Judges should be models of propriety at all times. They shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and independence of the Judiciary (Sections 1 and 6 Canon 4, New Code of Judicial Conduct). This is the canon violated by this Judge of the Regional Trial Court in Laguna (the Judge) in this Intestate proceeding.
One of the co-administrators in this Intestate case is the petitioner’s lawyer whom we shall call panero. During one of the hearings of the case the Judge disagreed with various items in the Administrator’s Report, including the audited Financial Report covering the estate and immediately disallowed it. In doing so he even scolded the Accountant, branded her as incompetent and threatened to sue her before the regulatory body overseeing all certified public accountants.
In the course of the proceedings the Judge asked Panero to stand up as he dictated the order disallowing the report where he rebuked Panero for some mistakes in managing the affairs of the estate, adding that it is regrettable because “Atty (Panero) is a UP Law Graduate and a Bar Topnotcher at that”, then ousted him as co-administrator of the estate.
Then in a subsequent hearing, the Judge issued another Order citing Panero for contempt for allegedly withdrawing surreptitiously and unlawfully from the account of the estate together with the other administrator and emptying it. The order contained snide remarks calling his acts as contumacious and direct challenge to lawful orders, “abhorrent” deed of a UP Law alumnus and Bar Topnotcher that violates his oath of office. The Judge issued the order even if Panero had fully explained that he had done his part as co-administrator in good faith and had even saved the estate about P35 million in taxes by availing of the tax amnesty program.
Regretting the actuations and statements of the Judge especially because the remarks were uncalled for, a left-handed compliment and a grave insult to his Alma Mater, Panero filed an administrative complaint against the Judge for Misconduct. In his comment the Judge did not deny the incidents narrated by Panero but merely offered justifications and asserted counter accusations against Panero. Was the Judge guilty?
Yes. The Judge is guilty of conduct unbecoming of a judge for his use of intemperate language and inappropriate action in dealing with counsels such as Panero, appearing in his sala. He should just have ruled on the motions filed by Panero instead of opting for a conceited display of arrogance.
The Judge should be more circumspect in his language in the discharge of his duties. He is the visible representation of the law. Thus he must behave, at all times, in such a manner that his conduct, official or otherwise, can withstand the most searching public scrutiny. The ethical principles and sense of propriety of a judge are essential to the preservation of the people’s faith in the judicial system.
A judge must consistently be temperate in words and in actions. The Judge insulting statements here, tending to project Panero’s ignorance of the laws and procedure, coming from his inconsiderate belief that the latter mishandled the cause of his client is obviously and clearly insensitive, distasteful and inexcusable. Such abuse of power and authority could only invite disrespect from counsels and from the public. Patience is one virtue that members of the bench should practice at all times, and courtesy to everyone is always called for. So the Judge should be fined P10,000.00 (Correa vs. Belen, A.M. No. RTJ-10-2242, August 6, 2010).
* * *
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