Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2002 > July 2002 Decisions > A.M. No. P-01-1522 July 30, 2002 - JUDGE ANTONIO J. FINEZA v. ROMEO P. ARUELO:

In the Decision dated November 29, 2001, in the above-captioned case, complainant was required to show cause why he should not be administratively sanctioned for speaking against the Court and the Judiciary in general.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Complainant filed his Compliance on January 1, 2002, wherein he asserts that in all honesty he had no intention to speak ill either against the Court or the Judiciary in general. He explains that his dissatisfaction and the views he expressed in the hearing held on October 27, 2000 "were solely intended against the Office of the Court Administrator." 1

The following excerpts quoted in the Decision, however, speak for itself:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Court

Per Sheriff’s return the subpoena was not personally served to the witness but the same was left to one Ligaya Santiago, the sister of the witness, and per information gathered by the Sheriff, the subject person is already staying somewhere in Camarin, Caloocan City.

Now, what is your pleasure?

Judge Fineza

Well, in view of the Sheriff’s return that the principal witness is no longer staying at his given address I think . . . this representation cannot pursue this matter therefore move for the dismissal of this administrative matter because the Supreme Court and the OCAD did not take prompt action on this matter. It took for (sic) two years and eight months without favorably giving due course to this administrative case which was filed by this representation against the respondent I am downgraded (sic) not to say I am saddened by the inaction of the Supreme Court so I am withdrawing my complaint. But this time I am reiterating my motion to withdraw this case considering that I cannot pursue this case without my witness’ testimony. And it’s up to the Supreme Court to take action, as I am emphasizing, stressing and capitalizing that justice delayed is justice denied.

Court

Is that on record?

Judge Fineza

Yes, Your Honor and I am already demoralized and lost faith in the system. And 1 would like to put on record that as of now this representation has no case pending for decision. 2 (Emphasis and Italics supplied.)chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

Complainant attributes his intemperate speech to being human and "having his own share of human frailties." 3 Nonetheless, as a member of the Bench he should have adhered to that standard of behavior expected of all those who don the judicial robe: that of being a "cerebral man who deliberately holds in check the tug and pull of purely personal preferences and prejudices which he shares with the rest of his fellow mortals." 4

While it may be true, as complainant claims, that he meant no malice nor was he moved by evil intent, the absence of malice or purity of motive is not a license for him to resort to inflammatory words to articulate his grievances. Complainant should bear in mind that he and, for that matter, all judges, should always observe courtesy and civility. 5 He should be temperate, patient and courteous 6 both in conduct and in language. 7 Indeed, he can remind the Court and the OCA to take prompt action on his complaint without being offensive in his speech.

WHEREFORE, Judge Antonio J. Fineza is hereby ADMONISHED to exercise prudence and restraint in his language and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Kapunan and Austria-Martinez, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

---

1. Compliance, p. 1.

2. TSN, 27 October 2000, pp. 3-4.

3. Op. cit., note 1.

4. Royeca v. Animas, 71 SCRA 1, 9 [1976], citing Azucena v. Muñoz, 33 SCRA 722, 723 [1970].

5. Retuya v. Equipilag, 91 SCRA 416 [1979].

6. Abarquez v. Rebosura, 285 SCRA 109, 122 [1998], citing Delgra v. Gonzales, 31 SCRA 237 [1970].

7. Ruiz v. Bringas, 330 SCRA 62, 68 [2000].