FIRST DIVISION
ATTY. MANUEL M.
ROSALES,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
RTJ-03-1784
June 17, 2003
-versus-
JUDGE ROMULO S.G.
VILLANUEVA,PRESIDING
JUDGE,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 12,
LIGAO,
ALBAY,
Respondent.
R E S O L U
T I O N
AZCUNA,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On June 30, 1997, Atty.
Manuel M. Rosales filed a complaint against Respondent Judge Romulo
S.G.
Villanueva for grave misconduct and acts unbecoming of a judge.
Complainant stated that
he is the legal counsel of respondent’s father, Jose Villanueva, Sr.,
in
a case for partition[1]
filed by respondent in his own behalf and in behalf of his brothers and
sisters.cralaw:red
Complainant alleged
that on June 16, 1997, between 8:30 to 9:00 a.m., he and Crispolo
Cerdan,
the driver of respondent’s father, were outside the courtroom of Branch
36 of the Regional Trial Court of Iriga City awaiting the pre-trial of
the case for partition. While waiting thereat, respondent
approached
Cerdan and told him, "Poloy, sabihan mo si Boss mo na
pigpapara
kuwartahan lang siya kan abogado niya (Poloy, tell your employer
that
he is just being bled dry by his lawyer)."
According to complainant,
respondent uttered the said remark within the hearing distance of other
persons, including a police officer, who were also waiting outside the
courtroom. After respondent had uttered the remark, he glanced at
complainant
with an insulting smile and complainant told him, "I will take note of
that Judge." Respondent then sarcastically asked complainant, "Ika
ang abogado? (Are you the lawyer?)" Complainant answered, "I
will take note of your comment, judge."
Complainant further
alleged that while the session was ongoing in the courtroom, respondent
menacingly looked at him thrice from head to toe and uttered,
"Guwapong-guwapo
ka sa sulot mon yan, noy! (You are just too handsome in your
attire,
boy!)" Complainant thanked respondent for the "compliment."chanrobles virtual law library
Complainant contends
that respondent’s actuation was uncalled for, demeaning and unbecoming
of one who is a member of the judiciary.cralaw:red
Complainant cited other
instances allegedly illustrating that respondent was unfit to be in the
bench, thus:
(a)
During the first pre-trial conference of the Partition case between
respondent
as plaintiff and his father as defendant, [respondent] without any
qualms
whatsoever told the herein complainant to relay his message to his
father
to wit:
‘Pañero,
tell your client (referring to his father, Jose Villanueva, Sr.), he
cannot
outlive this case.’
(b)
Sometime in December 1996, without any reason [or] justification
and probably borne out of his seething anger towards his father,
respondent
slashed all four (4) tires of the Lite Ace Van owned by his father’s
wife
(stepmother of herein respondent) as well as two (2) of the opposite
tires
of their service jeepney parked inside the garage of Jose Villanueva,
Sr.
(please refer to Affidavit of Crispolo Cerdan);
(c)
That sometime on April 28, 1997, again, without any apparent reason,
herein
respondent slapped his father’s personal driver, Crispolo Cerdan, and
Romeo
Reodique, Jr., the personal aid/helper of respondent’s father, which
incident
is now the subject of a criminal complaint to be filed by said persons
(please refer to Affidavit and Police Blotter, Annexes "A" and "B");
(d)
That without any knowledge or consent of respondent’s father (Jose
Villanueva,
Sr.) and while the Partition case was already pending,
respondent,
using his position as an RTC Judge, unceremoniously threatened and
drove
out the lessee of the residential house owned by respondent’s father
which
was then being leased to [a] foreigner thereby depriving respondent’s
father
of the income which defrays his father’s day to day expenses (please
refer
to Annexes "C," "D" and "E") which incident was the subject of a
complaint
for contempt of court in the Partition case and now an Ejectment case
is
being prepared for respondent’s ouster from the subject premises.
In his Comment,
respondent
vehemently denied ever committing grave misconduct and acts unbecoming
of a judge. He claimed that the complaint is intended to harass
and
silence him in view of the partition case he and his siblings filed
against
their father, former Mayor Villanueva, who is the client of complainant.chanrobles virtual law library
Respondent specifically
denied telling his father’s driver, Crispolo Cerdan, "to tell [his]
employer
that he is just being bled dry by his lawyer." Moreover, he stated that
"analyzing the statement, the undersigned (respondent) finds
nothing
wrong in that statement because though we have property disputes with
our
father, we want his money to be spent wisely." "Besides, this Mr.
Cerdan
being a driver of our father and his spouse will do everything to
please
his employers," added respondent.cralaw:red
Respondent also denied
having uttered the sarcastic remarks inside the courtroom that
complainant
was "too handsome" in his attire, reasoning that it is not his trait to
comment on or praise people whom he does not know.cralaw:red
Respondent admitted
that he told complainant that his (respondent’s) father could not
outlive the case. He claimed, however, that his complete
statement
was "Please tell your client (respondent’s father) to just have the
case
settled amicably for he cannot outlive the case." Respondent stated
that
complainant, with his incomplete statement, tried to make it appear
that
he wishes evil upon his father.cralaw:red
In regard to the taking
of the property subject of the case for partition, respondent
stated
that "it is a personal matter and a right being a co-owner, intended to
protect the interest of the heirs."
Respondent denied knowledge
of the alleged slashing of tires (of his father’s Lite Ace van and
jeepney)
and the slapping of Crispolo Cerdan and Romeo Reodique, Jr. He
claimed
that he did not know Reodique, Jr.chanrobles virtual law library
Respondent insisted
that all the aforementioned imputations on his character and integrity
were fabricated and intended to harass him, the root cause of which is
the property dispute between him and his siblings and their father. He
prayed for the dismissal of the charges against him.cralaw:red
In a Resolution dated
August 9, 1999, the Court resolved to refer this case to then Court of
Appeals Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales[2]
for investigation, report and recommendation.cralaw:red
The Investigating Justice
set the case for hearing on October 20-22, 1999 at the Court of
Appeals.
During the hearing, complainant and respondent gave their
respective
testimonies.cralaw:red
Complainant gave details
of the incidents subject of his complaint.cralaw:red
As for respondent, he
again denied uttering the aforementioned remark to Crispolo Cerdan who,
he claimed, was not then present. In support thereof, respondent
presented a certification[3]
showing that at the time of the alleged incident, Cerdan was an
employee
of the Camarines Sur provincial government and that he appeared to have
reported for work as shown by the entries in his Daily Time Record.[4]
Respondent also declared that he did not see his father on June
16,
1997, although he thought that his father arrived after he had left the
courtroom.chanrobles virtual law library
Respondent likewise
denied having talked to complainant inside the courtroom and stated
that
he harbored no grudge or ill feeling against complainant.cralaw:red
After respondent concluded
his testimony, complainant filed with this Court an Urgent Motion to
Designate
the Provincial Prosecutor of Camarines Sur to Hear/Investigate
Complainant’s
Other Witnesses, namely, Crispolo Cerdan and SPO1 Stanislao Mota, who
were
unable to appear in Manila. The Court referred[5]
said motion to the Investigating Justice who dispensed with the
presentation
of the testimonies of complainant’s other witnesses as they appeared to
be merely corroborative of complainant’s testimony.cralaw:red
The Investigating Justice
thereafter reported the following findings:
I. With respect
to the alleged utterance of respondent to his father’s driver Cerdan to
"tell your employer that he is just being bled dry by his lawyer."
Between the word of
complainant and that of respondent, the undersigned investigator finds
for complainant. Why would a practitioner, like complainant,
falsely
complain against a trial judge without jeopardizing his practice before
him and other judges for that matter.chanrobles virtual law library
While respondent presented
a certification that Cerdan was employed at the Camarines Sur
provincial
government and that he appeared to have reported for work on the
incident
in question, it does not necessarily mean that Cerdan was not present
during
the incident, given the practice of some provincial employees being
detailed
to current or ex government officials.cralaw:red
Besides, and this is
more crucial, respondent did not at his first opportunity to comment on
the complaint, by 2nd Indorsement of September 5, 1997, claim not
having
seen Cerdan during the incident, he having merely denied uttering
the quoted remark to Cerdan, as in fact he added that there was to him
nothing wrong therewith in light of his and his siblings’ property
dispute
with their father.cralaw:red
II. With
respect to the alleged remark inside the courtroom
regarding
complainant’s "too handsome" look in his attire following respondent’s
thrice looking at him from head to toe: Assuming that respondent
indeed uttered the remark, he may have meant it, the perception by
complainant
of the accompanying sarcasm having possibly arisen from respondent’s
previous
remark to Cerdan while the parties were still outside the
courtroom.
For if respondent had intended to insult complainant, he certainly
would
have carried it outside the courtroom when he earlier saw him outside,
instead of doing it inside the courtroom where it could be witnessed by
those present.chanrobles virtual law library
The Court agrees with
the findings of the Investigating Justice, particularly regarding the
utterance
by respondent of the words, "Poloy, sabihan mo si Boss mo na pigpapara
kuwartahan lang siya kan abogado niya (Poloy, tell your employer that
he
is just being bled dry by his lawyer)." The positive testimony of
complainant
is stronger than the negative testimony of respondent.[6]
Respondent in fact does
not seriously deny having made said remark but claims that he
finds
nothing wrong with it. Accordingly, the Investigating Justice correctly
stated that respondent has shown that he does not measure up to the
standard
of conduct expected of a member of the judiciary that would merit the
respect
and confidence of the people.cralaw:red
In uttering, within
the hearing distance of complainant and other persons, the aforesaid
remark,
respondent violated Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which
provides
that "[a] judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of
impropriety
in all activities." He also violated Canon 3 of the Canons of
Judicial
Ethics, thus:
A judge’s
official
conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety, and his
personal
behavior, not only upon the bench and in the performance of judicial
duties,
but also in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach.chanrobles virtual law library
The Court has
repeatedly
reminded members of the judiciary to be irreproachable in conduct and
to
be free from any appearance of impropriety in their personal behavior,
not only in the discharge of their official duties, but also in their
every
day life.[7]
For no position exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and
uprightness
of an individual than a seat in the judiciary.[8]
WHEREFORE, respondent
Judge Romulo S.G. Villanueva is hereby found guilty of language
unbecoming
a member of the judiciary and, accordingly, FINED in the amount of
Eight
Thousand Pesos (P8,000). Respondent is hereby WARNED that a
repetition
of said offense, or the commission of a similar one in the future, will
be dealt with more severely.cralaw:red
Costs de oficio.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman),
Vitug, Ynares-Santiago, and Carpio, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Docketed as Civil Case No. IR-2799.chanrobles virtual law library
[2]
Now Associate Justice of this Court.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Annex "B," Rollo, p. 53.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
Exhibit "7," Rollo, p. 59.chanrobles virtual law library
[5]
Resolution dated December 6, 1999, Rollo, p. 205.chanrobles virtual law library
[6]
Naval v. Panday, 275 SCRA 654, 678 (1997).chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
Dionisio v. Escano, 302 SCRA 411, 420 (1999); Naval v.
Panday,
supra at 689.
[8]
Ibid.
chan
robles virtual law library |