administrator Presbitero J. In a report and recommendation 12 dated June 13, 2002, the OCA found
Velasco, Jr. referred the complaint to respondent for his comment on the charge of respondent not guilty of the charges against him but recommended a fine of
conduct unbecoming of a judge. P5,000 for violating Canon 5, Rule 5.02 13 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. It also
warned respondent against directly engaging in any private business even outside
In his comment, 10 respondent denied the charge against him and asked for the
office hours, otherwise a more severe penalty would be imposed upon him. The
dismissal of the administrative case on the following grounds:
OCA further noted that another administrative case, entitled Jose Berin and Merly
First, there was ambiguity in the charge of grave and serious Alorro v. Judge Felixberto P. Barte, 14 had been filed against respondent. It
misconduct in the complaint and conduct unbecoming of a involved a transaction similar to the one in this complaint.
judge in the OCA indorsement. Because of this confusion, he
Initially, we will discuss respondent's assertion that this administrative case should
was deprived of his right to be informed of the real charge
be dismissed for being ambiguous. According to respondent, the confusion denied
against him. Consequently, he was not able to properly
him the opportunity to properly defend himself.
prepare his defense.
Despite the apparent confusion brought about by the charge of (1) "grave and
Second, complainant's allegations were baseless and
serious misconduct" in the complaint and (2) "conduct unbecoming of a judge" in
designed merely to harass and dishonor respondent.
the OCA indorsement, the dismissal of the complaint is not warranted. The
According to him, complainant and Pedria went to his house
records show that respondent refuted both charges in his comment and
and told him about the intention of the Church to buy land in
manifestation. 15 The OCA could not be faulted for describing the charge as
Antique. Subsequently, he informed the chapter president of
"conduct unbecoming of a judge" (instead of "grave and serious misconduct")
the Church that there were several parcels of land in the
because the allegations pointed to none other but that offense. Noticeably, in
Municipality of Sibalom that met their requirements. For two
complainant's reply 16 and letter-request 17 for early resolution, she consistently
years, he spent after-office hours and weekends to
described her charge against respondent as "conduct unbecoming of a judge." We
consummate the transaction. He labored hard because the
therefore cannot dismiss outright the administrative case on this ground alone,
transaction could augment his meager income and enable
considering that respondent knew fully well what he was being charged with. In
him to send his three children to good colleges in Iloilo City.
fact, he defended himself against the charges.
He admitted that Pedria assisted him but maintained that
complainant had no involvement in the transaction other than In a long line of cases, we have held that the essence of due process in
attending the initial meeting with the chapter president. He administrative proceedings is simply the opportunity to explain one's side. 18
claimed that it was he, not the complainant, who looked for
The question of whether complainant was or was not entitled to a commission for
the land to be sold to the Church. He submitted the sworn
her efforts in the sale of the parcels of land to the Church should be threshed out
affidavit 11 of the vendor's lawyer, Atty. Francisco Javier, who
in a proper civil case. aCASEH
never met the complainant nor transacted with her.
Respondent also claimed that the agreement was for him to What is therefore left for us to thresh out is respondent's administrative liability for
shoulder all the expenses relative to the transaction, including his admitted financial and business dealings.
its documentation. Pedria's affidavit supported respondent's
claim that they never agreed on a commission scheme, We note the OCA's observation that this is not the first time an administrative case
contrary to complainant's assertion. If ever respondent gave of the same nature has been filed against respondent. In Jose Berin and Merly
money for any information or assistance in the transaction, Alorro v. Judge Felixberto P. Barte, 19 respondent judge was also charged with
the amount depended entirely on his discretion. grave and serious misconduct for refusing to give the complainants therein their
respective commissions in the sale of land to the Manila Mission of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Inc. The Court, in that case, found respondent We find, however, that his claim is not exactly correct. Respondent himself
guilty of violating Canon 5.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct: emphasized to this Court in his manifestation 21 dated February 23, 2004 that,
aside from his duties in the 1st MCTC, he was also designated as Acting Presiding
By allowing himself to act as agent in the sale of the subject
Judge of the 5th MCTC and in several cases in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of
property, respondent judge has increased the possibility of his
San Jose, Antique. Considering this, the likelihood that he could have also been
disqualification to act as an impartial judge in the event that a
designated in the 2nd MCTC (with jurisdiction over Sibalom) was neither remote
dispute involving the said contract of sale arises. Also, the
nor impossible. Had any of the parties in the subject transaction filed suit, his
possibility that the parties to the sale might plead before his
inhibition would have been called for because of his aforecited business dealings.
court is not remote and his business dealings with them might
not only create suspicion as to his fairness but also to his Given these circumstances, respondent judge ought perhaps to seriously consider
ability to render it in a manner that is free from any suspicion leaving the judiciary and becoming a full-time real estate broker instead. The latter
as to its fairness and impartiality and also as to the judge's calling appears to have a special appeal to him.
integrity.
Although every office in the government is a public trust, no position exacts greater
The Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that "[a] judge shall refrain from financial demand on moral righteousness and uprightness of an individual than a seat in
and business dealings that tend to reflect adversely on the court's impartiality, the judiciary. A magistrate of the law must comport himself at all times in such
interfere with the proper performance of judicial activities, or increase involvement manner that his conduct, official or otherwise, can bear the most searching
with lawyers or persons likely to come before the court. A judge should so manage scrutiny of the public that looks up to him as the epitome of integrity and
investments and other financial interests as to minimize the number of cases justice. 22
giving grounds for disqualification."20
We acknowledge that respondent has been in judicial service since 1990 up to the
Canon 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics also cautions a judge from ". . . making present. We find his declaration that no criminal or civil case has ever been filed
personal investments in enterprises which are apt to be involved in litigation in his against him to be true. However, the present administrative case and an earlier
court . . ." decided case with similar facts are too glaring to ignore. In that case, we reminded
him that judges must not only be "good judges" but must also "appear to be good
As observed by the OCA, respondent judge should have refrained from
persons." 23 In the judiciary, moral integrity is more than a cardinal virtue; it is a
participating in the transaction. By allowing himself to act as an agent in the sale
necessity. 24
of the properties, respondent increased the possibility of his disqualification in the
event that a dispute involving the said contracts of sale arose. Moreover, the In Poso v. Mijares, 25 we held that "public interest in an adept and honest judiciary
possibility that the parties in the sale might have appeared before his court was dictates that notice of future harsher penalties should not be followed by another
not remote and his business dealings with them would have then created a doubt forewarning of the same kind, ad infinitum, but by discipline through appropriate
about his fairness and impartiality. penalties." CTSAaH

Respondent submits that the jurisdiction of the 1st MCTC covers the Municipalities As already mentioned, respondent was previously sanctioned for an identical
of Tobias Fornier, Hamtic and Aniniy. The 2nd MCTC, on the other hand, covers infraction involving the sale of land to the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day
Sibalom, San Remigio and Belison. Hence, since the parties and subject matter Saints, Inc. We ordered him to pay a fine of P2,000, admonished him to be more
involved in the controversy were not within the jurisdiction of the 1st MCTC, his discreet and prudent in his private dealings and warned him that a similar
judicial authority could have never been invoked had a case arisen from the infraction would be sanctioned more severely. 26 This second administrative case
transaction. therefore reveals a certain kind of avarice on the part of respondent. Hence, we
are constrained to impose upon him a heavier penalty than the OCA-
recommended fine.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Felixberto P. Barte is hereby found guilty of baseless and that the only motive of complainant was to harass, smear and
violating Canon 5.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Considering that this is his malign his name.
second offense, he is hereby SUSPENDED for six (6) months. He is hereby
In a resolution dated March 13, 2000, 1 the Court referred the case to Associate
warned that another complaint of this kind will merit a penalty beyond mere
Justice Elvi John Asuncion of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and
suspension from public office.
recommendation.
SO ORDERED.
Culled from the records, the facts of the case, as summed up by Investigating
Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio Morales and Garcia, JJ., concur. Justice Asuncion, are as follows:

Footnotes Complainant George L. Kaw avers that while Criminal Cases


||| (Catbagan v. Barte, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1452, [April 6, 2005], 495 PHIL 1-10) Nos. 10029-V-90 to 10035-V-90 were ongoing in the early
part of May 1993, he was approached by a state prosecutor
who said that he was sent by Judge Osorio to ask if the
complainant wanted to be assured of a favorable judgment in
EN BANC the criminal cases which the latter had filed and were heard
by the judge. The judges emissary told George Kaw that a
[A.M. No. RTJ-03-1801. March 23, 2004.] favorable decision in all cases would cost P100,000.00,
P40,000.00 of which was to be paid immediately and the
[Formerly OCA IPI No. 98-499-RTJ.] balance of P60,000.00 to be handed over upon promulgation
of the judgment in all cases.
GEORGE L. KAW, complainant, vs. JUDGE ADRIANO
As an initial reaction, complainant avers that he did not want
R. OSORIO, RTC Branch 171, Valenzuela City, respondent.
to accept the offer since he had adequate evidence for the
conviction of the accused, but at that time, he felt he had no
choice but to accept the offer of Judge Osorio and thought
RESOLUTION that if he would reject it, he would lose all his cases. So, he
relented and accepted the offer. As a consequence, in the
morning of May 18, 1993, according to the complainant, he
handed over to the state prosecutor the amount of
CORONA, J p:
P40,000.00 for delivery to Judge Osorio which turned out to
be only the first of a series of payments requested by and
This is a complaint filed by George L. Kaw against Judge Adriano R. Osorio of the
made to Judge Osorio. As narrated by the complainant, to wit:
Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, Branch 171, for dishonesty,
extortion, graft and corruption, and violation of Rule 5.04, Canon 5 of the Code of 1. July 22, 1994, Friday
Judicial Conduct relative to the conduct of the trial and adjudication of Criminal
Case Nos. 10029-V-90 to 10035-V-90 entitled People of the Philippines vs. Benito Judge Osorio called me up at my office and informed
Go, Wilson Go and John Tan for estafa and Criminal Case No. 613-V-91 me that his wife died. My wife and I went to the wake
entitled People of the Philippines vs. Roberto Go and Benito Go also for estafa. of the wife of Judge Osorio at a funeral parlor
located at Araneta Avenue, Quezon City and while
In his answer dated January 12, 1999, respondent judge vehemently denied all there handed to the latter a UCPB Check bearing
the material allegations in the complaint. He alleged that the charges were
number 46193 in the amount of P5,000.00, a Natividad where his brother-in-law, Marcelino Bunag,
photocopy of which is hereto attached as Annex A. is connected, to facilitate, according to him, the
decisions of the cases. Judge Osorio even gave me
2. December 13, 1994, Tuesday
the address and telephone number of said law firm.
Judge Osorio, through the state prosecutor,
6. Not wanting to displease Judge Osorio on May 10,
requested for a meeting with me at the Steaktown
1996 at about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, I visited the
restaurant located at West Avenue, Quezon City as
Quijano, Padilla and Natividad Law Offices with
per charge invoice #23764 and #7933 dated
address at 320 Escolta corner T. Pinpin Street.
December 13, 1994 hereto attached as Annex B1
When I talked to Mr. Bunag, he asked for the amount
and B2, at the meeting attended by me and my
of P200,000.00 as acceptance fee and guaranteed
wife, Judge Osorio asked for the amount of
that I will win all my cases before Judge Osorio.
P10,000.00 which he said he needed very badly.
Since I had cash with me at that time, I gave the Since the amount being asked by Mr. Bunag was too
amount to Judge Osorio. After I handed over the stiff, and I was not impressed with the office of the
money to Judge Osorio, I asked him whether the law firm represented by Mr. Bunag and suggested by
amount of P10,000.00 given that day would be Judge Osorio, and considering that I already had an
deducted from the agreed balance of P60,000.00, agreement with Judge Osorio with respect to the
Judge Osorio said that the P10,000.00 had nothing pending cases before him, I did not hire the services
to do with the balance of P60,000.00. of Quijano, Padilla and Natividad Law Offices. I
nonetheless as suggested by Judge Osorio,
3. March 16, 1995, Thursday
replaced my lawyer.
The son of Judge Osorio solicited from me the
Complainant avers that relative to Criminal Case No. 613-V-
amount of P1,000.00 allegedly for a certain project. I
91, when the prosecution and the defense terminated the
accommodated this solicitation after the State
presentation of their evidence, accused Benito Go and
prosecutor called me by telephone and asked me to
Roberto Go moved for the reopening of the cases on the
help the son of Judge Osorio.
ground that they were not given their day in court and assured
4. March 15, [sic-no year indicated] Tuesday the complainant that if the cases will be reopened, they will
confess to the court that the mastermind in the swindling was
Judge Osorios daughter called me up by telephone accused Wilson Go. The court denied the motion and
and informed me that it was her fathers birthday and scheduled the date of the promulgation of the decision in the
was inviting me and my wife to their residence. My cases on August 29, 1997 at 8:30 a.m.
wife and I then went to his house located at #44 M.
H. del Pilar St., Tugatog, Malabon and gave him the On the first week of August 1997, complainant decided to see
amount of P10,000.00. Judge Osorio at his residence in order to confront him about
the rumors spreading from reliable sources that Wilson Go
5. On one occasion, Judge Osorio told me that my was bragging because he was sure to be acquitted in the
lawyer was not performing well and that I should criminal cases which were filed against him and was heard to
change him. He suggested that I engage the say that Judge Osorio agreed to acquit him in consideration of
services of the Law Firm of Quijano, Padilla and the amount of almost a million pesos. He asked the judge if it
was true that aside from his commitment to the complainant, Judge Osorio who prompted the motion and dictated the
he also committed himself to accused Wilson Go. Before reasons and grounds to be alleged in the motion, to wit:
answering, the judge allegedly kept quiet for some time and
1. That with all due respect to the Presiding Judge,
told complainant that the case against Wilson Go was weak
complainant received reliable information that some
and that the case is being reviewed by his clerk of court. The
of the accused have been bragging that they have
judge further assured him not to worry after complainants
won the case and were able to secure judgment of
reminder about their agreement.
acquittal through the intercession of persons very
Not being reassured, complainant reported the matter to the closed (sic) to the judge;
state prosecutor and sought his help.
2. That in fairness to the Honorable Presiding Judge
On August 25 or 26, 1997, the complainant called up Atty. and to give peace of mind to the complainant, the
Gregorio Y. Narvasa, II in order to seek his counsel. Upon undersigned State Prosecutor deems it proper and
narration of the events that transpired, complainant pleaded logical that the Honorable Judge inhibit himself from
Atty. Narvasa to accompany him and the state prosecutor to taking further action on the instant case and transfer
see Judge Osorio at his residence since he was one of the the same to another Branch of equal competence
lawyers handling one of the cases against Benito Go and and integrity;
Wilson Go. Complainant feared that if the accused would be
3. That this Motion is not intended to mean that the
acquitted in said criminal cases, they may be forever barred
prosecution as well as the complainant have lost
from being charged criminally for the wrong that they had
faith in the honesty and integrity of the Honorable
committed against him. Atty. Narvasa acceded to the request
Presiding Judge but solely because of the above-
under the following conditions: (1) he would not talk to the
stated reason.
judge; (2) they would ask the judge to decide the case on its
merits; and (3) whether or not Judge Osorio rules for or xxx xxx xxx
against the complainant, the latter will file an administrative
case against the judge before the Supreme Court. Upon receiving the motion, the Court postponed the
promulgation of the decision and required counsels for the
On August 28, 1997, Atty. Narvasa, the state prosecutor and accused to file their comment to the motion within ten (10)
the complainant arrived at the residence of days therefrom.
Judge Osorio wherein they were led to the sitting room and
asked to wait for him. When Judge Osorio arrived, the state On September 4, 1997, complainants brother
prosecutor reminded him of the scheduled promulgation of Valentino Kaw came and informed him about the conversation
judgment the following day. The judge told them he cannot tell he had with Wilson Go regarding the subject criminal cases.
them what his decision was before the actual promulgation of According to Valentino Kaw, Wilson Go said that: (1) he was
judgment and made remarks to the effect that his decision of sure to be acquitted; (2) the motion filed by the prosecution
cases are always based on the evidence. for the inhibition of Judge Osorio would be denied; (3) the
decision in the criminal cases were already made; (4) he
Shortly before the promulgation of the decision, the (Wilson Go) held Judge Osorio by his neck because he had
complainant learned that the state prosecutor filed a motion to given to the Judge close to a million pesos; (5) he used his
inhibit the judge. The prosecutor told him that it was lawyer to get to and influence Judge Osorio; and (6) his
acquittal was merely a matter of money. (Annex D, affidavit For failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of
of Valentino Kaw) accused Wilson Go and John Tan beyond
reasonable doubt, they are hereby ACQUITTED of
the offense charged with costs de oficio.
On September 16, 1997, Judge Osorio issued a Resolution
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 10031-V-90
denying the motion for inhibition and setting the promulgation
of decision of these cases on September 22, 1997 at 8:30 The prosecution have established the guilt of
a.m. A motion for reconsideration of the Resolution dated accused Benito Go beyond reasonable doubt[. H]e is
September 16, 1997 was filed but was subsequently denied. hereby sentenced to an indeterminate imprisonment
from TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of
On September 22, 1997, the decision was promulgated, the
Reclusion Temporal, as minimum to FIFTEEN (15)
dispositive portion of the joint decision reads:
YEARS of Reclusion Temporal, as maximum with
WHEREFORE: the accessory penalties prescribed by law and to pay
the costs of suit.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 10029-V-90
Accused Wilson Go and John Tan are hereby
Accused Benito Go is Guilty beyond reasonable ACQUITTED of the offense charged with costs de
doubt of the offense charge (sic), he is hereby oficio.
sentenced to suffer an indeterminate imprisonment
from TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of CRIMINAL CASE NO. 10032-V-90
Reclusion Temporal, as minimum, to FIFTEEN (15)
Having established the guilt of accused Benito Go
YEARS of Reclusion Temporal, as maximum with
beyond reasonable doubt, he is hereby sentenced to
the accessory penalties prescribed by law to pay the
an indeterminate imprisonment from SIX (6) YEARS
offended party the amount of P100,020.20 and to
and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor, as minimum to
pay the costs.
TEN (10) YEARS of Prision Mayor, as maximum with
Accused John Tan and Wilson Go are hereby the accessory penalty prescribed by law and to pay
[a]cquitted with costs de oficio. the offended party the amount of P50,000.00, and
costs of suit.
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 10030-V-90
For failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt
Having proven the guilt of accused Benito Go beyond reasonable doubt, accused Wilson Go and
beyond reasonable doubt, he is hereby sentenced to John Tan are hereby ACQUITTED with costs de
suffer an indeterminate imprisonment from SIX (6) oficio.
YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor as
minimum, to NINE (9) YEARS of Prision Mayor, as CRIMINAL CASE NO. 10033-V-90
maximum, with the accessory penalties prescribed
Accused Benito Go having been found guilty beyond
by law and to pay the offended party the sum of
reasonable doubt, he is hereby sentenced to suffer
P34,255.20 and to pay the costs.
an indeterminate imprisonment from SIX (6) YEARS
and ONE (1) DAY of Prision Mayor, as minimum, to
NINE (9) YEARS of Prision Mayor, as maximum, Complainant avers that the joint decision itself favors Wilson
with the accessory penalty prescribed by law and to Go in every aspect and is against Wilson Gos enemies. The
pay the offended party the sum of P37,500.00 and fact of the death of Benito Go was made known to
the costs of suit. Judge Osorio. Accordingly, Benito Gos criminal liability was
extinguished. However, complainant submits that Benito Go
Not having proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt,
was still convicted in consonance with Judge Osorios plan to
accused Wilson Go and John Tan are hereby
conceal his illicit action in exonerating Wilson Go. With regard
[a]cquitted with costs de oficio.
to the conviction of Roberto Go, complainant avers that it is
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 10034-V-90 an act of vengeance against Roberto Go who had filed a
number of criminal, civil and administrative cases against
Accused Benito Go guilty beyond reasonable doubt, Wilson Go which are pending before the courts and the
he is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate Securities and Exchange Commission. As for John Tan, he
imprisonment from FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, EIGHT was acquitted because he gave the amount of P70,000.00 to
(8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of Reclusion the judge. 2
Temporal, as minimum, to TWENTY (20) YEARS of
Reclusion Temporal, as maximum, and to pay the In his defense, Judge Osorio submits that the complaint
offended party the sum of P445,000.00 with against him was completely without merit for the following
accessory penalty prescribed by law and the costs of reasons:
suit.
1. Respondent was not present in the following
Accused Wilson Go and John Tan are [a]cquitted instances: when State Prosecutor Bernard S. Razon
with costs de oficio. allegedly approached complainant at the Municipal
Hall of Valenzuela and asked the amount of
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 10035-V-90 P100,000.00 in consideration for a favorable
Accused Benito Go, Wilson Go and John Tan are decision in the said criminal cases and when the
hereby [a]cquitted on ground of reasonable doubt alleged partial payment in the amount of P40,000.00
with costs de oficio. was given to State prosecutor Bernard S. Razon.

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 613-V-91 2. State prosecutor Razon denied both in his affidavit
and testimony the fact that respondent sent him to
Accused Benito Go and Robert Go [g]uilty beyond complainant and offered favorable judgment in the
reasonable doubt, they are hereby sentenced each said criminal cases for money consideration.
to an indeterminate imprisonment from FOURTEEN
(14) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY 3. Complainants claim that he accommodated the
of Reclusion Temporal, as minimum, with the solicitation of respondents son, Christian Osorio, in
accessory penalties prescribed by law and to pay the the amount of P1,000.00 for a certain project after
offended party the amount of P150,000.00 and the State Prosecutor Razon called him by telephone and
costs of suit. asked him to help the son of Judge Osorio is belied
by the fact that complainant did not bother to ask the
SO ORDERED. name of the person and what the solicitation is all
about.
4. Respondent denied having called up complainant Malabon, Metro Manila on March 5, 1996 since a
to inform the latter of his wifes death and requested birthday party was tendered by her and her husband
for financial assistance from him and averred that Teddy Zaragosa at their residence in Ayala Alabang
complainant and his wife came to know of the death Village, Muntinlupa City on that date after
of his wife when the hearing for Criminal Cases Nos. respondent conducted a hearing in a criminal case
10029-V-90 to 10035-V-90 was postponed due to the (Criminal Case No. 5215-V-95, People vs. Boyet
death of respondents wife and the clerk of court Gonzales, et al.) in the courtroom located inside the
issued a Constancia on such date to that effect. compound of the Bureau of Corrections at
Muntinlupa City from 2:00 to 4:00 in the afternoon of
5. Respondent insists that he does not know who
March 5, 1996. 3
received the UCPB Check No. 46193 in the amount
of P5,000.00 with the notation condolence at its In his report, Investigating Justice Asuncion found that there was evidence that the
dorsal side and has no knowledge how said check alleged initial payment of P40,000 was handed over to State Prosecutor Razon for
was given. Respondent was so depressed and delivery to respondent. The only evidence presented was the notation in the diary
confused that he did not pay attention to the abuloy of complainants wife, Mrs. Alice Kaw, concerning a certain UCPB check no.
given by his friends and legitimate sympathizers who KAR007616 dated May 1993 in the amount of P40,000. Such notation could easily
paid respect to his departed wife, a deeply[-]rooted be fabricated, however, as the diary was solely in the control of complainant and
Filipino customs (sic) and traditions (sic). his wife. Nevertheless, the protestations of innocence of respondent judge cannot
be given credence entirely either, considering that certain actuations of his arouse
6. Respondent stoutly denies that he requested
suspicions of judicial impropriety. Investigating Justice Asuncion, after weighing
State Prosecutor Razon for a meeting with
the evidence presented before him, made the following findings and
complainant at the Steaktown Restaurant at West
recommendations:
Avenue, Quezon City on December 13, 1994.
Complainant and wife do not have positive proof that [1. Respondents denial that he requested State Prosecutor
respondent was in the said restaurant on that date. Razon to arrange meeting between him and complainant at
the Steaktown Restaurant and that he received P10,000 from
7. Respondent never criticizes the performance of
the latter on said occasion.]
any lawyer nor advises any complainant to change
his private prosecutor. To insist therefore that In one instance, Fiscal Razon admitted having accompanied
respondents brother-in-law Marcelo Bunag Judge Osorio at the Steaktown for a meeting but immediately
recommended or suggested to complainant to left the restaurant without eating any lunch. Such statement
engage the legal services of the law firm of Quijano, contradicts the testimony of Judge Osorio who testified that
Padilla and Natividad with whom Bunag is sharing he never went to Steaktown to meet the complainant and was
an office space and guaranteed that complainant never accompanied by Prosecutor Razon. However, in order
would win all his cases before Judge Osorio, is a to mend the favorable allegation by the prosecutor, when
blatant lie. respondent judge was cross-examined after the testimony of
prosecutor Razon, he declared that they went to Kowloon
8. Respondents daughter Marian Rose Zaragosa
House because he likes to eat fish and not to Steaktown.
could not have invited complainant and wife to attend
the birthday party of his (sic) father in the latters [2. Respondents silence on complainants allegation that he,
residence at No. 44 M. H. del Pilar St., Tugatog, together with his counsel, Atty. Gregorio Narvasa and
Prosecutor Razon visited the former in his house, a day On account of the facts involved as well as his impression on
before the original schedule date for the promulgation of the what transpired under the circumstances, Atty. Gregorio
decision.] Narvasa, II testified for the complainant and narrated the
following, viz:

Q Did you reach the residence of Judge Osorio?


In another occasion, Prosecutor Razon admitted that he
accompanied the complainant and Atty. Narvasa to A Yes, sir.
Judge Osorios residence. However, he insists that his sole
Q What transpired when you reached the residence of
reason for accompanying George Kaw and Atty. Narvasa to
Judge Osorio?
the residence of Judge Osorio in Valenzuela is to seek the
postponement of the hearing in the criminal case the next A All of us went except the driver. The three of us. Fiscal
day. This is highly unlikely, if not improbable, since a Razon, myself and Mr. George Kaw, sir, had gone
prosecutor for ten years will not waste his precious time for a down and, it was first Mr. Kaw who approached the
seemingly mundane matter. helper of the house and asked if the Judge was
there, and he was informed that the judge was not
Indeed, motions for postponement can be filed and acted
yet there.
upon addressed to the sound discretion of the court,
considering the peculiar circumstances obtaining in each Q What happened when you arrived at the house of
case and with the view of doing substantial justice, such Judge Osorio and you were informed that
discretion must be exercised wisely. The basis for its grant or Judge Osorio was not [in] the house?
denial depends upon the reasonableness of the
postponement and the merits of the case of the movant but is A I remember Mr. Kaw asked if the Judge is expected to
always predicated on the consideration that more than the arrive, sir.
convenience of the courts or of the parties of the case, the
Q And who did he ask, Mr. Witness?
ends of justice and fairness would be served thereby
(Zubiri vs. Zubiri, 18 SCRA 1157). A The helper, sir.

In that way, Fiscal Razon should not have exposed himself to Q Were you able to overhear . . .?
the suspicion that he was partial. Suffice it to state that such
A No, but Mr. Kaw told me what was told to him, sir.
practice should be discouraged or should not be tolerated
because it generates the impression that fiscals would be Q And what did he tell you?
able to fix the cases assigned to them and can manipulate or
maneuver them. A He told me that the judge was not yet home at that time, sir.

When pressed to discuss the topic further, Fiscal Razon was Q So, what did you do while waiting or if you waited?
evasive. Upon being asked if there was any other reason for A We were asked inside which I found also very odd.
their going to the house of Judge Osorio, Fiscal Razon
answered that he did not inquire any further as he deemed it Q By the way, what was your impression about
a private matter between the parties. Mr. Kaw asking the helper about the arrival of
Judge Osorio?
A From the time of asking and the time that we were asked to Q And did Judge Osorio reply to the reminder of Fiscal
enter, as I said, I found it very odd sir, because we Razon, if you recall?
were allowed to get inside as if . . . my impression
A Well, Judge Osorio said that, I would think, because Fiscal
was that the person knew already Mr. Kaw.
Razon was talking of promulgation of judgment the
Q And having entered, where did you wait inside the house of following day, Judge Osorioreplied that, of course,
Judge Osorio? he could not tell us before hand what his decision
would be.
A In the sala. We passed through the area. I remember there
were some construction going on at that time. We Q What else happened after that, if you recall?
passed through the kitchen and were led towards the
A Judge Osorio also said that his decision always is based on
area where there was a sofa. It looks like a sala of
the evidence and merits of the case, sir.
the house, sir.
Q At that time, do you remember if you ever said anything
Q Now, Mr. Witness, at the time you were waiting did you
during the conversation?
have any discussion among yourselves while you
were waiting for Judge Osorio? A Well, they kept to their word. I was courteous. I said, Good
afternoon Judge. What I told the judge was, good
A We will object to that, Your Honor. Leading. No basis.
afternoon. Probably some small talks regarding, I
Q Now, Mr. Witness, do you recall if Judge Osorio did indeed barely said a word then, sir.
return, he indeed arrive at this house that day?
Q After Judge Osorios statement that he will decide the case
A Yes, sir. After about twenty or thirty minutes of waiting, sir. on the merits, what happened after that?

Q What transpired when Judge Osorio arrived? A He said he decides cases on the merits.

A When Judge Osorio arrived I had noticed that when Q What did he say after that?
Judge Osorio arrived, my impression is, when he
A Well, some small talks for a very brief moment. I remember,
saw us as if he saw a ghost. That is my impression,
since I felt at that time that the purpose for being
and he stopped walking towards us and then he
there was already made. I signaled Mr. Kaw that it is
continued walking as if collecting his thoughts, if he
time for us to leave, sir.
could have run away, he could have done it.
Q And did you in fact leave?
Q And did after he approached you, what happened after
that? A Yes, sir.

A Well, we introduced ourselves. Judge Osorio, he was very Q How long did you stay in the house of Judge Osorio?
formal but also very cold. I could feel, he did not
want us there. What happened next was that Fiscal A It was very brief. About fifteen minutes or about that long,
Razon, he said reminding him we were there sir.
because of the scheduled promulgation of judgment Q When you said fifteen minutes, you are referring to the fact
in the case of Mr.Kaw. that, of the discussion with Judge Osorio?
A Yes, sir. From the time that he arrived up to the time that we inhibition having been filed by Fiscal Razon at the
you see it did not happen very long. I would think, instance of JudgeOsorio, sir.
about fifteen minutes, sir.
Q Did you discuss any other matter aside from that?
Q And after you left, where did you go, Mr. Witness?
A I was telling Mr. Kaw then at that time, it was quite odd also
A We had (sic) brought back Fiscal Razon to the Municipal at that time, because I remember then that he had a
Hall, sir. private prosecutor at that time. So, that is quite odd
also. The private prosecutor had no participation
Q While returning to the Municipal Hall do you recall having
whatsoever in that motion for inhibition.
discussed any matter involving your visit to
Judge Osorio? Q How did you know that the private prosecutor had no
participation in that motion for inhibition?
A Yes. We were talking about the fact that what we all
noticed and what was very prominent at that time, A Because it was Fiscal Razon who filed the motion for
which was the discussion when we were on our way inhibition, sir.
back was the way Judge reacted.
Q No further questions, Your Honor. (TSN, August 23, 2000,
Q And after having were you able to return Fiscal Razon to pp. 22-46).
the Valenzuela Municipal Hall?
[3. Respondents denial of having called complainant to
A Yes, sir. inform him of the death of his wife.]

Q From there where did you proceed? Judge Osorio admitted having received P5,000.00 during the
wake of his wife but he allegedly did not give serious thought
A Mr. Kaw and I had lunch, sir.
as to who gave the said amount which he termed as "abuloy,"
Q And did you discover anything about the case after this a Filipino tradition. The testimonies of respondent judge and
incident? his children, Christian and Marian Rose, were one in
declaring that nobody pays attention to the "abuloys" to the
Atty. Meris: Objection. effect that nobody recollects receiving the check of the
The question is vague, Your Honor. Sps. Kaw.

Justice Asuncion: At another instance during the investigation, respondent judge


argued that he does not know of said amount nor the
Objection sustained issuance of the check because he was not present at the
funeral parlor for 2 days from 6:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight
Q After this incident did you inquire or did you recall having
upon the advice of the doctor. Such statement deviates from
inquired from Mr. Kaw what transpired thereafter?
the ordinary course of human behavior since visitors normally
A My recollection is the day after Mr. Kaw and I had an come between 8:00 and 12:00 midnight and it is unlikely that
appointment with Fiscal Razon, I dont recall who respondent was not present at the funeral parlor at that time.
initiated the call whether it was Mr.Kaw or . . . but
After weighing the evidence presented, it would seem that
what I recalled was he told me about the motion for
Judge Osorio was indeed aware of the money given by the
Kaws on the occasion of his wifes death. Evidence shows If indeed the travel time from Valenzuela City to Muntinlupa
that Judge Osorio signed the back of the check beside the City is two hours as testified to by herein respondent, then he
signatures of George and Alicia Kaw and the same was in could [have] left Valenzuela City at 11:00 a.m. and could have
fact encashed at the bank by Judge Osorio. Furthermore, arrived in Muntinlupa before 2:00 p.m. or he could have left at
respondents effort to conceal the truth and denials turned 10:00 a.m. and could have arrived at 1:00 p.m. in the
futile when, during the hearing of this case on September 18, afternoon. It was gathered during the testimony of Ma. Rose
2000, counsel for the complainant manifested that respondent Santos that the time periods were not strictly followed at the
judge returned the amount of P5,000.00 but was refused by National Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa City because
complainant. judges arrive on time or they arrive late. Generally too, cases
are heard at the discretion of the judge and could be
Indubitably, respondents act of accepting money and the
terminated early. His defense therefore that it was physically
previous instance of dealing with the complainant at his
impossible for him to be at Valenzuela City at the said
residence points (sic) to his culpability. By his conduct, he has
material date and time cannot be given credence.
stained the noble image of the judiciary. Judges should bear
in mind that those involved in the administration of justice When alleged as a defense, alibi must be established by
from the highest to the lowest level must live up to the strictest positive, clear and satisfactory evidence, the reason being
standard of honesty and integrity in the public service. that it is easily manufactured and usually so unreliable that it
(Mejia vs. Pamaran, 160 SCRA 457, 477) can rarely be given credence. It is thus incumbent upon
respondent judge to show that not only was he at some other
A judge should, in pending or prospective litigation before
place but it was physically impossible for him to be within the
him, be scrupulously careful to avoid such action as may
immediate vicinity. Here, respondent judge failed to satisfy the
reasonably tend to strengthen the suspicion that his social or
requirement of physical impossibility and no convincing proof
business relations or friendship constitute (sic) an element in
was presented to substantiate his proffered defenses.
determining his judicial course.
[5. On the Motion to Inhibit Judge Osorio filed by Prosecutor
Razon upon the formers instruction.]
[4. Respondents denial of inviting or authorizing his daughter
Next, regarding the motion to inhibit filed by prosecutor
to invite complainant and his wife to his birthday party in his
Razon, complainant alleged that said motion was filed upon
residence at Tugatog, Valenzuela.]
instructions of Judge Osoriowho dictated the reasons and
Anent the matter of invitation to complainant and wife for grounds to be alleged therein. Prosecutor Razon admitted
respondents birthday party, the material period of time is from having filed said motion without conferring the same with the
2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. wherein complainant alleges that he private prosecutor, and the respondent judge commended
met the judge sometime at 3:00 p.m. in the latters residence that it is only proper since the public prosecutor has the direct
at #44 M. H. del Pilar St., Tugatog, Valenzuela. However, the control and supervision over the case.
judge declared that it was impossible for him to be at his
Although there is really no hard and fast rule when it comes to
residence at the said date and time considering that he
the inhibition of judges, this issue is a matter of conscience
attended a hearing in Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City at 2:00
and sound discretion on the part of the judge. Nevertheless,
p.m. which impelled him to cancel the morning hearing in
given the circumstances of this case, there was indeed a
RTC Valenzuela.
strong, valid and just reason for voluntarily inhibiting himself
from the case. Based on the reasons and grounds stated in all activities and a judge should perform official duties
the motion, it is deemed more prudent to inhibit himself than honestly, and with impartiality and diligence.
to have a decision be put under a cloud of distrust and
All told, respondent judge deserves to be penalized for his
skepticism. In this sense, he would no longer be effective in
less than exemplary behavior.
dispensing justice to the parties in litigation. As declared
in Pimentel vs. Salonga, 21 SCRA 160, viz: [RECOMMENDATION:]

. . . A Judge may not be legally prohibited from IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is hereby recommended
sitting in a litigation. But when suggestion is made of that respondent Judge Adriano Osorio be suspended for a
record that he might be induced to act in favor of one period of six (6) months without pay due to the impropriety of
party or with bias or prejudice against a litigant his acts which surely results in damage and corrodes the
arising out of circumstance reasonably capable of respect for law and the courts.
inciting such a state of mind, he should conduct a
careful self-examination. He should exercise his After a thorough review of the records, we hold that the findings of Investigating
discretion in a way that the peoples faith in the Justice Asuncion are adequately substantiated by the evidence and we therefore
courts of justice is not impaired. A salutary norm is adopt them in toto except the recommended penalty of six-month suspension
that he reflect on the probability that a losing party without pay.
might nurture at the back of his mind the thought that While respondent judge may not necessarily be held liable for extortion and graft
the judge had unmeritoriously tilted the scales of and corruption as it was not substantially proven, he should be made accountable
justice against him. That passion on the part of a for violating Canons 2 and 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct:
judge may be generated because of serious charges
of misconduct against him by a suitor or his counsel, CANON 2. A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY
if not altogether remote. . . . AND APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES.

At the very sign of lack of faith and trust in his actions, Rule 2.01 A judge should so behave at all times as to
whether well-grounded or not, the judge has no alternative but promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of
to inhibit himself from the case. When circumstances appear the judiciary.
that will induce doubt as to his honest actuations and probity
CANON 5 A JUDGE SHOULD REGULATE EXTRA-
in favor of either party, or incite such state of mind, he should
JUDICIAL ACTIVITIES TO MINIMIZE THE RISK OF
conduct a careful self-examination. He should exercise his
CONFLICT WITH JUDICIAL DUTIES.
discretion in a way that the peoples faith in the Courts (sic) of
justice is not impaired. (Gutang vs. Court of Appeals, 292 FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES
SCRA 76, 85)
Rule 5.04 A judge or any immediate member of the family
In view thereof, the undersigned finds that the less than shall not accept a gift, bequest, favor or loan from anyone
scrupulous acts of the respondent is damaging to the except as may be allowed by law.
reputation of a magistrates most honorable professions (sic),
The Canons of Judicial Ethics further provide that "a judge's official conduct
where both public and private conduct should be beyond
should be free from the appearance of impropriety and his personal behavior, not
reproach. Under the Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge
only upon the bench and in the performance of judicial duties but also in his
should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in
everyday life, should be beyond reproach." 4
The spirit and philosophy underlying these Canons were explained Kaws on the occasion of his wifes death. Evidence shows
in Castillo vs. Calanog: 5 that Judge Osorio signed the back of the check beside the
signature of George and Alice Kaw and the same was in fact
The Code of Judicial Ethics mandates that the conduct of a
encashed at the bank by Judge Osorio. Furthermore,
judge must be free of a whiff of impropriety not only with
respondents effort to conceal the truth and denials turned
respect to his performance of his judicial duties, but also to
futile when, during the hearing of this case on September 18,
his behavior outside his sala and as a private individual.
2000, counsel for the complainant manifested that respondent
There is no dichotomy of morality: a public official is also
judge returned the amount of P5,000.00 but was refused by
judged by his private morals. The Code dictates that a judge,
complainant.
in order to promote public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary, must behave with propriety at all No position exacts a greater demand on the moral righteousness and uprightness
times. As we have very recently explained, a judges official of an individual than a seat in the judiciary. A magistrate of the law must comport
life cannot simply be detached or separated from his personal himself at all times in such a manner that his conduct, official or otherwise, can
existence. Thus: bear the most searching scrutiny of the public that looks up to him as an epitome
of integrity and justice. 7
Being the subject of constant public scrutiny, a judge
should freely and willingly accept restrictions on Violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct are serious offenses punishable by any
conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the of the following sanctions under Rule 140, Section 11 of the Rules of Court, as
ordinary citizen. amended:

A judge should personify judicial integrity and Sec. 11. Sanctions. A. If the respondent is guilty of a
exemplify honest public service. The personal serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be
behavior of a judge, both in the performance of imposed:
official duties and in private life should be above
1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the
suspicion.
benefits as the Court may determine, and
Respondent judge's conduct fell short of the standard expected of a magistrate of disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to
the law. His act of inviting complainant and his wife to his birthday party corroded any public office, including government-owned or
public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, considering that controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the
complainant had a pending case in his sala. A judge is not only required to be forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued
impartial; he must also appear to be impartial. 6 Fraternizing with litigants leave credits;
tarnishes this image.

Respondent judge likewise openly transgressed Rule 5.04, Canon 5 of the Code
2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for
of Judicial Conduct: a judge or any immediate member of the family shall not
more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6)
accept a gift, bequest, favor or loan from anyone except as may be allowed by law.
months; or
Likewise, the Canons of Judicial Ethics expressly provides that a judge should not
accept any present or favors from litigants or from lawyers practicing before him. 3. A fine of more than P20,000 but not exceeding P40,000.00.
As pointed out by Justice Asuncion:

After weighing the evidence presented, it would seem that


Judge Osorio was indeed aware of the money given by the
Respondent judge retired upon reaching the mandatory retirement age of 70 on SO ORDERED.
March 5, 2001. Consequently, it is no longer possible to impose the penalty of
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
dismissal or suspension on him.
Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, and Tinga,
IN VIEW WHEREOF, a FINE of P40,000 is hereby imposed on respondent Judge JJ.,concur.
Adriano R. Osorio for violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Canons of
Vitug and Panganiban, JJ., are on official leave.
Judicial Ethics. The amount shall be deducted from his retirement benefits earlier
ordered withheld pending termination of this case and the balance released to him ||| (Kaw v. Osorio, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1801, [March 23, 2004], 469 PHIL 919-928)
in due course.

You might also like