SECOND DIVISION
ATTY. ANTONIO D.
SELUDO,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
RTJ-03-1813
(formerly OCA I.P.I.
No. 03-1640-RTJ)
November 21, 2003
-versus-
JUDGE ANTONIO J.
FINEZA,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PUNO,
J.:
The incident which
gave rise to this administrative case occurred in the course of the
proceedings
in People of the Philippines vs. Alfonso De Villar, Errol De Villar and
Rodeo Lerio, Criminal Case No. C-58093 for attempted murder, before
respondent
Judge Antonio J. Fineza, Branch 131 of the Regional Trial Court of
Caloocan
City.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The respondent judge
was charged administratively by Atty. Antonio D. Seludo, counsel for
the
accused, before the Office of the Court Administrator of the Supreme
Court,
with the following offenses:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(1) gross
ignorance
of the law;
(2) oppression in
office;
(3) grave abuse of
authority; and
(4) conduct
unbecoming
of a judge.[1]
It was alleged that on
November 27, 2002, respondent judge ordered the arrest of complainant
"for
the failure of accused, Errol De Villar and Rodeo Lerio, as well as
their
counsel, Atty. Antonio Seludo, to appear in today's promulgation of
(the)
decision despite due notice, x x x."[2]
The Order of Arrest[3]
commanded any officer of the law to arrest complainant and to keep him
in jail until the decision in Criminal Case No. 58093 shall have been
promulgated.
Complainant averred
that he was the defense counsel in two separate Criminal Cases: (1)
Nos.
178462-64 before Judge Edwin B. Ramizo and (2) No. C-58093 before
respondent
judge. On November 11, 2002, complainant received an order from
respondent
setting the promulgation of the decision in Criminal Case No. 58093 on
November 18. The promulgation did not push through as respondent judge
was confined in a hospital. On November 25, complainant received
another
order setting the promulgation at 8:30 a.m. of November 27. However,
upon
checking his calendar, complainant noticed that on the said date and
time,
he had a previously-set hearing of Criminal Case Nos. 178462-64 before
Judge Ramizo. Due to the conflicting schedule, he instructed his
secretary
to inform the office of respondent judge that he could not attend the
promulgation
of his decision. He was thus surprised to receive on November 28, the
aforementioned
order directing his arrest and detention.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Upon his arrest, complainant
requested permission to go to the court of respondent judge to ask for
reconsideration. In court, respondent judge refused to see him.
Complainant
waited and was able to talk to respondent judge when the latter went
out
of his chambers and walked to his car. Complainant pleaded with
respondent
judge, who opened the windows of his car and, in the presence of the
police
officers, said, "kung gusto mo, pumunta ka sa harap ng kotse ko at
sasagasaan
na lang kita."[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant spent the
night in jail. The next day, he was brought to court for the
promulgation
of the decision. However, Prosecutor Eulogio Mananquil, Jr., the public
prosecutor, came late and was improperly dressed. Respondent judge
flared
up, fined him and held the promulgation in abeyance until Prosecutor
Mananquil
paid the cashier the one thousand peso (P1,000.00)-fine meted on him.
Atty.
Eduardo Rodriguez, the lawyer assisting complainant, requested for a
written
order to be presented to the cashier as basis for the payment of the
imposed
fine, but respondent merely told him, "If you want an order, I will
sign
that order on Monday."[5]
Fortunately, Prosecutor Mananquil was able to pay the fine. The
decision
was promulgated on the same afternoon and complainant was released from
jail.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant claimed
that he attended all scheduled hearings of Criminal Case No. 58093
before
respondent judge, and that it was only the promulgation set on November
27 that he missed due to a conflict in schedule. He alleged that due to
his incarceration, he failed to attend to the hearing of his cases
involving
six paying clients set in the morning of November 29.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his comment, respondent
judge denied the allegations of the complaint. He called the
complainant
a "fact fabricator," a "congenital liar," and an "Indian," meaning, he
failed to comply with his commitment.[6]
He averred that he ordered the incarceration of complainant to avoid
delay
in the promulgation of the decision in Criminal Case No. 58093.
Allegedly,
complainant failed to attend the first scheduled date of promulgation.
He emphasized his fast disposal of cases such that for the years 1993,
1994, 1997, 1999, 2000 and 2002, his inventory of pending cases showed
a zero balance. He likewise denied the car incident and alleged that he
merely asked complainant, "umalis ka diyan at baka masagasaan iyong
paa,"[7]
since complainant was leaning on the left side of his car.cralaw:red
Complainant replied
stating that his secretary called respondent's office on November 18,
and
was told that all hearings scheduled for the day were cancelled due to
respondent's hospitalization. He denied he was delaying the case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The report of the Office
of the Court Administrator is adverse to the respondent judge, viz:
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
The arrest of the
complainant
was, therefore, not only illegal, but also oppressive, and it violated
his constitutional right to due process. Complainant was arrested and
detained
without giving him the opportunity to be heard. In so doing, respondent
judge, wittingly or unwittingly, committed arbitrary detention defined
and penalized under Article 124 of the Revised Penal Code when the
order
of arrest was issued for complainant (who) was not committing a
crime
x x x.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
In his Comment,
respondent
judge used the words: fact fabricator, congenital liar, Indian who
fails
to comply with his commitment and dim-witted lawyer, as descriptive of
the complainant. These words are inflammatory which should have been
avoided.
In explaining why he issued the order of arrest against the
complainant,
the use of intemperate and insulting rhetorics is not necessary, if
only
to maintain the dignity of, and respect for, the court as an
institution.[8]
The OCA recommended
that respondent judge "be penalized to pay a FINE in the amount of
twenty
thousand pesos (P20,000.00) for gross ignorance of the law, oppression,
grave abuse of authority and violation of Rule 8.01,[9]
Canon 8 and Rule 10.03,[10]
Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility."[11]
We agree with modification.cralaw:red
In the case at bar,
respondent based his authority in ordering complainant's incarceration
on Section 14, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court, which provides:
Sec. 14. Bail to secure
appearance of material witness. — When the court is satisfied, upon
proof
or oath, that a material witness will not testify when required, it
may,
upon motion of either party, order the witness to post bail in such sum
as may be deemed proper. Upon refusal to post bail, the court shall
commit
him to prison until he complies or is legally discharged after his
testimony
has been taken.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It does not need a keen
intellect to hold that the rule relied upon by the respondent cannot be
used as basis for the detention of complainant since he is a counsel
and
not a material witness to a case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Section 6, Rule 120
of the Rules of
Court
is likewise of no help to the respondent. It does not require the
presence
of the counsel during the promulgation of a judgment, viz:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sec. 6.
Promulgation
of judgment.- The judgment is promulgated by reading it in the presence
of the accused and any judge of the court in which it was rendered.
However,
if the conviction is for a light offense, the judgment may be
pronounced
in the presence of his counsel or representative. When the judge is
absent
or is outside the province or city, the judgment may be promulgated by
the clerk of court.
If the accused is
confined
or detained in another province or city, the judgment may be
promulgated
by the executive judge of the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction
over the place of confinement or detention upon the request of the
court
which rendered the judgment. The court promulgating the judgment shall
have authority to accept the notice of appeal and to prove the bail
bond
pending appeal; provided, that if the decision of the trial court
convicting
the accused changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to
bailable,
the application for bail can only be filed and resolved by the
appellate
court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The proper clerk of
court shall give notice to the accused personally or through his
bondsman
or warden and counsel, requiring him to be present at the promulgation
of the decision. If the accused was tried in absentia because he jumped
bail or escaped from prison, the notice to him shall be served at his
last
known address.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In case the accused
fails to appear at the scheduled date of promulgation of judgment
despite
notice, the promulgation shall be made by recording the judgment in the
criminal docket and serving him a copy thereof at his last known
address
or thru his counsel.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
If the judgment is for
conviction and the failure of the accused to appear was without
justifiable
cause, he shall lose the remedies available in these Rules against the
judgment and the court shall order his arrest. Within fifteen (15) days
from promulgation of the judgment, however, the accused may surrender
and
file a motion for leave of court to avail of these remedies. He shall
state
the reasons for his absence at the scheduled promulgation and if he
proves
that his absence was for a justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to
avail
of these remedies within fifteen (15) days from notice.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We hold that respondent
violated Rule 3.04, Canon 3 of the Code
of Judicial Conduct, which states:
Rule 3.04.-
A judge should be patient, attentive, and courteous to lawyers,
especially
the inexperienced, to litigants, witnesses, and others appearing before
the court. A judge should avoid consciously falling into the attitude
of
mind that the litigants are made for the courts, instead of the courts
for the litigants.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is plain that
respondent
was impatient and discourteous in dealing with complainant. Judges
should
respect all people appearing before their courts, be they lawyers or
litigants.
Respondent ordered complainant's arrest without according him the
elementary
right to challenge the order. The violation of his right to due process
cannot be denied. To be sure, complainant satisfactorily explained his
absence in the November 18 scheduled promulgation. Before the
promulgation,
complainant's secretary called respondent's office to verify the
schedule
and was informed that all hearings for the day were cancelled due to
respondent's
confinement in the hospital. It is therefore inaccurate to contend that
complainant was absent twice, and he has to be arrested to prevent
delay
in the promulgation of the decision. The Office of the Court
Administrator
correctly observed that the respondent should have followed the
following
procedure:
What respondent judge
should have done under the circumstances obtaining at the time he
issued
the order of arrest of complainant was first to issue an order
directing
him (Seludo), within a reasonable time, to show cause why he should not
be punished for indirect contempt of court and, reset the promulgation
of the decision to some other time at the convenience of the court. If
the explanation is not satisfactory to the court, then and only then,
that
a penalty should be imposed upon the contemner.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It is likewise provided
in A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC Re: Automatic Conversion of Some Administrative
Cases Against Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan;
Judges
of Regular and Special Courts; and Court Officials Who are Lawyers as
Disciplinary
Proceedings Against Them Both as Such Officials and as Members of the
Philippine
Bar, that administrative cases against judges of lower courts, who are
likewise lawyers, are based on grounds which are also grounds for
disciplinary
action of members of the Bar, among others, for violation of the Code
of
Professional Responsibility.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We consider respondent
judge to have violated: (1) Rule 8.01, Canon 8 of the Code
of Professional Responsibility which prohibits the use of
inappropriate
language:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Rule 8.01.
— A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use language which
is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper; and
(2) Rule 10.03, Canon
10,
which mandates the proper observance of the rules of procedure:
Rule 10.03.
— A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall not misuse
them
to defeat the ends of justice.
We are disappointed by
respondent's penchant for improper words when he called the complainant
a fact fabricator, a congenital liar, an "Indian" who fails to comply
with
his commitment and dim-witted. We had previously admonished respondent
judge for using inappropriate language. In Judge Antonio JFineza vs.
Romeo P. Aruelo,[12]
respondent judge filed a complaint against Aruelo, a Clerk of Court of
another branch for interfering with a case pending in his sala. He
later
withdrew his complaint on the ground that " x x
x
the Supreme Court and the OCAD did not take prompt action on (the)
matter.
It took for (sic) (them) two years and eight months without favorably
giving
due course to this administrative case which was filed by this
representation
against the respondent. I am downgraded (sic) not to say I am saddened
by the inaction of the Supreme Court so I am withdrawing my complaint."
He also added that "(he is) already demoralized and (has) lost faith in
the system." In our decision, respondent judge was enjoined to be more
circumspect in his language. He was likewise made to show cause why he
should not be administratively sanctioned for casting the Court and the
Judiciary in bad light. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his explanation,
respondent claimed that he had no intention to speak ill against the
Court
or the Judiciary and attributed his intemperate language to being human
and "having his own share of human frailties." Nonetheless, we
admonished
him to exercise prudence and restraint in his language and sternly
warned
that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with
more
severely.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In a more recent case
decided by the Court En Banc, Lim vs. Judge Antonio JFineza,[14]
respondent judge was also found guilty of gross misconduct for failing
to execute a judgment which had become final, and was fined P30,000.00,
with a stern warning that a repetition of the same act will be dealt
with
more severely.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We consider respondent's
act of ordering the detention of complainant without just cause as
gross
ignorance of the law or procedure, and the improper use of words in his
Comment as gross misconduct,[15]
both under Section 8, Rule 140 of the Revised
Rules of Court,[16]
as amended, viz:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sec. 8. Serious charges.
— Serious charges include:
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
3. Gross
misconduct
constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct; x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
9. Gross ignorance
of
the law or procedure; x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
Section 11 of the same
Rule, provides the following penalty, viz:
Sec. 11.
Sanctions.
— A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the
following
sanctions may be imposed:
1.
Dismissal
from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the
Court
may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment
to
any public office, including government-owned or controlled
corporations.
Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case
include
accrued leave credits;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. Suspension
from office
without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not
exceeding
six (6) months; or
3. A fine of
more than
P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
IN VIEW WHEREOF, we
find
respondent judge guilty of gross ignorance of procedure and impose on
him
a fine of P40,000.00, and gross misconduct and impose on him a fine of
P40,000.00, considering his repetition of the offense.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Quisumbing,
Austria-Martinez,
Callejo, Sr. and Tinga, JJ.,
concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 1.
[2]
Id. at 7.
[3]
Id. at 8.
[4]
Id. at 2.
[5]
Id. at 3.
[6]
Id. at 23.
[7]
Id. at 24.
[8]
Id. at 49.
[9]
Rule 8.01. — A lawyer shall not, in his professional dealings, use
language
which is abusive, offensive or otherwise improper.
[10]
Rule 10.03. — A lawyer shall observe the rules of procedure and shall
not
misuse them to defeat the ends of justice.
[11]
Rollo, p. 49.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
A.M. No. P-01-1522, November 29, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Judge Antonio JFineza vs. Romeo P. Aruelo, A.M. No. P-01-1522, July
30, 2002.
[14]
A.M. No. RTJ-02-1705, May 5, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Prosecutor Ruiz v. Judge Bringas, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1266, April 6, 2000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, Re Proposed Amendment to Rule 140 of the Rules of
Court Re Discipline of Justices and Judges, October 1, 2001. |