A.M. No. MTJ-99-1177




Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION A.M. No. MTJ-99-1177 February 8, 1999 Spouses GREGORIO LORENA and TERESITA LORENA, complainants, vs. JUDGE ADOLFO V. ENCOMIENDA, Municipal Trial Court of Pagbilao, Quezon, respondent. PANGANIBAN, J.: The serious nature of the tasks of judges requires them to be circumspect in both their public and their private dealings. As they are "expected to rise above human frailties," the must, in all of their activities, avoid not only improper, but even the appearance of impropriety. The Facts Spouses Gregorio and Teresita Lorena, in a sworn letter-complaint 1 received by the Office of the Court Administrator on August 5, 1997, charged Judge Adolfo V. Encomienda of the Municipal Trial Court of Pagbilao, Quezon, with grave abuse of authority. The letter-complaint reads as follows: Kami pong mag-asawa, Gregorio at Teresita Lorena, ay magalang na sumulat sa inyo upang ipaalam ang mga sumusunod na pangyayari at tuloy himingi sa inyo ng inyong mahalagang tulong: Kami po ay ikinulong sa pamamagitan ng pagsasabwatan simula alas 9:00 ng umaga ng Julio 4 hanggang 7, 1997 ng umaga nang wala pong habla sa amin o "warrant of arrest" sa piitan ng pulisya sa Lungsod ng Lucena. Ang mga tao po na nagtulong-tulong o nagkaisa na kami ay isuot sa kalabos o piitan ay sina Judge Adolfo V. Encomienda, Municipal Trial Judge ng Pagbilao, Quezon, at kasalukuyan ay Assisting Judge ng Lucena City, ang pulis pong Lucena City na si Alex Nuyda, ang mag-ina po na si Dolores Encomienda na ikalawang asawa ng namatay na si Herminio Encomienda na kapatid ni Judge Encomienda, at ang anak ng namatay na si Herminio Encomienda pangalan ay si Tadito Encomienda. Kami po ay tumira sa lupa nila na katabi ng kanilang bahay (Erminio at Dolores) dahil sa kanilang anyaya sa amin, sapagkat ako, Gregorio Lorena, ay kanyang utusan, bodyguard at marami pang iba. Ang dahilan po ay n[an]g kunin niya sa akin ang lupa nila na nilinis ko at tinamnan ng 680 saging at marami pang iba ay inihabla ko sila sa DARAB at noong hinihingi nila na iurong ko ang habla ay hindi po ako pumayag at ako ay inihabla nila ng "ejectment" at dahil po sa kami ay natalo ay giniba po ng sheriff ang aming bahay noong Julio 3, 1997. Nang kami no ay [gum]awa ng kanlungan ng aming kagamitan para huwag mabasa ng ulan noong alas (9:00 ng umaga ng Julio 4, 1997, ay dumating po si SPO3 Alex Nuyda at sinabi sa amin na gusto raw kaming makausap ni Mayor Ramon Talaga ng Lucena City; Na pagdating namin sa munisipyo ay wala si Mayor Talaga at ang naruruon ay si Dolores at Tabito Encomienda at kami ay pinipilit na pumirma sa isang kasulatan, at ang sabi naming mag-asawa ay hindi kami pipirma sapagkat wala ang aming abogado na si Atty. Antonio Robles. Ang sabi nila sa amin ay pumirma lamang kayo at tapos na ang lahat, at kung hindi ay kami ay ikakalabos at kami nga ay ikinulong sa piitang Lucena City. Bago po kami ikinulong ay may tumawag sa telepono at ako (Gregorio) ay tinawag at nang kunin ko ang telepono ay ang sabi po sa akin ay kilala mo ba ako, ang sagot ko po, "Opo, kayo si Judge Adolfo Encomienda. Ang sabi po sa amin, pumirma na kayo at tapos na ang lahat. Ang sabi ko po kay Judge, hindi po kami pipirma at wala ang aming abogado, at ang sabi po ni Judge, mga tarantado, mabulok kayo sa kalabos sabay bagsak ng telepono. Dahil po dito, kami pong mag-asawa ay humihingi sa inyo ng katarungan at naisip namin na kayo lamang po ang malalapitan sa aming kaapihan na isang mahirap na tao. Bigyan mo po kami ng kaunting halaga sa mundong ito. Maawa na po kayo sa amin na aping-api na sa buhay at naway pagpalain kayo ng maykapal sa pagtulong ninyo sa isang mahirap sa buhay at pinagsamantalahan ng mga may influencia at mayaman. Kahit po ipangutang namin ang pagpunta sa Maynila, kami po ay nahahandang humarap sa investigasyon, at upang patunayan ang sinabi sa sulat na ito ay katunayan po ay aming pinanumpaan ang nilalaman ng sulat na ito. 2 In his Answer, 3 Respondent Judge Encomienda denied the charge against him and averred: The dispute over the residential lot owned by the brother of the undersigned, Herminio V. Encomienda, was between said Herminio V. Encomienda and herein complainants. And said dispute was the subject of an ejectment case filed by the owner, Herminio Encomienda and spouse against Spouses Gregorio and Teresita Lorena, herein complainants, under Civil Case No. 1681-94 before Branch I, MTCC, Lucena City on February 21, 1994 (Annex A[-]complaint dated February 17, 1994). And on December 16, 1994, a Decision in said case was handed down by the then Judge Jose V. Habalo in favor of the plaintiffs ordering, among other things, the ejectment of the defendants, Spouses Gregorio and Teresita Lorena, herein complainants (Annex B Decision, dated December 16, 1994). The Decision was appealed by the defendants which was given due course, and the records forwarded to the Regional Trial Court, Lucena City. The case was assigned to Branch 59, then presided over by Judge Ismael T. Portes, but was taken over upon his retirement by Judge Jose V. Hernandez who rendered the Decision on October 9, 1995 affirming en toto the Decision of MTCC, Branch I, Lucena City (Annex C[-]Decision, dated October 9, 1995). Subsequently, a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution was filed by the plaintiffs on November 20, 1995 and on February 7, 1996, a Writ of Execution was ordered issued by MTCC Branch I, Lucena City (Annex D Order, dated February 7, 1996). Consequently, a Writ of Execution was issued on March 21, 1996 (Annex E Writ of Execution, dated March 21, 1996) but the same was returned unsatisfied because of the refusal of the defendants, Spouses Gregorio and Teresita Lorena to vacate the premises despite the grace period given them (Annex F[-]Officer's Return, dated May 3, 1996). A motion for [the] issuance of [the] Writ of Demolition was filed by the plaintiffs Herminio Encomienda and spouse on February 27, 1997, and which motion after hearing the Court granted[,] ordering the demolition of any structure/s, building/s or edifice/s and other improvements erected by the defendants the property of the plaintiffs (Exhibit G[-]Order, dated June 24, 1997). . . . [F]iled by the defendants, spouses Gregorio and Teresita Lorena [was a Motion for Reconsideration] of the Order of Demolition but said motion was denied in the Order of the Court of July 3, 1997 (Exhibit H[-]Order, dated July 3, 1997). And on July 4, 1997, the Sheriff submitted his report informing the Court that the Writ of Demolition implemented with the demolition of the house of defendants was already but defendants still refused to report Compliance, dated July 4, 1997). The complainants in the Sworn Letter Complaint claim that the undersigned together with his sister-in-law Dolores Encomienda, nephew Tadito Encomienda and one police office Alex Nuyda helped conspired with one another in placing them in jail beginning July 4 up to July 7, 1997. In refuting this claim of the defendants, undersigned has this to say: On July 4, 1997, the undersigned was at the MTCC, Branch II, Lucena City, performing his duties as Assisting Judge. At about 10:00 in the morning, his nephew, Tadito Encomienda, called up, informing him that he (Tadito Encomienda) together with Spouses Gregorio and Teresita Lorena, were at the Lucena City Police Station. According to him (Tadito Encomienda), he saw Gregorio Lorena starting to build another structure on the lot subject of the ejectment case. And so he (Tadito Encomienda) sought police assistance thru the Mayor for them to settle things in the presence of a police officer. Gregorio Lorena then asked to be allowed to stay for a few days on the premises and which request he (nephew of the undersigned) was amenable provided that Spouses Gregorio and Teresita Lorena would sign a written promise that they would leave the premises after the expiration of the period granted them. During the same telephone call, the undersigned's nephew sought advice whether it was indeed appropriate for him to require the spouses to sign the said written promise and to which query undersigned told his nephew that there was nothing wrong [with] it. After the first telephone call, again undersigned's nephew called up informing undersigned that Spouses Gregorio and Lorena refused to sign claiming that they did not understand the content of the note that if they would be forced to do so they would rather continue staying in jail. It was at this point that undersigned told his nephew that he would talk with Gregorio Lorena having in mind that said Gregorio Lorena would listen to him regarding the nature of the papers he would sign, the Decision ordering their ejectment and the Demolition order which had already been effected. During the conversation with Gregorio Lorena, the undersigned informed him that there was nothing wrong with him and his spouse signing a written promise to vacate, after all, they were requesting . . . their extended stay in the premises, and the Writ of Demolition ha[d] already been enforced. However, Gregorio Lorena insisted that he and his wife would not sign any written promise to vacate, and if forced to do so, they would rather stay in jail. Undersigned told him that they were not forced to sign, but since they were asking for an extended stay in the premises, it was but natural that the owner be given assurance that they would leave upon expiration of the period given them. The undersigned even told Gregorio Lorena that he could request his sister-in-law and nephew to allow them to stay even for a month provided that they would sign a written promise to vacate — but he refused the offer. The undersigned respectfully submits that there was no abuse of authority on his part as he had no hand at all [I]n what transpired on July 4, 1997, and that even under the circumstances aforestated there was no such unlawful detention as claimed by Spouses Gregorio and Teresita Lorena. As adverted to above, the undersigned only came to know that complainants were at the police station when he received a phone call from his nephew (Tadito Encomienda) on July 4, 1997. And this fact was attested [to] by PO3 Alex Nuyda who responded to the call for police assistance (Annex J-affidavit of PO3 Nuyda). And according to the nephew (Tadito Encomienda) of the undersigned, the complainant themselves, Spouses Gregorio and Teresita Lorena after their talk before the police investigator SPO Noel Diocos, . . . refused to leave the police station and insisted that they would just stay in jail as their house had already been demolished. This finds support in the affidavit of PO3 Diocos (Annex K, affidavit of PO3 Diocos) and the entry in the police blotter (Annex L) showing the refusal of the said complainants Spouses Gregorio and Teresita Lorena to leave the police station. On the ejectment case filed against Spouses Gregorio and Teresita Lorena, the judges who handled the case can attest to the fact that the undersigned at any stage of the proceedings had never interfered in the case — not even asking for its status during their social and official gatherings. On the basis of all the foregoing, the undersigned respectfully rests his case, praying that he be cleared of the unfounded and malicious charge soonest.4 The Court Administrator's Recommendation In his Report, Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo recommended that the charge of grave abuse of authority be dismissed and that the respondent judge "be advised to be more prudent and more circumspect in his actions and utterances," viz.: xxx xxx xxx EVALUATION: A careful review of the records shows that the complainants have not substantiated their charges in the face of respondent judge's denials which were corroborated by independent witnesses. Complainants' claim that they were imprisoned without any formal charge [or] a warrant of arrest issued against them was satisfactorily refuted by respondent Judge in his Answer. The latter's claim is supported by the affidavits of the two (2) police officers who were present during the incident at the Lucena City Police Station. Complainants' bare assertions were satisfactorily controverted by respondent Judge, not only with his denial of the charges but by reason of the evidence submitted to substantiate the same. This consisted in the affidavits executed by PO3 Alex Nuyda and PO3 Noel Diocos showing that complainant spouses voluntarily went to the police station to confer with the Encomiendas. This negotiation later on resulted in complainant spouses' refusal to sign the document allowing them to stay in the premises within the grace period requested. Instead, they insisted [on] stay[ingl in jail claiming that their house had already been demolished and they had nowhere to go. The undersigned is inclined to believe respondent judge's explanation that he conferred with Gregorio on the phone simply to assure him that there was complainant nothing wrong in signing the document containing his personal request to be allowed to stay in the premises but subject to the condition imposed by the Encomiendas that the same will be vacated once the grace period requested expires. Respondent Judge's explanation is bereft of any showing of abuse of authority either as a magistrate or as a private individual. Moreover, there is nothing in the complaint any wrong doing on the part of the respondent Judge with respect to the ejectment case or any attempt on the part of the latter to influence the final disposition of the case already decided by the MTCC, Lucena City in favor of the Encomienda Spouses, which decision was affirmed by the RTC, Branch 59, Lucena City on appeal. Notwithstanding the foregoing facts, it would have been prudent on the part of respondent Judge to have refrained from acts or utterances which could be misconstrued by complainant spouses Lorena, considering the former's family ties with the spouses Encomienda. As held by this Court in the case of Legaspi v. Garrets, 242 SCRA 679, "Respondent forgets that a judge should be prudent and more circumspect his utterances, remembering that his conduct in and outside the courtroom is under constant observation." RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court are our recommendations that the instant case be DISMISSED for lack of merit, and that respondent Judge be ADVISED to be more prudent and more circumspect in his actions and utterances, remembering that his conduct in and outside the courtroom is under constant observation. 5 The Court's Ruling Instead of dismissing the charge as recommended by the court administrator, we are REPRIMANDING respondent judge for his failure to exercise greater circumspection in dealing with the complainants. In charging Judge Adolfo V. Encomienda with grave abuse of authority, Spouses Gregorio and Teresita Lorena contend that their illegal arrest and subsequent detention which lasted three days, from July 4 to 7, 1997, was due to his machination and influence. They point to the fact that respondent judge is a brother of the deceased Herminio Encomienda and an uncle of Tadito Encomienda, the plaintiffs in the ejectment case filed against them. To support this allegation, complainants aver that on July 4, 1997, Judge Encomienda spoke to Gregorio on the telephone while the latter was at the police station, urging him to heed Tadito Encomienda's demand for the spouses to sign certain papers. When Gregorio refused, Judge Encomienda allegedly said, "Tarantado, mabulok kayo sa kalabos!" and then slammed the phone down. In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint. 6 In the present case, we believe that the complainants were not able to do so. There is no showing that respondent judge used the powers and influence of his office in an arbitrary and opprobrious manner. From the documents presented, it is apparent that he had no hand in bringing the Lorenas to the police station. Likewise, it cannot be said that he had any participation in the conflict between his brother's family and the Lorenas. The complainants may have surmised otherwise, but mere suspicion without proof cannot be the basis of conviction. 7 Although the charge of grave abuse of authority was not proven, the respondent judge cannot be completely exonerated. He himself admitted having spoken to Gregorio on the phone in order to assist the family of Herminio Encomienda, the judge's brother. The circumstances surrounding the controversy clearly show the impropriety of respondent's act. The Lorenas had just lost their home; considering the perceived power and exalted position of the respondent judge, as well as his relationship with Tadito and Dolores Encomienda, it was not surprising that the complainants were disconcerted and overwhelmed by the gravity of their situation. They cannot be blamed if they believed at the time that Judge Encomienda was somehow responsible for their arrest and detention. Whatever his intentions were, he should have avoided talking to Gregorio, especially in the tone and in the manner reported by the latter. In doing so, respondent steered away from the heavy responsibility of judges to be circumspect in their public and private dealings. As the Court has stated, "a judge is human, but he is expected to rise above human frailties. At the very least, there must be an earnest and sincere effort on his part to do so."8 Canon 2 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics mandates that "a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance or impropriety in all activities." Considering that a judge is the visible representation of the law and, more important, of justice, 9 his official conduct, as well as his personal behavior, should always be beyond reproach. In light of the foregoing, the Court believes that Judge Encomienda should be reprimanded. Applicable to the present case is Conde v. Superable, 10 in which the Court dismissed the charge for grave misconduct, but held: Still, [respondent judge] should have taken greater pains to avoid the impression that his personal feelings were not kept under control, as rightfully expected of a judge. That is an added responsibility of the most serious character assumed by a member of the bar honored with an appointment to the bench. He should on that account be admonished. He must take pains to assure that thereafter his conduct would not be thus tainted. WHEREFORE, Respondent Judge Adolfo V. Encomienda is hereby REPRIMANDED for failing to exercise greater care and circumspection in his actions. He is WARNED that a repetition of this or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. SO ORDERED. Romero, Vitug, Purisima and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur. Footnotes 1 Dated July 22, 1997. 2 Rollo, p. 1. 3 Dated November 14, 1997 and received by the Court on November 19, 1997. 4 Answer of Judge Adolfo V. Encomienda, rollo, pp. 7-12. 5 Memorandum of the Court Administrator, pp. 2-3. 6 Cortes v. Agcaoili, AM No. RTJ-98-1414, August 20, 1998. 7 Balayon, Jr. v. Ocampo, 218 SCRA 13, January 29, 1993. 8 Conde v. Superable, 29 SCRA 727, September 30, 1969, per Fernando, CJ. 9 Caamic v. Galapon, 237 SCRA 391, October 7, 1994. 10 Supra. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation