A judge must comport himself at all times in such a manner that his conduct, official or otherwise, can bear the most searching scrutiny of the public that looks to him as the epitome of integrity and justice. This is the norm of conduct that a Regional Trial Court Judge in Mindanao (the Judge) failed to observe in this case.
The Judge had three cases pending in his sala involving Leo, particularly a criminal case for violation of the Anti-Fencing law where the subject vehicle was a green Pajero which was under the court’s custody for several months. On July 7, 1999, the Judge rendered a decision exonerating Leo from the offense of Anti-Fencing upon recommendation of the prosecutor. Thereafter, or in June 2001, Leo lent the Judge a vehicle which is also a Pajero although it was colored dirty white but with the same plate number. While using the vehicle he was apprehended by the authorities. Even if the Judge showed the authorities his own decision dismissing the Anti-Fencing case against Leo who lent him the vehicle, a criminal case was still filed against the Judge by the State Prosecutor for violation of the Anti-Carnapping Law (RA 6539) and or violation of the Anti-Fencing Law P.D. 1612.
This criminal case against the Judge was however eventually dismissed by the Department of Justice where the resolution of the State prosecutor was appealed. Nevertheless the State Prosecutor recommended that appropriate administrative charges be initiated against the Judge for violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. Indeed an administrative complaint was filed by a private complainant (George) for gross misconduct and impropriety in possessing and using a stolen Pajero.
In his defense, the Judge claimed good faith and lack of knowledge that the vehicle he had borrowed from Leo was the same vehicle involved in the Anti-Fencing case that he dismissed in 1999 otherwise he would not have used it for reason of delicadeza. Was the Judge administratively liable for serious misconduct?
Yes. The act of borrowing a vehicle by a judge or any court employee is not per se a violation of judicial norms and standards established for court personnel as borrowing is a legitimate and neutral act that can happen in everyday life. However judges and court employees — by nature of their functions and of the norms and standards peculiar to their positions — live their lives under restrictions not otherwise imposed on others; specifically they cannot simply borrow in situations when this act may or can affect the performance of their duties because of the nature of the thing borrowed or the identity of the lender, or in situations when borrowing would involve ethical questions under express rules.
Under the circumstances of this case, the Judge has committed serious misconduct, first, in using and possessing a vehicle with the knowledge that it was the subject of the anti-fencing case previously filed before him. The Judge could not have missed the identity of the vehicle even if the color had been changed because it has the same plate number and it was under the court’s custody for several months. In fact he even showed a copy of his own decision dismissing the anti-fencing case against Leo, the lender, when he was apprehended by the authorities using and possessing said vehicle; and second, he borrowed this vehicle from a litigant who had pending cases before his sala. While the criminal case filed against him by the State prosecutor was dismissed by the DOJ, his acts at least constitute irresponsible and improper conduct whose effect is to erode public confidence in the judiciary as they compromised the image, integrity and uprightness of the courts of law and cast suspicion not only on his own impartiality but also on the impartiality and integrity of his judicial office. He should therefore be fined P40,000 for violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rule 2.01 of Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, as well as Canon 3 of the canons of Judicial Ethics (Mercado vs. Salcedo, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1781, October 16, 2009; 604 SCRA 4).
Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.
* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net