Rules of Court the record of the judgment, that he has been convicted of an

Section 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. Except as offense. (15)

provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who can
perceive, and perceiving, can make their known perception to Section 14. Evidence of good character of witness.
others, may be witnesses. Evidence of the good character of a witness is not admissible until
Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or such character has been impeached.
conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be
ground for disqualification. (18a)
Section 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or
immaturity. The following persons cannot be witnesses:
(a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their
production for examination, is such that they are incapable of
intelligently making known their perception to others;
(b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them
incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are
examined and of relating them truthfully.

Section 51. Character evidence not generally admissible;

exceptions:
(a) In Criminal Cases:
(1) The accused may prove his good moral character which is
pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
(2) Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his bad
moral character which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the
offense charged.
(3) The good or bad moral character of the offended party may
be proved if it tends to establish in any reasonable degree the
probability or improbability of the offense charged.
(b) In Civil Cases:
Evidence of the moral character of a party in civil case is
admissible only when pertinent to the issue of character involved
in the case.
(c) In the case provided for in Rule 132, Section 14, (46a, 47a)

Rule 132 Section 11. Impeachment of adverse party's witness.

A witness may be impeached by the party against whom he was
called, by contradictory evidence, by evidence that his general
reputation for truth, honestly, or integrity is bad, or by evidence
that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his
present, testimony, but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts,
except that it may be shown by the examination of the witness, or

SECOND DIVISION
ATTY. MELVIN D.C. MANE,
Complainant,
- versus -
JUDGE MEDEL ARNALDO B. BELEN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 36, CALAMBA CITY,
Respondent.
x-------------------------------------------------
-x
RESOLUTION
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
By letter-complaint dated May 19, 2006[1] which was received by
the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on May 26, 2006, Atty.
Melvin D.C. Mane (complainant) charged Judge Medel Arnaldo B.
Belen (respondent), Presiding Judge of Branch 36, Regional Trial
Court, Calamba City, of demean[ing], humiliat[ing] and berat[ing]
him during the hearing on February 27, 2006 of Civil Case No.
3514-2003-C, Rural Bank of Cabuyao, Inc. v. Samuel Malabanan, et
al in which he was counsel for the plaintiff.
To prove his claim, complainant cited the remarks made by
respondent in the course of the proceedings conducted on
February 27, 2006 as transcribed by stenographer Elenita C. de
Guzman, viz:
COURT:
. . . Sir, are you from the College of Law of the University of the
Philippines?
ATTY. MANE:
No[,] [Y]our Honor[,] from Manuel L. Quezon University[,] [Y]our
Honor.
COURT:
No, youre not from UP.
ATTY. MANE:
I am very proud of it.
COURT:
Then youre not from UP. Then you cannot equate yourself to me
because there is a saying and I know this, not all law students are
created equal, not all law schools are created equal, not all lawyers
are created equal despite what the Supreme Being that we all are
created equal in His form and substance.[2] (Emphasis supplied)
Complainant further claimed that the entire proceedings were duly
recorded in a tape recorder by stenographer de Guzman, and
despite his motion (filed on April 24, 2006) for respondent to direct
her to furnish him with a copy of the tape recording, the motion
remained unacted as of the date he filed the present
administrative complaint on May 26, 2006. He, however, attached
a copy of the transcript of stenographic notes taken on February
27, 2006.
In his Comments[3] dated June 14, 2006 on the complaint filed in
compliance with the Ist Indorsement dated May 31, 2006[4] of the
OCA, respondent alleged that complainant filed on December 15,
2005 an Urgent Motion to Inhibit,[5] paragraph 3[6] of which was
malicious and a direct assault to the integrity and dignity of the
Court and of the Presiding Judge as it succinctly implied that [he]
issued the order dated 27 September 2005 for [a] consideration
other than the merits of the case. He thus could not simply sit idly
and allow a direct assault on his honor and integrity.
On the unacted motion to direct the stenographer to furnish
complainant with a copy of the unedited tape recording of the
proceedings, respondent quoted paragraphs 4 and 3[7] of the
motion which, to him, implied that the trial court was illegally,
unethically and unlawfully engaged in editing the transcript of
records to favor a party litigant against the interest of
[complainants] client.
Respondent thus claimed that it was on account of the two motions
that he ordered complainant, by separate orders dated June 5,
2006, to explain within 15 days[8] why he should not be cited for
contempt.
Complainant later withdrew his complaint, by letter of September
4, 2006,[9] stating that it was a mere result of his impulsiveness.
In its Report dated November 7, 2007,[10] the OCA came up with
the following evaluation:
. . . The withdrawal or desistance of a complainant from pursuing
an administrative complaint does not divest the Court of its
disciplinary authority over court officials and personnel. Thus, the
complainants withdrawal of the instant complaint will not bar the
continuity of the instant administrative proceeding against
respondent judge.
The issue presented before us is simple: Whether or not the
statements and actions made by the respondent judge during the
subject February 27, 2006 hearing constitute conduct unbecoming
of a judge and a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
After a cursory evaluation of the complaint, the respondents
comment and the documents at hand, we find that there is no
issue as to what actually transpired during the February 27th
hearing as evidenced by the stenographic notes. The happening of
the incident complained of by herein complainant was never
denied by the respondent judge. If at all, respondent judge merely
raised his justifications for his complained actuations.
xxxx
. . . [A] judges official conduct and his behavior in the performance
of judicial duties should be free from the appearance of impropriety
and must be beyond reproach. A judge must at all times be
temperate in his language. Respondent judges insulting
statements which tend to question complainants capability and
credibility stemming from the fact that the latter did not graduated
[sic] from UP Law school is clearly unwarranted and inexcusable.
When a judge indulges in intemperate language, the lawyer can
return the attack on his person and character, through an
administrative case against the judge, as in the instant case.
Although respondent judges use in intemperate language may be
attributable to human frailty, the noble position in the bench
demands from him courteous speech in and out of the court.
Judges are demanded to be always temperate, patient and
courteous both in conduct and language.
xxxx
Judge Belen should bear in mind that all judges should always
observe courtesy and civility. In addressing counsel, litigants, or
witnesses, the judge should avoid a controversial tone or a tone
that creates animosity. Judges should always be aware that
disrespect to lawyers generates disrespect to them. There must be
mutual concession of respect. Respect is not a one-way ticket
where the judge should be respected but free to insult lawyers and
others who appear in his court. Patience is an essential part of
dispensing justice and courtesy is a mark of culture and good
breeding. If a judge desires not to be insulted, he should start using
temperate language himself; he who sows the wind will reap a
storm.
It is also noticeable that during the subject hearing, not only did
respondent judge make insulting and demeaning remarks but he
also engaged in unnecessary lecturing and debating. . .
xxxx

Respondent should have just ruled on the propriety of the motion
to inhibit filed by complainant, but, instead, he opted for a
conceited display of arrogance, a conduct that falls below the
standard of decorum expected of a judge. If respondent judge felt
that there is a need to admonish complainant Atty. Mane, he
should have called him in his chambers where he can advise him
privately rather than battering him with insulting remarks and
embarrassing questions such as asking him from what school he
came from publicly in the courtroom and in the presence of his
clients. Humiliating a lawyer is highly reprehensible. It betrays the
judges lack of patience and temperance. A highly temperamental
judge could hardly make decisions with equanimity.
Thus, it is our view that respondent judge should shun from
lecturing the counsels or debating with them during court hearings
to prevent suspicions as to his fairness and integrity. While judges
should possess proficiency in law in order that they can
competently construe and enforce the law, it is more important
that they should act and behave in such manner that the parties
before them should have confidence in their impartiality.[11]
(Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The OCA thus recommended that respondent be reprimanded for
violation of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct with a warning
that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more severely.[12]
By Resolution of January 21, 2008,[13] this Court required the
parties to manifest whether they were willing to submit the case
for resolution on the basis of the pleadings already filed.
Respondent complied on February 26, 2008,[14] manifesting in the
affirmative.
The pertinent provision of the Code of Judicial Conduct reads:
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
unconsciously falling into the attitude of mind that the litigants are
made for the courts, instead of the courts for the litigants.
An author explains the import of this rule:
Rule 3.04 of the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a judge
should be courteous to counsel, especially to those who are young
and inexperienced and also to all those others appearing or
concerned in the administration of justice in the court. He should
be considerate of witnesses and others in attendance upon his
court. He should be courteous and civil, for it is unbecoming of a
judge to utter intemperate language during the hearing of a case.
In his conversation with counsel in court, a judge should be
studious to avoid controversies which are apt to obscure the merits
of the dispute between litigants and lead to its unjust disposition.
He should not interrupt counsel in their arguments except to clarify
his mind as to their positions. Nor should he be tempted to an
unnecessary display of learning or premature judgment.
A judge without being arbitrary, unreasonable or unjust may
endeavor to hold counsel to a proper appreciation of their duties to
the courts, to their clients and to the adverse party and his lawyer,
so as to enforce due diligence in the dispatch of business before
the court. He may utilize his opportunities to criticize and correct
unprofessional conduct of attorneys, brought to his attention, but
he may not do so in an insulting manner.[15] (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
The following portions of the transcript of stenographic notes,
quoted verbatim, taken during the February 27, 2006 hearing show
that respondent made sarcastic and humiliating, even threatening
and boastful remarks to complainant who is admittedly still young,
unnecessary lecturing and debating, as well as unnecessary
display of learning
COURT:
xxx
Sir do you know the principle or study the stare decisis?
ATTY. MANE:
Ah, with due respect your
COURT:
Tell me, what is your school
ATTY. MANE:
I am proud graduate of Manuel L. Quezon University.
COURT:
Were you taught at the MLQU College of Law of the principle of
Stare Decisis and the interpretation of the Supreme Court of the
rules of procedure where it states that if there is already a decision Thats why. Sir second, and again I quote from your own pleadings,
by the Supreme Court, when that decision shall be complied with hale me to the Supreme Court otherwise I will hale you to the bar.
by the Trial Court otherwise non-compliance thereof shall subject Prove to me that I am grossly ignorant or corrupt.
the Courts to judicial sanction, and I quote the decision. Thats why
I quoted the decision of the Supreme Court Sir, because I know the ATTY. MANE:
problem between the bank and the third party claimants and I
state, The fair market value is the price at which a property may be
Your Honor when this representation, your Honor . . .
sold by a seller, who is not compelled to sell, and bought by a
buyer, who is not compelled to buy. Sir, thats very clear, that is
what fair market value and that is not assessment value. In fact COURT:
even you say assessment value, the Court further state, the
assessed value is the fair market value multiplied. Not mere the No, sir.
basic assesses value. Sir that is the decision of the Supreme Court,
am I just reading the decision or was I inventing it? ATTY. MANE:

ATTY. MANE: Yes your Honor . . .

May I be allowed to proceed.
COURT:
COURT:
No sir unless you apologize to the Court I will hale you to the IBP
Sir, you tell me. Was I inventing the Supreme Court decision which Because hindi naman ako ganon. I am not that vindictive but if this
I quoted and which you should have researched too or I was merely remains. You cannot take cover from the instruction of your client
imagining the Supreme Court decision sir? Please answer it. because even if the instruction of a client is secret. Upon
consideration, the language of the pleader must still conform with
A the decorum and respect to the Court. Sir, thats the rule of
TTY. MANE: practice. In my twenty (20) years of practice Ive never been haled
by a judge to any question of integrity. Because even if I believed
No your Honor. that the Court committed error in judgment or decision or grave
abuse of discretion, I never imputed any malicious or unethical
behavior to the judge because I know and I believe that anyone
can commit errors. Because no one is like God. Sir, I hope sir you
understand that this Court, this Judge is not God but this Judge is
COURT: human when challenge on his integrity and honor is lodged. No
matter how simple it is because that is the only thing I have now.
Please answer it.
Atty. Bantin, can you please show him my statement of assets and
xxxx liabilities?

COURT: ATTY. MANE:

I think that is not necessary your Honor.
COURT:
No counsel because the imputations are there, thats why I want
you to see. Show him my assets and liabilities for the proud
graduate of MLQU. Sir, look at it. Sir, I have stock holdings in the
U.S. before I joined the bench. And it was very clear to everyone, I
would do everything not be tempted to accept bribe but I said I
have spent my fifteen (15) years and thats how much I have
worked in fifteen (15) years excluding my wifes assets which is
more than what I have may be triple of what I have. May be even
four fold of what I have. And look at my assets. May be even your
bank can consider on cash to cash basis my personal assets. That
is the reason I am telling you Atty. Mane. Please, look at it. If you
want I can show you even the Income Tax Return of my wife and
you will be surprised that my salary is not even her one-half month
salary. Sir, she is the Chief Executive Officer of a Multi-National
Publishing Company. Thats why I have the guts to take this job
because doon po sa salary niya umaasa na lamang po ako sa aking
asawa. Atty. Mane, please you are still young. Other judges you
would already be haled to the IBP. Take that as a lesson. Now that
you are saying that I was wrong in the three-day notice rule, again
the Supreme Court decision validates me, PNB vs. Court of
Appeals, you want me to cite the quotation again that any
pleadings that do not conform with the three-day notice rule is
considered as useless scrap of paper and therefore not subject to
any judicial cognizance. You know sir, you would say but I was the
one subject because the judge was belligerent. No sir, you can go
on my record and you will see that even prior to my rulings on your
case I have already thrown out so many motion for non-compliance
of a three-day notice rule. If I will give you an exception because of
this, then I would be looked upon with suspicion. So sir again,
please look again on the record and you will see how many
motions I threw out for non-compliance with the three-day notice
rule. It is not only your case sir, because sir you are a practitioner
and a proud graduate of the MLQU which is also the Alma Mater of
my uncle. And I supposed you were taught in thought that the
three-day notice rule is almost sacrosanct in order to give the other
party time to appear and plead. In all books, Moran, Regalado and
all other commentators state that non-compliance with the three-
day notice rule makes the pleading and motion a useless scrap of
paper. If that is a useless scrap of paper, sir, what would be my
ground to grant exception to your motion? Tell me.
xxxx
COURT:
Procedural due process. See. So please sir dont confuse the Court.
Despite of being away for twenty years from the college of law, still
I can remember my rules, In your motion you said . . . imputing
things to the Court. Sir please read your rules. Familiarize yourself,
understand the jurisprudence before you be the Prince Valiant or a
Sir Gallahad in Quest of the Holy Grail. Sir, ako po ay mahirap na
tao, karangalan ko lang po ang aking kayang ibigay sa aking mga
anak at iyan po ay hindi ko palalampasin maski kanino pa. Sir,
have you ever heard of anything about me in this Court for one
year. Ask around, ask around. You know, if you act like a duck, walk
like a duck, quack like a duck, you are a duck. But have you ever
heard anything against the court. Sir in a judicial system, in a
Court, one year is time enough for the practitioner to know
whether a judge is what, dishonest; 2), whether the judge is
incompetent; and 3) whether the judge is just playing loco. And I
have sat hear for one year sir and please ask around before you
charge into the windmill. I am a proud product of a public school
system from elementary to college. And my only, and my only, the
only way I can repay the taxpayers is a service beyond reproach
without fear or favor to anyone. Not even the executive, not even
the one sitting in Malacanang, not even the Supreme Court if you
are right. Sir, sana po naman inyo ring igalang ang Hukuman kasi
po kami, meron nga po, tinatanggap ko, kung inyo pong
mamarapatin, meron pong mga corrupt, maaari pong nakahanap
na kayo ng corrupt na Judge pero hindi po lahat kami ay corrupt.
Maaari ko rin pong tanggapin sa inyong abang lingcod na merong
mga Hukom na tanga pero hindi po naman lahat kami ay tanga.
Ako po ay 8:30 or before ay nandito po ako sa husgado ko. Aalis po
ako dito sa hapon, babasahin ko lahat ang kaso ko para ko po
malaman kung any po ang kaso, para po pagharap ko sa inyo at sa
publiko hindi po ako magmumukhang tanga. Sir, please have the
decency, not the respect, not to me but to the Court. Because if
you are a lawyer who cannot respect the Court then you have no
business appearing before the Court because you dont believe in honest opinion. Remember he said honest. That implication is your
the Court system. Thats why one of my classmates never appeared honest opinion of an implication sir.
before Court because he doesnt believe in that system. He would
rather stay in their airconditioned room because they say going to Sir 1, 2 and 3. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. If that is your honest opinion.
Court is useless. Then, to them I salute, I give compliment because Remember the word you said honest opinion.
in their own ways they know the futility and they respect the Court,
in that futility rather than be a hypocrite. Atty. Mane hindi mo ako
Alam mo Atty. Mane I know when one has to be vigilant and
kilala, Ive never disrespect the courts and I can look into your eyes.
vigorous in the pursue of pride. But if you are vigilant and vigor,
Kaya po dito ko gusto kasi di po ako dito nagpractice para po
you should never crossed the line.
walang makalapit sa akin. Pero kung ako po naman ay inyong
babastusin ng ganyang handa po akong lumaban kahit saan, miski
saan po. And you can quote me, you can go there together to the Sir, what is your interpretation to the first three paragraphs?
Supreme Court. Because the only sir, the only treasure I have is my
name and my integrity. I could have easily let it go because it is the ATTY. HILDAWA:
first time, but the second time is too much too soon. Sir, masyado
pong kwan yon, sinampal na po ninyo ako nung primero, dinuran There will be some . . .
pa po ninyo ako ng pangalawa. Thats adding insult to the injury po.
Hindi ko po sana gagawin ito pero ayan po ang dami diyang COURT:
abugado. I challenge anyone to file a case against me for graft and
corruption, for incompetence.
What sir?

xxxx
ATTY. HILDAWA:

COURT:
. . . indiscretion.

I will ask the lawyer to read the statement and if they believe that
COURT:
you are not imputing any wrong doing to me I will apologize to you.

Indiscretion. See, that is the most diplomatic word that an old

Atty. Hildawa please come over. The Senior, I respect the old
practitioner could say to the Court because of respect.
practitioner, whose integrity is unchallenged.

Sir, salamat po.

Sir you said honest. Sir ganoon po ako. You still want to defend
your position, so be it.
xxxx
Atty. Hildawa I beg your indulgence, I am sorry but I know that you
are an old practitioner hammered out by years of practice and COURT:
whose integrity by reputation precedes you. Please read what your
younger companero has written to this Honorable Court in pleading Kita po ninyo, iyan po ang matatandang abogado. Indiscretion na
and see for yourself the implications he hurled to the Court in his lang. Now you say that is your honest opinion and the old
practitioner hammered through years of practice could only say
indiscretion committed by this judge. Much more I who sits in this
bench?

Now is that your honest opinion?[16] (Emphasis and underscoring

supplied)

WHEREFORE, respondent, Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen, Presiding

Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Calamba City, is found
GUILTY of conduct unbecoming of a judge and is REPRIMANDED
The Court thus finds the evaluation by the OCA well-taken. therefor. He is further warned that a repetition of the same or
similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
An alumnus of a particular law school has no monopoly of
knowledge of the law. By hurdling the Bar Examinations which this
SO ORDERED.
Court administers, taking of the Lawyers oath, and signing of the
Roll of Attorneys, a lawyer is presumed to be competent to
discharge his functions and duties as, inter alia, an officer of the
court, irrespective of where he obtained his law degree. For a judge
to determine the fitness or competence of a lawyer primarily on
the basis of his alma mater is clearly an engagement in an
argumentum ad hominem.

A judge must address the merits of the case and not on the person
of the counsel. If respondent felt that his integrity and dignity were
being assaulted, he acted properly when he directed complainant
to explain why he should not be cited for contempt. He went out of
bounds, however, when he, as the above-quoted portions of the
FIRST DIVISION
transcript of stenographic notes show, engaged on a supercilious
legal and personal discourse.
A. M. No. RTJ-03-1808 - October 15, 2003

This Court has reminded members of the bench that even on the
face of boorish behavior from those they deal with, they ought to
conduct themselves in a manner befitting gentlemen and high
officers of the court.[17]
Respondent having exhibited conduct unbecoming of a judge,
classified as a light charge under Section 10, Rule 140 of the
Revised Rules of Court, which is penalized under Section 11(c) of
the same Rule by any of the following: (1) a fine of not less than
P1,000 but not exceeding P10,000; (2) censure; (3) reprimand; and
(4) admonition with warning, the Court imposes upon him the
penalty of reprimand.
RADELIA SY and ERWIN CATO, complainants, vs. HON. JUDGE
ANTONIO FINEZA, Presiding Judge, RTC-Branch 131, Caloocan City,
Respondent.
DECISION
AZCUNA, J.:
A verified complaint1 dated May 22, 2001 was filed by Radelia C.
Sy with the Office of the Court Administrator, charging the
Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City (Branch
131), Judge Antonio J. Fineza, of bribery, grave misconduct,
conduct unbecoming of a judge and conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service. Complainant Sy is the accused in Criminal
Case No. C-53098 for estafa pending before Judge Fineza.
According to complainant Sy, Judge Fineza exerted undue and
improper pressure on her by offering to dismiss the estafa case in
exchange for P300,000. Otherwise, he threatened to convict
complainant Sy of estafa regardless of her innocence.
Complainant Sy declared that she delivered money to Judge Fineza
six times on separate occasions. The first payment occurred on
March 22, 2000, inside Steak Town Restaurant in West Avenue,
Quezon City, wherein she handed over cash worth P30,000 to
Judge Fineza in the presence of her lawyer, Atty. Petronilo dela Cruz
and a legal researcher named Robert Cheng. The second payment
took place during the first week of May 2000, this time inside Judge
Finezas chambers, where she gave P20,000. The third time was
later that same week, while inside Steak Town Restaurant, where
she gave P30,000 to Judge Fineza in the presence of Atty. dela
Cruz, Mr. Cheng and a certain Cristy Yambao. Again in the same
restaurant, for the fourth time, on or about May 19, 2000, she
delivered P25,000 to Judge Fineza, as witnessed by Atty. dela Cruz,
Mr. Cheng and a certain Erwin Cato. The fifth delivery occurred in
the month of June 2000, through Atty. dela Cruz, who advanced the
amount of P50,000, which she later reimbursed. The sixth
handover took place on July 20, 2000 inside Barrio Fiesta
Restaurant in Edsa, where she delivered P100,000 to Judge Fineza
in the presence of Mr. Cheng.
Complainant Sy claimed that when she was unable to complete the
remaining balance, Judge Fineza began harassing her. One instance
of harassment she described was when Judge Fineza cited her for
direct contempt on December 8, 2000. Complainant Sy recounted
that after the hearing of December 8, 2000, Judge Fineza inquired
if she had renewed her bail bond, in response to which complainant
Sy showed a receipt issued by one Evelyn delos Santos of Pacific
Union Insurance Company. Judge Fineza then directed his branch
clerk of court to verify the authenticity of the receipt. In the
meantime, complainant Sy was told not to leave the court room.
However, complainant Sy decided to fetch Evelyn delos Santos,
who was just minutes away, to attest personally to the authenticity
of the bond receipt. Upon returning with Ms. delos Santos,
complainant Sy learned that Judge Fineza had cited her in
contempt and had ordered her arrest for having left the court room
against his instructions. Complainant Sy moved to reconsider the
arrest order contending that she merely left to fetch the agent of
the bonding company to manifest in person the authenticity of the
bail bond. Despite the explanation, the motion was denied.
As the first order failed to mention the exact penalty imposed upon
complainant Sy for contempt, Judge Fineza issued an amended
arrest order directing that she be imprisoned for five days and
fined in the amount of P5,000. Then on March 29, 2001, just when
complainant Sy was about to finish serving her sentence for
contempt, Judge Fineza increased the bail of complainant Sy from
P200,000 to P1,000,000.
A second verified complaint2 dated July 3, 2001 was jointly filed by
complainant Sy and Erwin Cato charging Judge Fineza with abuse
of authority, grave misconduct and oppression. The second
complaint alleged that during the hearing of complainant Sys
estafa case on May 21, 2001, Judge Fineza shouted the following
remarks in open court:
Yan si Atty. dela Cruz, ilong lang ang walang sakit.
xxx xxx xxx
Sobra na! Abusado ang mga lawyers mo!
xxx xxx xxx
Sinungaling ka binastos mo ang Court, hindi
ako ang binastos mo! Sinungaling ka!
xxx xxx xxx
O! Bumaba na ang decision sa Court of Appeals, Dismissed na! Ano
pa?
Ano pa? Ang (sic) susunod na ipapa-file mo? O! Sige nakahanda
ako.

The second complaint further alleged that on May 23, 2001
complainant Sys counsel in other cases, Atty. Jubay, had relayed to
her that Judge Fineza warned him that morning during a hearing
that she had not been paying her other lawyers. Judge Fineza
added that complainant Sy had been threatening to file a case
against the former, and warned that if she does so, "she could no
longer appear or set foot in Caloocan City." This eventually led to
the withdrawal of Atty. Jubay as complainant Sys counsel.
The second complaint also alleged that complainant Cato was
likewise harassed by Judge Fineza. As stated therein, in the
morning of June 26, 2001, while waiting at the hallway, Judge
Fineza came out from his office, pointed a finger at him and
shouted: "Ikaw, sinungaling ka! Gumawa ka pa ng affidavit!" then
gave him a dagger look.
Judge Fineza denies the allegations contained in the two
complaints. He argues that the circumstances under which the
bribes were allegedly given to him are too incredible and
preposterous to be believed. He admits having increased the bail
bond from P200,000 to P1,000,000 but claims that this was done
well within the performance of his official duty. As for the second
complaint, Judge Fineza denies having uttered such remarks in
open court and presented the affidavits of two of his court
employees in support of his denial. He admits having chanced
upon complainant Cato in the hallway on June 26, 2001 and having
called him "sinungaling" for executing a false affidavit, but he
denies shouting at him, or pointing a finger or throwing dagger
looks at him.
On March 13, 2002, Deputy Court Administrator Christopher O.
Lock filed his report3 and recommended that the case be referred
to an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals for investigation,
report and recommendation. The Court in a resolution4 dated June
5, 2002 referred the case to Associate Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria.
During the hearing of the case before the investigating Justice,
both parties agreed to forego with the reception of evidence.5
They submitted instead position papers, attaching documentary
evidence and the affidavits of witnesses. In accordance with the
agreement, complainants Sy and Cato filed their memorandum6 on
November 26, 2002. Judge Fineza filed his Reply7 thereto on
January 14, 2003. A Rejoinder8 was filed by complainants Sy and
Cato on February 12, 2003 which was answered by Judge Fineza
with his own Rejoinder on February 27, 2003.
After assessing the pleadings and memoranda filed, along with the
documents and affidavits attached, the investigating Justice saw no
merit in the charge of bribery but found Judge Fineza guilty of
simple misconduct. He, therefore, recommended that Judge Fineza
be reprimanded and fined one months salary. The pertinent
portions of Associate Justice Labitorias Report state, as follows:
1. The complaint for bribery must fail.
The undersigned gives scant consideration on the complaint for
bribery. As found by the Supreme Court, bribery is easy to concoct
and difficult to disprove, thus complainant must present a panoply
of evidence in support of such an accusation. Complainant herein
has only her friends to support her claims who would naturally
testify in her favor. Again, following the ruling in Calimag case (id),
the Supreme Court said
"x x x In order that the allegation of a charge of this nature may
not be considered a fairy tale, evidence other than the doubtful
and questionable verbal testimony of a lone witness should be
adduced. Entrapment should have been pursued. Evidence of a
reasonable report to police authorities should been presented.
Record of where the bribe money came from, its specific
denominations and the manner respondent accepted and disposed
of it should have been clearly shown."
Complainant has not shown any of the above, except the affidavits
of her friends, who are expected to side with her.
However, respondent Judges acts of harassing the complainant by
citing her in contempt of court for a very trivial reason; putting her
in prison and ordering her to pay fine of P5,000; raising the bail
from P200,000.00 to P1,000,000.00; are clearly acts which show
abuse of authority.
A reading of respondent Judges Order of December 8, 2000 shows
that the reason for the issuance of the Order of Arrest was
complainants leaving the court room while her official receipt for
the renewal of her bailbond was being verified. Respondent Judge
did not even care to listen to the explanation of one Evelyn delos
Santos, the agent of the insurance company, who personally went
to him to explain and confirm the authenticity of the official
receipt, which if he only did he would be more humane,
benevolent, just and fair. Even the urgent motion for
reconsideration of said Order of December 8, 2000 filed by
complainant, attaching therewith the renewed bailbond and
affidavit of said Evelyn delos Santos was never taken into
consideration.
In respondents haste in issuing the Order of Arrest, he failed to
state the penalty for allegedly defying the order of the former, and
the manner by which complainant would serve the penalty. It was
only corrected when respondent issued an Order on January 24,
2001 denying the motion to suspend the execution of the Order of
Arrest earlier issued and issuing an Amended Order of Arrest.
On the issue of raising the bailbond from P200,000.00 to an
unconscionable and excessive P1,000,000.00 without hearing
therefore, at the time when complainant was about to be released
from detention due to her 5-day imprisonment on the contempt
order, the same is motivated by malice and bad faith and
constitutes misconduct. It is emphasized that "excessive bail shall
not be required."
Respondent [relies] on
1. the amount involved in the Estafa case is as big as
P4,600,000.00;
2. Radelia Sy had tried to mislead the Court that she had renewed
her bailbond by presenting a fake receipt;
3. Radelia Sy had jumped bail and remained in hiding from
December 8, 2000 until her arrest on March 27, 2001 and thus the
presence of the risk of her jumping bail again,
for increasing complainants bailbond. The first reason is not among
the guidelines set forth by the Revised Penal Code on Criminal
Procedure. No. 2 reason has been sufficiently explained and
respondents opinion of "fake receipt" had been aptly refuted and
contested by the agent of the insurance company. There was no
showing that complainant jumped bail. The date December 8, 2000
was the date of the issuance of the contempt order and order of
arrest. From said date up to March 27, 2001, was the period when
complainant was trying to move for the reconsideration of the
aforesaid arrest order and the putting up of the increased bailbond.
Undersigned could not find any reason why respondent would
resort to increasing the bailbond except for some ill-motives and
malice.
xxx xxx xxx
2. As to the second complaint wherein respondent was accused of
uttering defamatory words, complainant has no cause of action.
The utterances, granting that they were defamatory were
addressed to her lawyers and who would be affected thereby.
Complainant should not take the cudgels for her lawyers.
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the undersigned finds the
accusation for bribery to be without merit. However, respondent is
guilty of simple misconduct, for which a penalty of reprimand and a
fine of one (1) month salary [are] recommended.
Associate Justice Labitoria correctly found that the charge of
bribery was not proven. The accusation of bribery is a very serious
charge that would entail not only the dismissal of a judge but also
criminal prosecution. The affidavits and other documents
submitted by the complainants set forth allegations that are simply
not credible.
Nonetheless, this Court takes exception to the view of the
investigating Justice that Judge Fineza should be exonerated of the
charge of uttering defamatory words against complainant Sys
lawyers for the reason that they were not uttered against her,
hence leaving her with no cause of action against Judge Fineza.
The issue in administrative cases is not whether the complainant
has a cause of action against the respondent, but whether the
respondent has breached the norms and standards of the
judiciary.9 This Court has a duty to investigate and root out
misconduct and inefficiency of its judges regardless of the
complainants immediate interest. Unfortunately, the investigating
Justice refrained from further determining whether or not Judge
Fineza indeed made such utterances. Thus, this Court is
constrained to look at the evidence.
To support the claim that Judge Fineza uttered derogatory remarks
at complainants lawyers in open court, the alleged witnesses to the
incident, Mr. Cheng and complainant Cato, submitted their
respective affidavits. Judge Fineza denied having uttered such
remarks and presented affidavits of his stenographer and court
aide who declared therein that they did not see Mr. Cheng and
complainant Cato in court on that day. Given that the quantum of
proof needed to sustain an administrative case against a judge is
substantial evidence,10 this Court finds the affidavits presented by
complainants insufficient to substantiate their charge, especially
considering that contradicting evidence of equal weight has been
presented by Judge Fineza.
On the charge that Judge Fineza abused his authority, this Court
agrees with the findings of the investigating Justice. The
circumstances surrounding the arrest of complainant Sy for direct
contempt and the raising of her bail bond from P200,000 to
P1,000,000 unmistakably show abuse of authority. However, this
Court finds that such acts do not merit a mere reprimand and fine,
as they are not acts of simple misconduct but rather of serious
misconduct. In Suroza v. Honorado,11 this Court defined what
constitutes serious misconduct:
Misconduct implies malice or a wrongful intent, not a mere error of
judgment. "For serious misconduct to exist, there must be reliable
evidence showing that the judicial acts complained of were corrupt
or inspired by an intention to violate the law, or were in persistent
disregard of well-known legal rules."
There was a definite finding by the investigating Justice that the
order of arrest of complainant Sy for contempt and the increase of
her bond from P200,000 to P1,000,000 were motivated by malice
and bad faith. In addition to this, the records of the case
categorically reveal other acts of misconduct committed by Judge
Fineza which the aforecited report did not discuss: First, while
Judge Fineza denied having shouted, pointed a finger or glared at
complainant Cato in the morning of June 26, 2001, he admitted
having seen complainant Cato on that day along the hallway and
having called him "sinungaling;" Second, in Judge Finezas
Comment to the Complaint of Erwin Cato and Radelia Sy dated
August 1, 2001,12 he had the temerity to write about one of the
complainants witnesses in the following manner:
Now as far as Robert Cheng is concerned, this person should not be
given any credence for not only that he is a "BAKLA," in its fullest
sense, but also because even in a very minor aspect of his
identification, he could not be consistent nor relied [upon].
These two incidents clearly show Judge Finezas utter disrespect for
the office he holds as a member of the judiciary. In the first
instance, even assuming the absence of shouting, finger pointing
and menacing stares, the admitted act of Judge Fineza in calling
complainant Cato "sinungaling" in the hallway, already detracts
from the equanimity and judiciousness that are required of a judge.
As for describing one of the complainants witnesses as "BAKLA" in
a pleading filed before this Court, resort to argumentum ad
hominem is certainly most unbecoming of a judge, to say the least.
Lastly, the allegations contained in Atty. Jubays Manifestation and
Motion dated June 25, 2001, wherein he withdrew as counsel for
complainant Sy after having talked to Judge Fineza,13 is another
disconcerting proof of Judge Finezas abuse of authority:
1. That during the hearing of this case on May 23, 2001, the
undersigned counsel was called by the Honorable Presiding Judge
of this Court [who] inquired if undersigned is also the counsel of
Radelia C. Sy who is an accused in another case pending before
this Honorable Court;
2. That undersigned counsel replied that he is the original counsel
of Ms. Sy in her other cases and earlier that (sic) the other counsel
of Ms. Sy in her other cases;
3. That the Hon. Presiding Judge of this Court had told the
undersigned counsel that the other counsel of Ms. Sy had not been
appearing in Court as they had not been paid their legal fees or
professional fees to which the undersigned counsel had replied
that he did not know if the other counsel had been paid to which
the Honorable Presiding Judge had volunteered the information
that Ms. Sy had been threatening to file a complaint against him,
and said that if Ms. Sy will do it, she could no longer appear or set
foot in Caloocan City.
While Judge Fineza denies that the conversation ever happened,
the manifestation of Atty. Jubay cannot easily be dismissed as a
fabrication. It was made by an officer of the court who could be
held liable for contempt if the same is proven to be false. At this
point, it bears noting that the manifestation was filed with the
court of Judge Fineza and that he made no mention of ever having
imposed sanctions on Atty. Jubay for making such allegations.
Now, for the appropriate penalty.
The integrity of the judiciary rests not only upon the fact that it is
able to administer justice but also upon the perception and
confidence of the community that the people who run the system
have done justice.14 The assumption of office by a judge places
upon him duties and restrictions peculiar to his exalted position. He
must be perceived, not as a repository of arbitrary power, but as
one who dispenses justice under the sanction of the rule of law.15
This 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 daily life. For no position
exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness
of an individual than a seat in the judiciary.16crlwvirtualibrry
In Castanos v. Escano, Jr.,17 this Court held that when the judges
inefficiency springs from a failure to consider so basic and
elemental a rule, a law, or a principle in the discharge of his duties,
a judge is either too incompetent and undeserving of the position
and title he holds, or is too vicious that the oversight or omission
was deliberately done in bad faith and in grave abuse of judicial
authority. In either instance, the judge's dismissal is in order. In this
case, Judge Fineza is found to have acted with malice and bad faith
in ordering the arrest of complainant Sy and in increasing her bail
bond from P200,000 to P1,000,000. Moreover, his use of arrogant
and intemperate language in his pleading and in his verbal
remarks to complainant Cato and Atty. Jubay is not the proper
decorum expected of judges who preside over courts of law.
Finally, this Court also takes note of the fact that Judge Fineza was
recently found guilty of serious misconduct for refusing to order the
execution of a final and executory judgment.18 He was
reprimanded and fined P30,000 with the warning that a repetition
of the same will be dealt with more severely.
Nevertheless, Judge Finezas offenses are not beyond rectification.
Respondent Judge Fineza is, therefore, given one last chance to
correct his ways and is sternly warned that one more transgression
will merit his dismissal from the service.
ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, respondent Judge Fineza is
SUSPENDED from office without salary and other benefits for six (6)
months, with the STERN WARNING that one more transgression will
merit dismissal from the service.
SO ORDERED.