FIRST DIVISION
SPOUSES CAROLINA
AND VILLAMOR GRAGERA,
Complainants,
A.
M.
No. RTJ-02-1670
June 26, 2003
-versus-
JUDGE PABLO B.
FRANCISCO,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 26, STA.
CRUZ, LAGUNA,
Respondent.
D E C I S I
O N
VITUG,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
In a Letter-Complaint,
dated 27 June 2000, sent to the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA),
herein complainants, the Spouses Villamor and Carolina Gragera, charged
respondent Judge Pablo B. Francisco, a Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge
of Sta. Cruz, Laguna, with unauthorized practice of law relative to
Civil
Case No. 98-0019, entitled "Luisa B. Francisco-Gonzales, represented by
her Attorney-in-Fact Pablo B. Francisco vs. Sps. Carolina and Villamor
Gragera" for rescission of contract pending before the RTC of
Binangonan,
Rizal. The spouses averred that Judge Pablo Francisco had acted
as
the attorney-in-fact of his sister Luisa Francisco-Gonzales, a resident
abroad, in the active prosecution of the case. Except for the
initiatory
pleading, respondent Judge signed the pleadings relative to the civil
case
and participated in some of the hearings held relative thereto.
On 30 October 2000,
the OCA referred the letter-complaint of spouses Gragera to respondent
Judge Francisco for his comment.chanrobles virtual law library
Respondent Judge submitted
his comment, dated 28 November 2000, in which he explained that Civil
Case
No. 98-0019 involved his sister, a resident of the United States of
America,
who had asked him to be her attorney-in-fact in the case.
Respondent
Judge said that he had engaged the services of Attorney Remigio D.
Saladero
to be their counsel. Atty. Saladero acted as such until he was
constrained
to return to South Cotabato in the middle of 1999. Due to the
sudden
unavailability of Atty. Saladero and not having found as yet an
acceptable
replacement, respondent Judge was meanwhile obligated to file a motion
for pre-trial in time for the Christmas homecoming of his sister.
When no amicable settlement was reached by the parties during the
pre-trial
conference, respondent eventually contracted the services of Attorney
Reynaldo
Bernardo.cralaw:red
On 15 April 2000, the
court trying the civil case issued an order allowing the spouses
Gragera
(defendants in the case) to file an amended answer. Respondent
Judge,
believing that the order was erroneous, suggested that Attorney
Bernardo
file a motion for extension of time within which to file a motion for
reconsideration.
Due to an apparent miscommunication or misunderstanding, Attorney
Bernardo
instead filed a motion for extension of time to file a reply to the
amended
answer. Respondent Judge, after learning that neither a motion
for
reconsideration nor a reply was filed, forthwith prepared and filed a
motion
for reconsideration in behalf of his sister. Respondent Judge
asserted
that his being an attorney-in-fact for his sister did not affect his
judicial
functions and that he had always filed an official leave whenever he
would
appear in the civil case. Finally, respondent Judge called
attention
to the fact that the letter-complaint of the spouses Gragera was not
even
verified.cralaw:red
In another letter, dated
28 December 2000, sent to the OCA, the spouses Gragera claimed that
respondent
Judge had also been appearing in other cases, filed by him as
plaintiff,
such as in:chanrobles virtual law library
"a.
Civil Case No. 99-5398, Pablo B. Francisco vs. Benjamin Figueroa, RTC,
Antipolo, Branch 73;chanrobles virtual law library
"b.
Civil Case No. 00-022, Pablo B. Francisco vs. Rogelio Sanchez, MTC,
Binangonan,
Rizal, Branch 1;
"c.
Civil Case No. 00-032, Pablo B. Francisco vs. Rolando Sanchez, MTC,
Binangonan,
Rizal, Branch 1;
"d.
Civil Case No. 00-021, Pablo B. Francisco vs. Bernardo Persia, MTC,
Binangonan,
Rizal, Branch 2;
"e.
Another civil case pending before Branch 69 of RTC, Binangonan, Rizal,
the details of which have not yet been secured as of this date."[1]
In a Resolution, dated
21 August 2002, the case, docketed Administrative Matter RTJ-02-1670,
was
referred by the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals for
investigation,
report and recommendation. In the course of the investigation,
several
hearings were conducted during which the contending parties were
allowed
to testify and present their documentary and testimonial
evidence.
In the hearing of 26 November 2002, the letter-complaint against
respondent
Judge was subscribed and sworn to by complainant-spouses Gragera before
Division Clerk Attorney Romelia Gonzales.
In his investigative
report, Justice Elvi John S. Asuncion, to whom the matter was raffled
and
assigned, stated thusly:
"Respondent Judge denied
committing unauthorized practice of law. He contends that he was
always represented by counsel in Civil Case No. 98-0019 and in the
other
ejectment cases which complainants charge that he was appearing
in.
His lawyers were, initially, Atty. Saladero, then Atty. Bernardo and
Atty.
Recio. Presently, he is represented in the foregoing cases by
Atty.
Amor Mia J. Francisco. It is further submitted that in the other
ejectment cases where he allegedly appears, respondent Judge is the
plaintiff
therein and appears in the hearings only as a private individual
protecting
his rights.chanrobles virtual law library
"Moreover, respondent
maintains that his appearances in the foregoing cases do not prejudice
the dispensation of justice in his sala as shown by the monthly report
of cases in the RTC Sta. Cruz, Laguna - Br. 26 (Exhibits
32
- 32FF). Respondent testified that judges are allowed a
total
of thirty (30) days vacation leave per year and he always files his
leave
before appearing in the subject cases.cralaw:red
"However, he admits
that there were several instances when he prepared the pleadings and
signed
them himself allegedly by force of circumstances and to avoid prejudice
to the principal plaintiff, Luisa Francisco Gonzales.cralaw:red
"Indeed, evidence presented
by complainants show that there are occasions when respondent Judge
himself
would sign the pleadings in the aforestated cases."[2]
In its report, dated
15 November 2001, the OCA gave its own evaluation; to wit:
"It appears from the
record of the case that Atty. Remigio Saladero, Jr., the lawyer who
signed
the complaint, never represented respondent during court
hearings.
Thus, the appearance of Atty. Reynaldo Bernardo as collaborating
counsel
after more than two (2) years from the time the case was filed.
In
the meantime, it was respondent who acted as counsel and signed
pleadings
submitted in court. It is therefore undeniably clear that
respondent
engaged in the practice of law as evidenced by the minutes of the
hearings
and the motions filed in court."[3]chanrobles virtual law library
The OCA and the investigating
Justice both recommended the imposition of a fine of P5,000.00 against
respondent Judge for unauthorized practice of law.cralaw:red
This Court finds no
valid reason to depart from the holding of the investigating Justice
and
the OCA that respondent Judge Pablo B. Francisco has committed a
serious
act of impropriety. Rule 5.07 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
provides:
"Rule 5.07. A
judge shall not engage in the private practice of law. Unless
prohibited
by the Constitution or law, a judge may engage in the practice of any
other
profession provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to
conflict
with judicial functions."
The proscription against
the private practice of law, or just giving professional advice to
clients,
by Judges is based on public policy. The prohibition applies
equally
well to the appointment of and acceptance by judges to the post of
attorney-in-fact
in actual litigations, a fact which is also, by and large, incompatible
with the high office, functions, prestige and privileges of a
judge.[4]
It is of no moment, albeit worse, that the case where he accepts such
designation
as attorney-in-fact is one that pends before his own court. The
mere
perception that the judge might or could unduly influence the conduct,
as well as the outcome of the case, can undermine, or compromise in the
eyes of the public at the very least, the integrity and independence of
the court. Thus, it is often said, a judge should avoid not only
an actual impropriety but also even the appearance of impropriety.[5]
In the considered view
of the Court, the recommended fine of P5,000.00 should be increased to
P12,000.00.chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREFORE, respondent
Judge Pablo B. Francisco is found to have impinged the Code of Judicial
Conduct by his act of impropriety, and he is adjudged to pay a
FINE
of TWELVE THOUSAND (P12,000.00) PESOS with a warning that the
commission
of a similar or other infractions shall be dealt with severely.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman),
Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 43.chanrobles virtual law library
[2]
Investigative Report, p. 5.
[3]
Rollo, p. 43.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
Carual vs. Brusola, 317 SCRA 54.
[5]
Lorena vs. Encomienda, 302 SCRA 632. |