Dumaguete judge fined for presiding over son-in-law’s case

A Dumaguete City Regional Trial Court (RTC) judge was ordered by the Supreme Court (SC) to pay P11,000 as fine for presiding over his son-in-law’s case, while a lawyer was slapped with six months suspension by the High Court for holding dual government positions.

In an eight-page decision penned by Justice Adolfo Azcuna, the High Court’s first division said that Dumaguete City RTC Branch 42 Judge Ibarra Jaculbe Jr., violated the Rules of Court and the Code of Judicial Conduct when he rendered a judgment in a case where his son-in-law, Lawyer Richard Enojo, appeared as additional counsel for the plaintiff.

The SC said that the Rules of Court and the Code of Judicial Conduct both mandate that no judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case when he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to the counsel within the fourth degree.

The SC also said that Jaculbe did not dispute that Enojo is his son-in-law and is therefore related to him by affinity in the first degree.

"Judge Jaculbe’s failure to inhibit himself when his son-in-law appeared as counsel in a case he was trying is a patent violation of these rules" it said.

In a letter-complaint, Alexander Ortiz alleged that he was a respondent in a case being handled by Jaculbe and in that case, the plaintiff was represented by Enojo.

Ortiz said the parties in that case entered into a compromise agreement and that pursuant to the agreement, the plaintiff filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution, which was hastily granted by the judge without any hearing.

Jaculbe said that it had been his practice to inhibit himself when a case handled by his son-in-law would be raffled to his sala. But the case involving Ortiz was only one exception to his usual practice.

Jaculbe also cited that Enojo participated in the trial much later and only as additional counsel and that such appearance was with the express conformity of the opposing party.

He said there were no factual or legal issues to be resolved in rendering judgment on the compromise agreement.