OCA v Judge Floro

RTJ-99-1460
It was in 1995 that Atty. Florentino V. Floro, Jr. first applied for judgeship. A
pre-requisite psychological evaluation on him then by the SC Clinic revealed
"(e)vidence of ego disintegration" and "developing psychotic process." Judge Floro
later voluntarily withdrew his application. In June 1998, when he applied anew, the
required psychological evaluation exposed problems with self-esteem, mood swings,
confusion, social/interpersonal deficits, paranoid ideations, suspiciousness, and
perceptual distortions. Both 1995 and 1998 reports concluded that Atty. Floro was
unfit to be a judge. But because of his impressive academic standing, the JBC
allowed Atty. Floro to seek a second opinion from private practitioners. The second
opinion appeared favorable thus paving the way to atty. Floro's appointment as RTC
judge.
An administrative complaint was filed against him by court administrator
Alfredo L. Benipayo. Then he recommended as well that Judge Floro be placed under
preventive suspension for the duration of the investigation against him. In a
Resolution dated 20 July 1999, the Court en banc adopted the recommendations of
the OCA, docketing the complaint as A.M. No. RTJ-99-1460, in view of the
commission of the acts or omissions as reported by the audit team.
One of those reported is for his alleged partiality in criminal cases where he
declares that he is pro-accused which is contrary to Canon 2, Rule 2.01, Canons of
Judicial Conduct or Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. The audit team
reported that Judge Floro relayed to the members thereof that in criminal cases, he
is always "pro-accused" particularly concerning detention prisoners and bonded
accused who have to continually pay for the premiums on their bonds during the
pendency of their cases.
Judge Floro denies the foregoing charge. He claims that what he did impart
upon Atty. Buenaventura was the need for the OCA to remedy his predicament of
having 40 detention prisoners and other bonded accused whose cases could not be
tried due to the lack of a permanent prosecutor assigned to his sala. At any rate,
Judge Floro submits that there is no single evidence or proof submitted by any
litigant or private complainant that he sided with the accused. Atty. Dizon, Judge
Floros Clerk of Court, on the other hand, categorically stated under oath that Judge
Floro, during a staff meeting, admitted to her and the staff of Branch 73 and in the
presence of his PAO lawyer that he is pro-accused for the reason that he
commiserated with them especially those under detention as he, himself, had been
accused by his brother and sister-in-law of so many unfounded offenses.
Issue: W/n Judge Floro violated Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct

Held: Yes. Canon 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states: "A judge should so
behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality
of the judiciary." This means that a judge whose duty is to apply the law and
dispense justice "should not only be impartial, independent and honest but should
be believed and perceived to be impartial, independent and honest" as well. Judge
Floro, by broadcasting to his staff and the PAO lawyer that he is pro-accused,
opened himself up to suspicion regarding his impartiality. Prudence and judicial
restraint dictate that a judge should reserve personal views and predilections to
himself so as not to stir up suspicions of bias and unfairness. Irresponsible speech or
improper conduct of a judge erodes public confidence in the judiciary.
On a more fundamental level, what is required of judges is objectivity if an
independent judiciary is to be realized. And by professing his bias for the accused,
Judge Floro is guilty of unbecoming conduct as his capacity for objectivity is put in
serious doubt, necessarily eroding the publics trust in his ability to render justice.