Private but official

A Judge should not use the prestige of his office to promote his personal interest. This is in violation of Canon 4, Section 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. This case of an RTC Judge (Judge M) is an example.

Judge M and one of his relatives (MB) were not in good terms. Judge M often harassed MB’s family. He even filed a Estafa complaint against MB’s father which was only dismissed by the investigating prosecutor. Because of such dismissal, Judge M also filed a complaint against the prosecutor alleging charges which MB himself disputed as false in a sworn statement.

Thereafter, Judge M started harassing MB who had a piggery and poultry farm. Judge M wrote six letters which bore a letterhead indicating his official government position, thus: “From the Chamber of M, Presiding Judge, RTC Branch 36, 4th Judicial Region”. The said letters were addressed to the Municipal Mayor, Municipal Engineer and Municipal Agriculturist, requesting information on MB’s piggery and poultry business; advising them of the alleged violations by MB of the National Building Code and certain environmental laws; and reminding these officials of their duties to forestall the issuance of Municipal clearances and licenses to the extent of threatening to file administrative complaints against them if they failed to act on his request for neglect of their public duties.

Because of these threats and harassments, MB filed an administrative complaint against Judge M for grave abuse of authority and conduct unbecoming a judge before the Office of the Court Administrator.

In his comment Judge M alleged that as landowner and citizen he had the right to take those steps against MB to protect the environment, including the right to secure public information from government offices, especially about MB who was violating numerous laws. Judge M also claimed that he did not use the court’s official stationery or letterhead in his correspondences with government authorities and employees. He said that the letters were written in his personal stationery or letterhead and signed in his private, not judicial capacity. Was Judge M right?

No. In writing these letters Judge M’s use of his personal stationery with letterhead indicating that he is a Presiding Judge of the RTC, and stating that the letters were “from his chambers” clearly manifest that he was trying to use the prestige of his office to influence government officials and employees, and to achieve with prompt and ease the purpose for which the letters were written. In other words Judge M used his letterhead to promote his personal interest. This is in violation of Section 1, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.

The use of a letterhead should not be considered independently of the surrounding circumstances behind the use — the underlying reason that marks the use with the element of impropriety or appearance of impropriety. In the present case Judge M crossed the line of propriety.

The same problem that the use of letterhead poses occurs in the use of the title “Judge” or “Justice” in the correspondence of a member of the Judiciary. While the use of the title is an official designation as well as an honor that an incumbent has earned, a line still has to be drawn based on the circumstances of its use. While the title can be used for social or identification purposes, it cannot be used with the intent to apply the prestige of his judicial office in gainfully advancing his personal, family or other pecuniary interests. So Judge M should be fined P11,000 with the stern warning that a repetition of the same act shall be dealt with more severely (Belen vs. Belen, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2139, August 9, 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: [email protected]