A.M. No. RTJ-91-712 July 9, 1996
BEN D. MARCES, SR., complainant,
vs.
JUDGE PAUL T. ARCANGEL, Presiding Judge, Branch 12, Regional Trial Court Davao City, respondent.
MENDOZA, J.:p
Respondents was, at the time material to this case, the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Brach 12, at Davao City.1 He is charged with serious misconduct, grave abuse of authority, harassment, and immorality.
The complaint alleges the following:
(1) Complaint is a 61-year old retiree, married to Ruth Jovellar, by whom he has five children, namely, Farley, Lydia, Ben Jr., Nikki and Allan. Complainant and the members of his family are residents of the BRC Village, Catalunan Penqueño, Davao City.
In 1984 the spouses Wilfredo and Flordeliza Cañas moved into complaint's neighborhood. They became the nearest neighbors of the complainant, their houses being only 45 meters apart. In that year, a domestic helper of the Cañases sought complainant's help for alleged maltreatment she had received from her employers. Complainant, who was the incumbent Purok leader, referred the matter to the barangay authorities. The dispute was resolved, but the relation of the Marces and the Cañas families became strained.
On September 27, 1990, Mrs. Flordeliza Cañas had an exchange of words with Mrs. Ruth Marces and the latter's daughter, Lydia, during which they hurled invectives at each other. The incident was triggered by a relatively minor matter involving a fight between the turkeys owned by the two families but which, because of the bad blood between them, became a major issue.
The following day, September 28, Mrs. Cañas, together with her sister and a neighbor, boarded a passenger jeepney despite the fact that there were no more seats available because complainant was riding on that vehicle. It turned out that Mrs. Cañas had intended to cause the complainant's arrest, because as the jeepney neared the police station, Mrs. Cañas asked the driver to stop the vehicle. Mrs. Cañas then got off and called a policeman and had the complainant Ben D. Marces arrested.
The arrest was made on the basis of alias warrants of arrest handed to the policeman by Mrs. Cañas. The warrants had been issued by MTCC Judge Edipolo Sarabia in three criminal cases against the herein complainant for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. Complainant was detained for one night without the knowledge of his family, a fact of which Mrs. Cañas allegedly boasted in the neighborhood.
The following day, complainant saw Judge Sarabia and explained that the criminal cases against him, in connection with which the alias warrants were issued, had long been amicably settled. Judge Sarabia told the complainant that he really did not know anything about the cases and that he had only been requested by respondent Judge Paul Arcangel to issue the warrants.
(2) As a result of the September 27, 1990 shouting incident, Mrs. Cañas also filed a complaint with the Barangay Captain against complainant's wife and daughter, Lydia. Mediation conferences between the two families were conducted on October 27, 1990 and on November 3, 1990. Although he had not been asked to, respondent Judge Arcangel attended the conferences. It is alleged that respondent judge
— disturbed the proceedings by walking in and out of the Barangay Hall where the conferences were being held;
— introduced himself as the Executive Judge of the RTC of Davao City in an obvious attempt to influence the Barangay Officials; and
— accompanied Mrs. Cañas and acted as the baby-sitter of the latter's daughter.
During the October 27, 1990 conference, respondent judge allegedly confronted the complainant, accusing him of sending the judge a death threat by means of a letter which purported to have been sent by the New People's Army.
The barangay officials failed to amicably settle the dispute. It is averred that Mrs. Cañas showed "arrogance and callousness at all times as if to prove that she is protected by a hard rock and impregnable when she is with the judge."
(3) The feud between the Marces and Cañas families worsened. On December 29, 1990, there was a violent confrontation between members of the two families. Some of the parties were injured as a result of hacking. Investigations were conducted by the police during which, according to complainant, he saw respondent Judge Arcangel talking to the policemen.
(4) On the night of January 2, 1991, armed men in uniform arrived in two military vehicles and arrested members of the complainant's family and took them to the Davao Metrodiscom Headquarters. The arrests were made on orders of a certain Col. Nelson Estares. A summary inquest was conducted which complainant laments to be irregular as the arrests were pre-arranged and the complaint sheet was fabricated. Complainant avers that the illegal issuance and service of the "warrant" (i.e., so-called Arrest Orders) by the Commander of the Davao Metrodiscom "can only be done by a person with a strong connection, power and influence," such as respondent judge, considering his high position in the government and close relations with the Cañas family.
(5) In a resolution dated May 11, 1991 the investigating prosecutor, Albert Axalan, found probable cause and filed charges of attempted murder against complainant Ben D. Marces, his wife and his son, Farley. Complaint's countercharges were dropped. Three days after, warrants of arrest were issued by the RTC against complainant, his wife Ruth and son Farley respectively. Complainant alleges that respondent Judge Arcangel, taking advantage of his position, influenced the conduct of the preliminary investigation.
(6) Subsequently, complainant's son, Farley, was arrested. He was handcuffed and taken to the Ma-a City Jail. It is alleged that respondent's Toyota car, with plate number LBT 555, followed the car of the arresting policemen "as if to make sure that the evil plan" allegedly "authored by Judge Arcangel is well followed and executed." "To add insult to injury," it is alleged that while the applications for bail bond of complainant, his wife and Farley were being processed at Branch 8 of RTC of Davao City, respondent Judge Arcangel arrived and questioned the validity of the bond posted, telling the representative of the bonding company, "Hindi puwede ito, who gave you the authority to issue?" He then removed the receipts and arrogantly left with the receipts.
(7) Because of these events, complainant started asking why a judge should have a special interest in his family's feud with the Cañas family. All he knew before was that the judge's car was often parked in front of the house of Mrs. Cañas, especially when Mr. Cañas was away working overtime.
In his Comment submitted in compliance with the resolution of this Court, respondent judge alleges (1) that the charges against him are not only false and malicious but utterly baseless; (2) that the same were filed merely to gratify complainant's personal spite and animosity against him; and (3) that the complaint was filed in anticipation of the cases which the respondent intends to file against the complainant for slander and threats.
Respondent judge further avers:
Anent the charge of causing the issuance of warrants of arrest against the complainant and the handling of the same to Mrs. Cañas for enforcement, it was Mrs. Esperanza Deiparine and Mrs. Flordeliza Cañas who obtained the warrants. He only requested judge Sarabia of the MTCC of Davao City to issue them.2 Respondent judge claims the warrants were valid, having been issued in connection with pending cases and that there were other warrants against complainant which could not be served because of complainant's close connection with the officers of the warrant section.3
As to the allegation that he disturbed the barangay conciliation proceedings in the case between the Mares and Cañas families and allegedly acted as "an escort" of Mrs. Cañas and "baby-sitter" of her daughter, respondent judge denies he acted as escort and baby-sitter and claims that he could not have disturbed the proceedings because none were held on November 3, 1990. He claims that he went to the barangay hall because he filed his own complaint against Ruth Marces and her daughter Lydia. Apparently, respondent judge is referring to the incident on September 27, 1990 during which Mrs. Marces and daughter Lydia allegedly called Mrs. Cañas "KABIT, KABIT, KABIT SA ABOGADO" ("PARAMOUR, PARAMOUR, PARAMOUR OF A LAWYER").4
The judge probably felt alluded to.
Respondent judge likewise denies that he pressured the police officers and the prosecutors to file charges in court as a result of the December 29, 1990 hacking incident.
Respondent vehemently denies having illicit relations with Mrs. Cañas and that he went to the house of the Cañas family whenever Mr. Wilfredo Cañas was away. Respondent claims that he has known the Cañas family since 1983, when he was still a City Judge. According to him, in 1989 he used to go to the Cañas residence on request by Mrs. Cañas to mediate in the latter's family problem. After this was settled, he continued going there because he and Mr. Cañas had business interests in the manufacture of appliance protectors.
Finally, it is alleged that complainant is actually a fugitive from justice, who has a string of criminal cases5 and is notorious in the community. Respondent further discusses the merits of the December 29, 1990 hacking incident pointing to complainant, his wife and son as the felons and the guilty parties.
On February 27, 1992, the Court referred the case to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report and recommendation. A Reply was subsequently filed by the complainant, alleging harassment by respondent judge, as follows: (a) respondent judge wrote the Administrator of the Social Security System, pretending to be interested in purchasing an acquired asset consisting of a house and lot, which happens to be the residence of the complainant; (b) the management of the Philippine Airlines was asked by a fictitious person to revive the criminal cases against the complainant; (c) the respondent judge, together with a certain Fiscal Dumlao, had been visiting witnesses to the December 29, 1990 hacking incident; (d) the respondent judge filed an administrative case with the Professional Regulations Commission against Nikki Marces; daughter of the complainant who had just passed the Nursing Board Examinations; and (e) respondent still visited the house of Mr. and Mrs. Cañas.
Complainant further avers that the criminal cases against him are all business-related, being cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and for estafa arising from the issuance of bouncing checks. He calls attention to the fact that respondent judge discussed in his pleadings the merits of the December 29, 1990 hacking incident and contends that this is improper and unethical.
On May 26, 1992, the Court referred the case to Associate Justice Luis Javellana of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation. Unfortunately, Associate Justice Javellana suddenly died on August 25, 1993. The case was thereafter reassigned to Associate Justice Fidel P. Purisima, but the reception of the evidence was assigned to Executive Judge Romeo D. Marasigan of Branch XVI, RTC-Davao City. On September 18, 1993, Judge Marasigan forwarded the records of the case, together with the evidence adduced before him, to this Court. The records were later transmitted to Justice Purisima.
In his Report and Recommendation dated May 30, 1994, Associate Justice Purisima recommends dismissal of the charges against respondents judge for insufficiency of evidence, except the charge that respondent judge attended mediation conferences between the feuding families and tried to intervene. As to this charge the Investigating Justice finds that the evidence establishes the same. Justice Purisima recommends that respondent judge be admonished and sternly warned that repetition of the acts of impropriety by respondent will be dealt with more severely. The pertinent portions of Justice Purisima's report states:
The charge concerning the frequent visits by respondents Judge at the residence of Mrs. Flordeliza Cañas in Barangay Catalunan Pequeño, Davao City, and allusion that the former has illicit relation with the latter are utterly devoid of sufficient substantiation. The mere suspicion on the part of the complainant and members of his family that the respondent Judge has an affair with Mrs. Flordeliza Cañas has been completely effaced and reduced to nothing reprehensible or censurable by the unequivocal and straightforward testimonies of Flordeliza's husband and parents that the respondent Judge is just a family friend whose visits did not have any immoral implication. According to these knowledgeable witnesses, the latter was their frequent visitor in 1990, when respondent Judge and Engr. Wilfredo B. Cañas, were engaged in the manufacture of appliance protectors.
Obviously, Engr. Wilfredo B. Cañas, the lifetime partner of Mrs. Flordeliza Cañas, day and night, should be in the best position to observe her. Whether or not his wife is unfaithful to him is a matter within the sphere of the husband to detect. Here, Engr. Wilfredo B. Cañas having given his wife clean slate, We an do no less. A different conclusion and ruling could ruin families, which society cherishes and protects (Article 215, New Civil Code; Article 149, Family Code).
xxx xxx xxx
So also, respondent Judge cannot be held administratively liable for the handcapping [sic] of a son of complainant, who was allegedly handcapped [sic] and brought to the Ma-a jail, while working at the Davao Light and Power company. Absent any admissible evidence that the respondent Judge was the one who caused such malfeasance to happen, he is not answerable therefor.
xxx xxx xxx
But the charge that the respondent Judge was present during the mediation conference between the Marces family and Cañas family on October 27 and November 3, 1990, before the Lupon Tagapayapa of Catalunan Pequeño, Davao City, and that during such conference, respondent Judge was in and out of the conference room, trying to interfere with the proceedings, and to wield influence as Regional Trial Court Judge, is firmly anchored on Complainant's evidence, which has not been effectively traversed and negated by respondent's evidence.
From the evidence on hand, it is clear that on October 27, 1990, the respondent Judge arrived at the Barangay Hall of Catalunan Pequeño, Davao City, in the company of Mrs. Flordeliza Cañas, and the latter's small child. During the said mediation conference between the Marces family and Cañas family, respondent Judge entered the conference room and made it known to all and sundry that he is the Presiding Judge of Branch 12 of the Regional Trial Court of Davao. Such actuation was indiscreet and improper because the disputes and controversies between the two warring families could develop into a litigation before any of the courts of Davao.
All things studiedly considered, with due regard to the testimonial and documentary evidence adduced, pro and con, before Honorable Executive Judge Romeo D. Marasigan of the Regional Trial Court, Davao City; the ineluctable conclusion is that on October 27, and November 3, 1990, the respondent Judge intruded into the conference room, and interfered with a mediation conference then being held between the family of the herein complainant and the Cañas family, before the Lupon Tagapayapa of Catalunan Pequeño, Davao City, and while inside said room, tried to influence barangay officials thereat, by identifying himself as the Presiding Judge of Branch 12 of the Davao Regional Trial Court; a misbehavior and an improper actuation under the premises.
Equally anemic of evidentiary support is the charge that the respondent Judge influenced the prosecutors and police authorities of Davao City to harass the family of complainant.
The Court finds the conclusions of the investigator that respondent judge is guilty of improper conduct to be fully supported by the evidence in the record. It only needs to be added that the claim of respondent judge that he was at the mediation conference held on October 27, 1990 because he had himself filed a complaint against Ruth Marces and the latter's daughter, Lydia, is belied by the fact that respondent judge's complaint was filed only on November 3, 1990.
The report of the Investigating Justice fails to consider other serious allegations in the complaint, of which there is also sufficient evidence in the record, to wit:
(1) That respondent judge caused the issuance of alias warrants of arrest by requesting another judge, before whom the case against the complainant was pending, to issue the warrants; and
(2) That the arrest of the members of the Marces family on January 2, 1991 would not have been made without the intervention of respondent judge.
These charges have not only been proven by substantial and convincing evidence, but have actually been admitted by respondent judge. Thus, complainant alleges that he was informed by Judge Sarabia that the warrants had been issued by him upon the request of respondent judge. This allegation is supported by a handwritten not (Exh. E) of respondent judge, which reads:
Judge Edipolo Sarabia
Br. 3, City Trial Court
Davao City
Dear Ed:
If these cases (Cr. Case Nos. 9-C-M, 10-C-M & 11-C-M) are still pending, please issue another alias warrants as the accused is now in town.
Thanks.
(Sgd.) Paul Arcangel
In addition, complainant presented a certification by the Clerk of Court6 of the MTCC-Davao City, Branch 3, stating the following:
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY, that according to the records of this Court, the three (3) Estafa Cases against MR. BEN MARCES under Criminal Cases Nos. 9-CM, 10-CM and 11-CM has been in archive since December 28, 1983 due to non-arrest of the accused and an alias warrant of arrest was issued against the accused.
That its discovery and revival was made possible upon the request for verification of its status and information by Judge Paul T. Arcangel that accused is back in town and that ultimately resulted to the dismissal of the three (3) cases on March 11, 1991, without which verification the said cases would have remained pending to date.
Instead of being delivered to the warrant officer, the warrants were actually given to Mrs. Cañas. The entry in the Daily Record of Events of the Ulas Police Substation7 stated that "[e]lements of this unit led by P/Cpl. VA Secretaria arrested with alias warrant of arrest one BEN MARCES Y DOMANILLO. . .who was charge[d] with violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 with Criminal Case No[s]. 9-CM, 11CM duly signed by Judge Edipolo Sarabia this 28th of September 1990 at Davao City. The warrant was given by one FLORDELIZA CAÑAS Y Pelegrino, 26 years old, married, housewife. . . ."
To cap it all, respondent judge himself admitted in his Comment, dated December 27, 1991, that Mrs. Esperanza Deiparine and Mrs. Flordeliza Cañas requested him "to have the warrants renewed, thus, he requested Judge Sarabia for the issuance of the new warrants"8 against the complainant.
Respondent judge justifies his intervention on the ground that complainant Ben D. Marces had been able to evade service of the warrants because of connections with the warrant officers of Davao City. Even if this had been the case it would not excuse respondent judge in using his own influence.
Indeed this is the same excuse given for respondent judge's interceding with the Metrodiscom authorities for the issuance of a so-called order of arrest as a result of which complainant Ben D. Marces, his wife Ruth and his children Farley, Lydia, Nikki and Allan were arrested on January 2, 1991. Respondent's own witness, Wilfredo Cañas, stated that he was accompanied by respondent to Col. Nelson Estares. It was Col. Estares who ordered the arrest of complainant and members of his family. Thus, in his affidavit dated August 23, 1991, Wilfredo Cañas, stated:
13. That when my wife and mother-in-law were attacked and hacked by Ben Marces and his family within the premises of our house on December 29, 1990, I called Judge Arcangel for assistance because Ben Marces was trying to manipulate the case by making it appear that they were the victims. . .
14. That when I followed up the case at the Talomo Police Station and at the Tugbok Police Station, I was given a run around by the police authorities and I sensed that a ranking police officer was interceding in behalf of Ben Marces and his family;
15. That when the police authorities could not come up with a report of the incident after more than three days, I sought the assistance of Judge Arcangel, who accompanied me to Metrodiscom Chief Col. Nelson Estares, to whom I explained the entire incident and treatment I received from the police who was investigating the case;
In addition, Wilfredo Cañas testified in the investigation and affirmed that it was because of the help of respondent judge that he was able to talk with Col. Estares, thus:9
[JUDGE ARCANGEL conducting examination:]
Q: In connection with the hacking of your wife and mother-in-law, what action did you take?
A: I tried to follow up the complaint to the police station about the hacking incident. I even went to the Tugbok police station.
Q: What action was taken at the police station?
A: The police station did not entertain my complaint and they tried to pass me around.
Q: When no action was taken in your complaint by the police station, what did you do?
A: Sensing that there is no hope (to go to the) police, I asked Judge Arcangel to accompany me to Col. Estares.
Q: When Judge Arcangel accompanied you to the Office of Col. Estares, what did you do?
A: He introduced me to Col. Estares and I told Col. Estares that my wife and my mother-in-law were attacked by the Marces family and they were hacked and I requested Col. Estares to help me because the police did not take any action and I even sensed that somebody was supporting the Marces family.
With the above-cited charges having been duly proven, in addition to the factual findings of Justice Purisima, it is clear that (1) respondent judge intervened in the feud between the complainant's family and the Cañas family and (2) such interference was not limited to the barangay mediation proceedings but extended as well to the various stages of the conflict. These acts of respondent judge must be viewed not as single, isolated actuations but in their totality and in the context of the enmity between the two feuding families. Thus viewed we find the actuations of respondent judge improper and censurable.
Respondent is, as we have so often said, the visible representation of the law,10 the intermediary between conflicting interests,11 and the embodiment of the people's sense of justice.12 Unless it was a case filed with his court, it was improper for him to intervene in a dispute or controversy. The Code of Judicial Conduct provides:
The prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.13
He should not suffer his conduct to create the impression that any person can unduly influence him or enjoy his favor.14
Respondent judge allowed himself to be dragged into what was a purely private matter between feuding families. In attending, at the request of Mrs. Cañas, the barangay conciliation proceedings and introducing himself there as the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court in an obvious demonstration of support for Mrs. Cañas, respondent lent the prestige of his office to a party in a case.
Respondent's request to the judge of a lower court to issue warrants of arrest against the complainant is no less censurable. As the Court had occasion to state in Sabitsana, Jr. v. Villamor:15
Cardinal is the rule that a Judge should avoid impropriety in all activities. The Canons mince no words in mandating that a Judge shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another Court (Canon 2, Rule 2.04). Interference by members of the bench in pending suits with the end in view of influencing the course or the result of litigation does not only subvert the independence of the judiciary but also undermines the people's faith in its integrity and impartiality.
Respondent judge also acted improperly in accompanying Wilfredo Cañas to Col. Nelson Estares who ordered the arrest of complainant and members of the latter's family. It would have been impossible for the Cañas family to procure the arrest of complainant and of members of his family by the Davao Metrodiscom were it not for the intervention of respondent judge.
Wilfredo Cañas' claim that he had to seek the help of respondent judge because even after three days the police still had not made a report on the incident on December 29, 1990 cannot justify respondent's intervention in the quarrel. The possibility that the incident could become the subject of litigation in his court should have deterred him from getting involved in the feud.
Nothing can bring courts into disrepute more than the failure of the occupants thereof to be ever scrupulous in their conduct. Canon 30 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics cautions judges "in pending or prospective litigation before him [to] be scrupulously careful to avoid such action as may reasonably tend to waken the suspicion that his social or business relations or friendships constitute an element in determining his judicial course." It cannot be overemphasized that "a judge's official conduct should be free from appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only upon the bench and in the performance of official duties but also in everyday life, should be beyond reproach."16
For the foregoing reasons, we find respondent judge guilty of improper conduct. We do not agree with complainant, however, that respondent's misconduct justifies his dismissal from the service. While in some cases involving similar acts the penalties imposed on the erring judges were dismissal, there were in those cases other grounds warranting the imposition of such drastic disciplinary penalty. For example, in Ubarra v. Mapalad,17 respondent, aside from pressuring complainants to drop criminal charges against the accused, likewise refused to inhibit herself when she knew it was improper to decide the case, and was guilty of delay in deciding the case. On the other hand, in Sabitsana, Jr. v. Villamor18 the respondent was found guilty of attempting to influence another judge to acquit the accused in a criminal case and, in addition, of making untruthful statements in the certificate of service.
In the case at bar, there is no other charge against respondent judge. This is his first administrative case. On the other hand his record as City Judge of Davao City, from 1975 to 1983, and as Regional Trial Court Judge in the same city since 1983 is otherwise exemplary. In the circumstances of this case, the penalty of reprimand with warning that commission of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely, should suffice to accomplish the purpose of disciplining an erring member of the judiciary who has not shown himself to be beyond correction. As the Book of Proverbs says, "A single reprimand does more for a man of intelligence than a hundred lashes for a fool." (17:10)
WHEREFORE, respondent is hereby REPRIMANDED with WARNING that commission of similar acts of impropriety on his part in the future will be dealt with more severely. All other charges are hereby DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Vitug, Kapunan, Francisco, Hermosisima, Jr., Panganiban and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.
Melo and Puno, JJ., took no part.
Separate Opinions
BELLOSILLO, J., dissenting:
After reviewing the records, I am inclined to sustain the findings and conclusion of Mr. Justice Fedil P. Purisima, Senior Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, who recommends that except for the charge that respondent Judge interfered in the mediation conference between the Marces and Cañas families before the Lupon Tagapayapa all other charges against respondent should be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence, if not for lack of merit. Mr. Justice Purisima recommends that respondent be only admonished but sternly warned that a petition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
The majority concludes that "[t]he report of the Investigating Justice fails to consider other serious allegations in the complaint, of which there is also sufficient evidence in the record, to wit: (1) That respondent judge caused the issuance of alias warrants of arrest by requesting another judge, before whom the case against the complaint was pending, to issue the warrants; and (2) That the arrest of the members of the Marces family on January 2, 1991 would not have been made without the intervention of respondent judge."1
With due respect, I find nothing irregular in the letter of respondent to Judge Edipolo Sarabia of the Municipal Trial Court in the Cities (MTCC) of Davao City, Br. 3, for the issuance of an alias warrant against herein complainant. We cannot ignore the fact that the accused was the subject of a lapsed warrant of arrest because he made himself scarce and could not be located. It was only when he was spotted in the vicinity after his unexplained absence that respondent, in a manner of speaking, reminded Judge Sarabia in a letter that "[i]f these cases (Cr. Cases Nos. 9-C-M, 10-C-M & 11-C-M) are still pending, please issue another alias warrants as the accused is now in town." Respondent was the Executive Judge of Davao City exercising administrative supervision over the MTCC judge. The letter then of respondent Executive Judge could neither be considered an order much less a command to issue the alias warrants. Certainly, as the highest judicial official in the area, it was his duty not only to remind Judge Sarabia to exercise his official function but also to inform the proper authorities of the presence in town of a fugitive from justice against whom warrants had been issued but could not earlier be served. Respondent judge thus was so minded to preface his letter with "[i]f these cases (Cr. Case Nos. 9-C-M, 10-C-M, & 11-C-M) are still pending." Indeed it was up to Judge Sarabia to study the situation and issue the corresponding alias warrants if justified. Quite apparently, respondent Judge under the circumstances was merely alerting Judge Sarabia of the presence of the accused. There is nothing in the record which shows that respondent commanded Judge Sarabia to issue the alias warrants.
Likewise do I find it difficult to ascribe fault on respondent judge for the supposed illegal arrest of the members of the family of the complainant on 2 January 1991. The record indicates that respondent judge merely introduced Mr. Cañas to Metrodiscom Commander Col. Nelson Estares who ordered and effected the arrest of the members of the Marces family. Thus it was Col. Estares who caused the arrest, not respondent Judge. As borne by the records, which the majority quotes, the only participation of respondent Judge was that he introduced Mr. Cañas to Col. Estares. Nothing more. Whether respondent judge threatened, persuaded, or merely requested Col. Estares to order the arrest of the Marceses is simply belied by the records.
The majority gives considerable weight to the allegation of complainant that "it would have been impossible for the Cañas family to procure complainant's arrest and that of members of the family by the Davao Metrodiscom were it not for the intervention of respondent judge."2 The allegation however is self-serving.
Indeed, the claim of Wilfredo Cañas that he had to seek the help of respondent judge because even after three (3) days the police still had not made a report on the incident on December 29, 1990 cannot justify the intervention of respondent in the quarrel between the members of the family of complainant and members of the Cañas family. However, still there is nothing on record which shows that respondent caused the arrest of the Marces family and in fact intervened in the quarrel between the two (2) families.
True "a judge's official conduct should be free from appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only upon the bench and in the performance of official duties, but also in everyday life, should be beyond reproach."3
But, "while this Court may slightly bend backwards if only to avoid suspicion of partiality and cliquism to a brother in the profession, it must also step forward and take the lead to defend him against unsubstantiated tirades which put to shame and disgrace not only the magistrate on trial but the entire judicial system as well."4
Let us not shatter his hopes and dreams of attaining a respectable place in the judicial hierarchy. We must be deliberate and circumspect in imposing sanctions against judges lest we penalize them for upholding the law and rendering justice to all.
In fine, I affirm the conclusion of Mr. Justice Purisima that "[e]qually anemic of evidentiary support is the charge that the respondent judge influenced the prosecutors and police authorities of Davao City to harass the family of complainant."5
Accordingly, I can only vote for the admonition of respondent Judge with a stern warning however that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
Separate Opinions
BELLOSILLO, J., dissenting:
After reviewing the records, I am inclined to sustain the findings and conclusion of Mr. Justice Fedil P. Purisima, Senior Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, who recommends that except for the charge that respondent Judge interfered in the mediation conference between the Marces and Cañas families before the Lupon Tagapayapa all other charges against respondent should be dismissed for insufficiency of evidence, if not for lack of merit. Mr. Justice Purisima recommends that respondent be only admonished but sternly warned that a petition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
The majority concludes that "[t]he report of the Investigating Justice fails to consider other serious allegations in the complaint, of which there is also sufficient evidence in the record, to wit: (1) That respondent judge caused the issuance of alias warrants of arrest by requesting another judge, before whom the case against the complaint was pending, to issue the warrants; and (2) That the arrest of the members of the Marces family on January 2, 1991 would not have been made without the intervention of respondent judge."1
With due respect, I find nothing irregular in the letter of respondent to Judge Edipolo Sarabia of the Municipal Trial Court in the Cities (MTCC) of Davao City, Br. 3, for the issuance of an alias warrant against herein complainant. We cannot ignore the fact that the accused was the subject of a lapsed warrant of arrest because he made himself scarce and could not be located. It was only when he was spotted in the vicinity after his unexplained absence that respondent, in a manner of speaking, reminded Judge Sarabia in a letter that "[i]f these cases (Cr. Cases Nos. 9-C-M, 10-C-M & 11-C-M) are still pending, please issue another alias warrants as the accused is now in town." Respondent was the Executive Judge of Davao City exercising administrative supervision over the MTCC judge. The letter then of respondent Executive Judge could neither be considered an order much less a command to issue the alias warrants. Certainly, as the highest judicial official in the area, it was his duty not only to remind Judge Sarabia to exercise his official function but also to inform the proper authorities of the presence in town of a fugitive from justice against whom warrants had been issued but could not earlier be served. Respondent judge thus was so minded to preface his letter with "[i]f these cases (Cr. Case Nos. 9-C-M, 10-C-M, & 11-C-M) are still pending." Indeed it was up to Judge Sarabia to study the situation and issue the corresponding alias warrants if justified. Quite apparently, respondent Judge under the circumstances was merely alerting Judge Sarabia of the presence of the accused. There is nothing in the record which shows that respondent commanded Judge Sarabia to issue the alias warrants.
Likewise do I find it difficult to ascribe fault on respondent judge for the supposed illegal arrest of the members of the family of the complainant on 2 January 1991. The record indicates that respondent judge merely introduced Mr. Cañas to Metrodiscom Commander Col. Nelson Estares who ordered and effected the arrest of the members of the Marces family. Thus it was Col. Estares who caused the arrest, not respondent Judge. As borne by the records, which the majority quotes, the only participation of respondent Judge was that he introduced Mr. Cañas to Col. Estares. Nothing more. Whether respondent judge threatened, persuaded, or merely requested Col. Estares to order the arrest of the Marceses is simply belied by the records.
The majority gives considerable weight to the allegation of complainant that "it would have been impossible for the Cañas family to procure complainant's arrest and that of members of the family by the Davao Metrodiscom were it not for the intervention of respondent judge."2 The allegation however is self-serving.
Indeed, the claim of Wilfredo Cañas that he had to seek the help of respondent judge because even after three (3) days the police still had not made a report on the incident on December 29, 1990 cannot justify the intervention of respondent in the quarrel between the members of the family of complainant and members of the Cañas family. However, still there is nothing on record which shows that respondent caused the arrest of the Marces family and in fact intervened in the quarrel between the two (2) families.
True "a judge's official conduct should be free from appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only upon the bench and in the performance of official duties, but also in everyday life, should be beyond reproach."3
But, "while this Court may slightly bend backwards if only to avoid suspicion of partiality and cliquism to a brother in the profession, it must also step forward and take the lead to defend him against unsubstantiated tirades which put to shame and disgrace not only the magistrate on trial but the entire judicial system as well."4
Let us not shatter his hopes and dreams of attaining a respectable place in the judicial hierarchy. We must be deliberate and circumspect in imposing sanctions against judges lest we penalize them for upholding the law and rendering justice to all.
In fine, I affirm the conclusion of Mr. Justice Purisima that "[e]qually anemic of evidentiary support is the charge that the respondent judge influenced the prosecutors and police authorities of Davao City to harass the family of complainant."5
Accordingly, I can only vote for the admonition of respondent Judge with a stern warning however that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
Footnotes
1 Respondent is at present detailed to Branch 134 of the RTC of Makati.
2 Comment, par. 11, Rollo, p. 306.
3 Id., pp. 305-306.
4 Rollo, pp. 91-94.
5 Rollo, pp. 31-32.
6 Exh. G, Rollo, p. 399.
7 Exh. F, Rollo, p. 400.
8 Comment, par. 11, Rollo, p. 306.
9 TSN, June 5, 1993, pp. 391-392.
10 Caamic v. Galapon 237 SCRA 390, 395 (1994), citing Office of the Court Administrator v. Gines, 224 SCRA 261 (1993); Inciong v. De Guia, 154 SCRA 93 (1987).
11 De la Paz v. Inutan, 64 SCRA 540, 548-549 (1975).
12 Office of the Court Administrator v. Bartolome, 203 SCRA 328, 337 (1991).
13 Canon 2, Rule 2.03; Padilla v. Zantua, 237 SCRA 670, 675 (1994).
14 Canon 12, Code of Judicial Ethics.
15 202 SCRA 435, 444 (1991), citing Commentaries on the CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT. (Emphasis added)
16 Caamic v. Galapon, supra note 10.
17 220 SCRA 224 (1993).
18 Supra note 15.
BELLOSILLO, J., dissenting:
1 Majority Opinion, p. 12.
2 Id., p. 18.
3 Id., pp. 19-20, citing Caamic v. Galapon, A.M. No. MTJ-93-887, 7 October 1994, 237 SCRA 390.
4 See Dissent in State Prosecutors v. Judge Manuel Muro, A.M. No. RTJ-92-876, 19 September 1994, 236 SCRA 505, 544.
5 Report and Recommendation, p. 121.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
