Below standard

A judge may have committed several blunders in manners which are examples of poor judgment and negligence. But before he could be held liable for gross misconduct it must be alleged and shown that he was impelled by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred or some corrupt motive. Otherwise he is only guilty of simple misconduct. This is illustrated in this case of a Municipal Trial Court Judge (Judge HB).

The administrative case against Judge HB arose from an election protest filed before his court by Cario who lost to Tacio in the 2002 election for Punong Barangay in their village. After the filing of the case, Tacio filed a motion to disqualify the lawyer of Cario, Atty. Tirso, because the latter has been suspended for one year and six months and the suspension order has not yet been lifted. Judge HB disregarded the motion and ordered Atty. Tirso to still appear in the subsequent hearings of the case because according to him the period of suspension had already lapsed.

Tacio questioned this order of Judge HB before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in a petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition. Cario asked for the dismissal of this petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the RTC. Judge HB also filed his comment supporting Cario’s position that the RTC has no jurisdiction over the election case. Then before the RTC could resolve the petition, Judge HB already rendered a decision in the election case declaring Cario the winner over Tacio by 54 votes. Subsequently after supposedly receiving the RTC decision dismissing Tacio’s petition he set the promulgation of his decision in the election case. But a day after the decision in the election case was promulgated Judge HB received a second decision of the RTC this time granting Tacio’s petition and declaring the proceedings in the election case null and void. Nevertheless, Judge HB posited that whichever is the genuine RTC decision, whether for or against Tacio, is null and void because the jurisdiction in election case belongs to the MTC and the COMELEC. Besides he said that it is already moot and academic because of his decision in the election case in favor of Cario.

On the other hand, when his ruling in favor of Cario was reversed by the COMELEC on appeal of Tacio, he himself filed a petition for certiorari  even ahead of the petition filed by Cario who was the real party aggrieved by such resolution.

These actuations of Judge HB thus prompted Tacio to file an administrative case against him. Tacio alleged that Judge HB has violated his constitutional rights and the Code of Judicial Conduct and is guilty of bias, partiality, gross ignorance of the law and abuse of authority. Was Judge HB administratively liable?

Yes. Judge HB’s deportment fell below the level required of the members of the bench. When he allowed Atty. Tirso to appear and represent Cario despite the latter’s suspension simply because the period of suspension had already lapsed, is not proper. He should know that the lifting of the order of suspension is not automatic upon the end of the period stated in the order. There must be an order from the Court lifting such suspension in order for a suspended lawyer to be able to resume practice of law. He did not even exert efforts to ascertain the correct rule or procedure regarding the lifting of the suspension, or to determine whether the suspension of Atty. Tirso had already been lifted. In fact, there is really no order yet lifting Atty. Tirso’s suspension.

Judge HB’s behavior in connection with the two apparently conflicting decisions of the RTC was highly dissatisfactory. The first decision was personally received and then delivered to him by the MTC clerk of court but he did not even inquire who was the RTC personnel who purportedly delivered it personally. His curiosity was already piqued when he received the decision one month later yet he still did not verify its authenticity but instead immediately set the promulgation of his own decision in the election case. Thereafter the said decision got lost and he did not get another certified true copy. Then when he received the second decision, he did not even verify which one was the correct decision. He could have easily done this because the RTC and his office were housed in the same building.

His filing of the petition for certiorari questioning the COMELEC ruling reversing his own even ahead of the Petition of Cario who was the real party aggrieved is also highly irregular. He is merely a nominal party where his decisions or orders are assailed. In so doing Judge HB gave the impression of manifest bias and partiality.

Nevertheless Judge HB should not be held liable for gross misconduct or gross ignorance of the law. His errors are not as gross and patent as to produce an inference of bad faith. They are not flagrant enough or done with ill motives so as to be classified as gross misconduct or to warrant a finding of gross ignorance of the law. He is only guilty of simple misconduct which subjected the MTC to distrust and accusations of partiality. He should be suspended for three months with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely (Aragones vs.Barillo, A.M. MTJ-10-1752, March 10, 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]