The Supreme Court has dismissed Las Piñas Judge Jose Caoibes Jr. for citing a traffic enforcer in contempt after the traffic enforcer arrested his son, Jose III, for a traffic violation in 1999.
In a 12-page decision, the high court also permanently banned the judge from re-employment in any public office and ordered the forfeiture of all his retirement benefits except accrued leave credits.
It was also found that the abuse of authority case filed against Caoibes by Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) traffic enforcer Salvador Sison was not a first for the judge.
Caoibes was previously sanctioned by the high court for violating Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and fined P20,000 for punching a complainant, another judge. For this case, Caoibes was found guilty of serious impropriety.
"To our mind, the instant case falls under similar conduct, which the court avowed would be dealt with more severely if repeated and of which the respondent (Caoibes) was duly warned," the SC said.
Caoibes was also sanctioned for gross ignorance of procedural law and unreasonable delay in issuing an order of execution. He was fined P30,000. He was also sanctioned for a delay in resolving a motion to dismiss a civil case pending before his sala and fined P40,000.
The incident that led to Caoibes’ dismissal occurred in 1999, when his son was issued a traffic violation ticket by Sison after the younger Caoibes swerved to the wrong lane on Edsa in Mandaluyong City.
Jose III engaged in an argument with Sison, contesting his apprehension by saying he was doing an errand for his father. Sison’s reply was this: "Walang Judge, Judge Caoibes sa akin. Kahapon nga, abogado ang hinuli ko (Judge Caoibes who? Yesterday I caught a lawyer."
After that, the judge summoned the traffic enforcer to appear before his sala and explain the incident. Sison failed to appear and Caoibes ordered the court sheriff to arrest Sison and detain him for a day.
Caoibes also believed that, since his son was running an errand on him as part of court business, he should not have been apprehended.
Sison filed a complaint against the judge but recanted it. However, the Supreme Court found it necessary to continue with the investigation because of the seriousness of the allegations against Caoibes.
In its decision, the SC agreed with the findings of Investigating Justice of the Court of Appeals Lucas Bersamin that Caoibes should have refrained from ordering Sison’s arrest and detention, since the incident involved Caoibes’ son and the matter was very personal to him.
The fact that Caoibes insisted that Sison filed his comment in court casts doubt on the motive behind the order, the SC said.
"The requirement of personal filing was deliberately inserted so that (Caoibes) could confront and harass (Sison)."
The high court said Caoibes apparently resented Sison’s refusal to let his son off the hook, a resentment aggravated by Jose III’s reporting Sison’s remark that he did not care who he had to issue a traffic violation ticket to.
The high court also said Sison’s remark had been invited by Jose III’s attempt to bluff his way out of a traffic ticket by saying he was the son of an RTC judge.
"The act of the judge in citing a person in contempt in a manner which smacks of retaliation, as in (Caoibes’) case, is appalling and violative of the Judicial Code of Conduct, which mandates that a judge should behave at, all times, to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary," the SC said.
"A judge should never allow himself to be moved by pride, prejudice, passion or pettiness in the performance of his duties," the high tribunal said.
Instead of punishing Sison himself, the SC said, Caoibes and his son could have filed an administrative case against Sison if his apprehension of Jose III was indeed unlawful.