A.M. No.

RTJ-00-1567 January 19, 2001

FERNANDO DELA CRUZ, complainant,
vs.
JUDE JE!U! . "ER!AM#RA, RTC, Branch 166, Pasig City, respondent.
R E ! O L U T # O N
$NARE!-!ANT#AO, J.%
In a Resolution dated July 24, 2, the Court reprimanded respondent !udge and "ined him #en
#housand $P1,.% Pesos &ith a stern &arning that a repetition o" similar acts complained o" &ill 'e
dealt &ith more severely.
(n )eptem'er 12, 2, respondent !udge "iled a *otion "or Reconsideration insisting that +
I. #,- .*/0#(1I) R-P(R#. 2/) #(( I3C(*P1-#-, )1/3#-4, )5BJ-C#I6-,
*I)1-/4I30, /34 53#R5#,751 -6-3, I3 I#) PR-)-3#/#I(3 (7 #,- C/)- /0/I3)#
R-)P(34-3# #( ,/6- B--3 C(RR-C# /34 J5)# B/)I) (7 #,- )5BJ-C#
R-)(15#I(3.
II. B8 /4(P#I30 /34 6/1I4/#I30 #,- .*/0#(1I) R-P(R#., #,- )5BJ-C#
R-)(15#I(3 C/3 (318 B- *I)R-/4 /) /3 /B/34(3*-3# (7 #,- #I*-9,(3(R-4
P5B1IC P(1IC8 #,/# 0((4 7/I#,, 3(# */1IC-, *5)# B- PR-)5*-4.
strongly insinuating that the investigating Justice &as actuated 'y malice and &as 'iased against him.
5sing &ords &hich come close to saying that the investigating Justice prevaricated and that her "actual
"indings are speculative "a'rications, respondent !udge asserts he is innocent arguing at length that the
recital o" the .:*agtolis Report: o" the :"actual milieu: o" the administrative complaint at hand,
&as dishonest and distorted..1
Respondent !udge:s charges o" .dishonesty. and .distortion. o" "acts against an associate !ustice o" the
second highest court in the land, &ho &as tas;ed to loo; into administrative indictments "or &rongdoing
against him, ring hollo& in the a'sence o" any evidence &hatsoever sho&ing that the investigator
har'ored any ill9"eelings or malice to&ard him. )uch charges not only reveal a deplora'le de"iciency in
that degree o" courteousness respondent is supposed to o'serve and e<tend to&ards other magistrates
li;e him, it also 'etrays a character "la& &hich leaves the Court even more convinced that he deserves
the administrative sanctions imposed on him.1=&phi 1.n>t
/ !udge &ithout 'eing o""ensive in speech may endeavor to call attention to &hat he perceives to 'e
erroneous "indings against him. ,e may critici?e the points he "eels are incorrect 'ut he may not do so
in an insulting manner.2I" respondent disagrees and "eels he has to e<press his dissent thereto, a "irm
and temperate remonstrance is all that he should ever allo& himsel".@ Intemperate speech detracts
"rom the eAuanimity and !udiciousness that should 'e the constant hallmar;s o" a dispenser o" !ustice.4
#hose &ho don the !udicial ro'e are e<pected to 'e restrained and so'er in their speech. Restraint is, in
"act, a trait desira'le to those &ho dispense !ustice.B Indeed, a !udge:s language, 'oth &ritten and
spo;en, must 'e guarded and measured lest the 'est o" intentions 'e misconstrued. 6 (""ensive and
intemperate speech directed against 'rethren on the 'ench can not 'e condoned and deserves reproo".
2hile a circumspect scrutiny o" the "actual "indings o" the investigating Justice discloses that there are
indeed certain points therein &hich may raise a Aui??ical eye'ro&, the said "indings nevertheless do not
detract "rom the immuta'le "act that respondent:s conduct &as anything 'ut e<emplary in this case.
Contrary to respondent:s 'are claim that these "indings .are denied, 'elied, contradicted 'y andCor
no&here at all in :the documentary evidence su'mitted 'y respondent and the record $sic% o" the three
criminal cases as &ell as respondent:s ans&ers to the clari"icatory Auestionings $sic% o" the
investigator:,D the "indings o" the investigating !ustice are, in "act, supported 'y the documentary
evidence on record.
)tated di""erently, the points raised 'y respondent !udge &ill not cleanse him o" the &hi"" o" impropriety
in this case. #he Court pointed out in Dawa v. De AsaE that the people:s con"idence in the !udicial
system is "ounded not only on the magnitude o" legal ;no&ledge and the diligence o" the mem'ers o"
the 'ench, 'ut also on the highest standard o" integrity and moral uprightness they are e<pected to
possess.F It is to&ards this sacrosanct goal o" ensuring the people:s "aith and con"idence in the
!udiciary that the Code o" Judicial Conduct mandates the "ollo&ingG
C/3(3 2 + / J540- ),(514 /6(I4 I*PR(PRI-#8 /34 #,- /PP-/R/3C- (7
I*PR(PRI-#8 I3 /11 /C#I6I#I-).
R51- 2.1 + / !udge should so 'ehave at all times to promote pu'lic con"idence in the integrity
and impartiality o" the !udiciary.
C/3(3 @ + / J540- ),(514 P-R7(R* (77ICI/1 45#I-) ,(3-)#18, /34 2I#,
I*P/R#I/1I#8 /34 4I1I0-3C-.
By the very nature o" the 'ench, !udges, more than the average man, are reAuired to o'serve an
e<acting standard o" morality and decency. #he character o" a !udge is perceived 'y the people not only
through his o""icial acts 'ut also through his private morals as re"lected in his e<ternal 'ehavior. It is
there"ore paramount that a !udge:s personal 'ehavior 'oth in the per"ormance o" his duties and his daily
li"e, 'e "ree "rom the appearance o" impropriety as to 'e 'eyond reproach. 1 (nly recently,
in Magarang v. Judge Galdino B. Jardin, Sr.,11 the Court pointedly stated thatG
2hile every pu'lic o""ice in the government is a pu'lic trust, no position e<acts a greater
demand on moral righteousness and uprightness o" an individual than a seat in the !udiciary.
,ence, !udges are strictly mandated to a'ide 'y the la&, the Code o" Judicial Conduct and &ith
e<isting administrative policies in order to maintain the "aith o" the people in the administration
o" !ustice.12
Judges must adhere to the highest tenets o" !udicial conduct. #hey must 'e the em'odiment o"
competence, integrity and independence.1@ / !udge:s conduct must 'e a'ove reproach.14 1i;e
Caesar:s &i"e, a !udge must not only 'e pure 'ut a'ove suspicion.1B / !udge:s private as &ell as
o""icial conduct must at all times 'e "ree "rom all appearances o" impropriety, and 'e 'eyond
reproach.16
In Vedana vs. Valencia,1D the Court heldG
#he Code o" Judicial -thics mandates that the conduct o" a !udge must 'e "ree o" a &hi"" o"
impropriety not only &ith respect to his per"ormance o" his !udicial duties, 'ut also to his
'ehavior outside his sala as a private individual. #here is no dichotomy o" moralityG a pu'lic
o""icial is also !udged 'y his private morals. #he Code dictates that a !udge, in order to promote
pu'lic con"idence in the integrity and impartiality o" the !udiciary, must 'ehave &ith propriety at
all times. /s &e have recently e<plained, a !udge:s o""icial li"e can not simply 'e detached or
separated "rom his personal e<istence. #husG
Being the su'!ect o" constant pu'lic scrutiny, a !udge should "reely and &illingly accept
restrictions on conduct that might 'e vie&ed as 'urdensome 'y the ordinary citi?en.
/ !udge should personi"y !udicial integrity and e<empli"y honest pu'lic service. #he
personal 'ehavior o" a !udge, 'oth in the per"ormance o" o""icial duties and in private li"e
should 'e a'ove suspicion.
/s stated earlier, in Canon 2 o" the Code o" Judicial Conduct, a !udge should avoid impropriety and the
appearance o" impropriety in all his activities.1E / !udge is not only reAuired to 'e impartialH he must
also appear to 'e impartial.1F Pu'lic con"idence in the !udiciary is eroded 'y irresponsi'le or improper
conduct o" !udges.2
6ie&ed vis--vis the "actual landscape o" this case, it is clear that respondent !udge violated Rule
1.2,21 as &ell as Canon 2,22 Rule 2.12@ and Canon @.24 In this connection, the Court pointed out
in Joselito Rallos, et al. v. Judge reneo !ee Ga"o Jr., R#$ Branch %, $e&u $it',2B thatG
2ell9;no&n is the !udicial norm that .!udges should not only 'e impartial 'ut should also appear
impartial.. Jurisprudence repeatedly teaches that litigants are entitled to nothing less than the
cold neutrality o" an impartial !udge. #he other elements o" due process, li;e notice and hearing,
&ould 'ecome meaningless i" the ultimate decision is rendered 'y a partial or 'iased !udge.
Judges must not only render !ust, correct and impartial decisions, 'ut must do so in a manner
"ree o" any suspicion as to their "airness, impartiality and integrity.
#his re(inder applies all the (ore sternl' to (unicipal, (etropolitan and regional trial court
)udges li"e herein respondent, &ecause the' are )udicial *ront-liners who have direct contact
with the litigating parties. #hey are the intermediaries 'et&een con"licting interests and the
em'odiments o" the people:s sense o" !ustice. #hus, their o""icial conduct should 'e 'eyond
reproach.26
#o 'olster his cause, respondent !udge ma;es re"erence to his thirty nine $@F% year stint in the
government service .&ith not one record o" dishonesty or corruption.2D pointing out that neither o" the
t&o administrative cases against him re"erred to in the Court:s Resolution involved dishonesty or
corruption. 2hile indeed the t&o administrative complaints had nothing to do &ith dishonesty and
corruption, the re"erence to these t&o cases 'y the Court &as made precisely to call attention to the
"act that respondent !udge:s claimed thirty9nine year stint is not spotlessly clean and entirely "ree o"
&rongdoing.
In $ecilio +'coco v. Judge Jesus G. Bersa(ira,2E respondent &as initially admonished "or
a'senteesim 'y the Court. )u'seAuently, in Jose ,scar M. Sala-ar v. Judge Jesus G.
Bersa(ira,2F respondent intervened in a case &hich he could not properly ta;e cogni?ance o" causing
the complainant great pre!udice resulting "rom the delay o" the e<ecution o" a decision in his "avor in
Civil Case 3o. @F6E o" the *e#C o" *a;ati. 7or such transgression, respondent &as again sanctioned
and "ined 7ive #housand $PB,.% &ith the &arning that a repetition o" the same act &ould 'e dealt
&ith more severely "or violating /dministrative (rder 3o. @, series o" 1FE@. It &ill 'e readily noted "rom
the "oregoing that respondent !udge had 'een meted penalties &hich steadily 'ecame sti""er "or his
su'seAuent in"ractions, this case included.
3eedless to state, such un"lattering "ootnotes on respondent:s service record only "urther erode the
people:s "aith and con"idence in the !udiciary "or it is the duty o" all mem'ers o" the 'ench to avoid any
impression o" impropriety to protect the image and integrity o" the !udiciary, &hich in recent times has
'een the o'!ect o" criticism and controversy.@ #o reiterate +
(""icers o" the court have the duty to see to it that !ustice is dispensed &ith evenly and "airly. 3ot
only must they 'e honest and impartial, 'ut they must also appear to 'e honest and impartial in
the dispensation o" !ustice. Judges should ma;e sure that their acts are circumspect and do not
arouse suspicion in the minds o" the pu'lic. 2hen they "ail to do so, such acts may cast dou't
upon their integrity and ultimately the !udiciary in general.@1
Respondent:s closing plea that .the un"airness letting the su'!ect Resolution stand as is . . . &ill . . .
destroy Respondent:s "uture . . . and ta;es a&ay "rom him any "urther opportunity "or career
advancement or promotion.@2 is regretta'le 'ecause respondent !udge appears una&are that he is
actually the recipient o" sympathetic consideration in this case. Be that as it may, respondent must 'ear
in mind that +
/dministrative penalties do not play the "inal strains o" the val;yrian chant to a pu'lic career,
!udicial or other&ise. It is "or respondent !udge, 'y su'seAuently demonstrating his true &orth
through o'servance o" !udicial standards, to vindicate himsel" "rom a mis!udgment &hich is the
heritage o" the heedless and to rise to higher levels &hich is the destiny o" the deserving.@@
,o&ever, in the interest o" compassionate !ustice, the Court has resolved to reduce the "ine imposed on
respondent !udge to "ive thousand pesos $PB,.%. 1=&phi 1.n>t
&'EREFORE, in vie& o" all the "oregoing, the *otion "or Reconsideration is here'y DEN#ED "or lac; o"
merit. #he Resolution dated July 24, 2 is MOD#F#ED 'y reducing the "ine imposed on respondent
!udge "rom ten thousand pesos $P1,.% to "ive thousand pesos $PB,.%. #his denial is F#NAL.
!O ORDERED.