October 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
A.M. No. RTJ-03-1781 and A.M. No. RTJ-03-1782 - State Prosecutor Emmanuel Y. Velasco v. Hon. Erasto D. Salcedo, (Ret.) Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court of Tagum City, Davao Del Norte, Branch 31
EN BANC
[A.M. NO. RTJ-03-1781 : October 16, 2009]
GEORGE P. MERCADO (SUBSTITUTED BY HIS WIFE, REBECCA ROYO-MERCADO, AND CHILDREN, NAMELY, REBECCA GAY, KRISTINA EVITA, CRIS OLIVER AND MARIAN RICA, ALL SURNAMED MERCADO), Complainants, v. HON. ERASTO D. SALCEDO, (Ret.) PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF TAGUM CITY, DAVAO DEL NORTE, BRANCH 31, Respondent.
[A.M. NO. RTJ-03-1782]
STATE PROSECUTOR EMMANUEL Y. VELASCO, Complainant, v. HON. ERASTO D. SALCEDO, (Ret.) PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF TAGUM CITY, DAVAO DEL NORTE, BRANCH 31, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
These are consolidated administrative cases filed against Judge Erasto D. Salcedo (respondent judge), Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, Tagum City, charging him with violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Canons of Judicial Ethics.1
Administrative Matter No. RTJ-03-1781
In a series of letters-complaints dated January 2, 2001,2 July 16, 2001,3 August 28, 20014 and November 23, 20015 filed before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), George P. Mercado (complainant) charged respondent judge as summarized below.
In the letter dated January 2, 2001, the respondent judge was accused of bias and gross partiality in handling the investigation of the administrative case filed against Judge Napy Agayan (Judge Agayan) of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Kapalong-Talaingod, Davao del Norte. The complainant alleged that the respondent judge mishandled the investigation and based his "findings of facts" on "gossip and rumors"6 to aid a fellow judge.
On January 16, 2001, the complainant formally charged the respondent judge of committing these unethical infractions:
(1) Mishandling of, or rendering a false report to the Supreme Court on, his investigation of Judge Agayan;
(2) Grave misconduct and impropriety in possessing and using a stolen Pajero vehicle with knowledge, actually and constructively, that it was a subject of an Anti-Fencing Law case, docketed as Criminal Case No. 11728, which he had earlier dismissed; andcralawlibrary
(3) Serious irregularities, dishonesty or grave misconduct relating to the handling and improper execution of the final decision in Agrarian Case Nos. 31-99 to 51-99, entitled Soriano Fruits Corporation and Others v. Department of Agrarian Reform and/or Land Bank of the Philippines, where the respondent judge modified the final judgment on the amount of just compensation from which the respondent judge benefited in the amount of Three Million Pesos (
P3,000,000.00).
The letter-complaint dated August 28, 2001 was filed by the complainant to supplement his earlier allegations. The complainant alleged that in connection with the stolen Pajero, the respondent judge was one of the respondents in a criminal complaint for violation of the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 (R.A. No. 6539) and/or the Anti-Fencing Law of 1973 (Presidential Decree [P.D.] 1612) filed by the Philippine National Police. In Agrarian Case Nos. 31-99 to 51-99, the respondent judge showed partiality in hastily resolving the motions filed by the plaintiff, but not the motions filed by the defendant.
Finally, the letter-complaint dated November 23, 2001 was a reinforcement of the allegations in the earlier letters-complaints. The complainant additionally related that the use by the respondent judge of the stolen Pajero became a subject of media coverage.
The Office of the Chief Justice referred the letters-complaints dated January 2, 2001 and July 16, 2001 to Hon. Zenaida N. Elepa�o as Acting Court Administrator.7 Subsequently, then Court Administrator (now Supreme Court Associate Justice) Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., in an Indorsement dated January 21, 2002, required the respondent judge to file his comment on the letter-complaint dated November 23, 2001.8
The respondent judge duly filed his Comment (dated February 22, 20029 ), which the OCA received on February 27, 2002. The OCA summarized the respondent judge's position as follows:
Re: Investigation of Judge Napy Agayan.
Judge Salcedo contends that he has already submitted his recommendation to this Office and Mr. Mercado, through his complaint, would like to interfere and dictate what his recommendation would be. x x x
Re: Stolen Pajero found in his possession.
Judge Salcedo contends that Criminal Case No. 11728 against Leopoldo Gonzaga was dismissed in 1999 on motion of the prosecution because during the reinvestigation, the witness of the prosecution did not appear. He adds that from this dismissal the Traffic Management Group did not file any motion for reconsideration. Worse, the TMG authorized the change of color of the vehicle and allowed the buyer to use it for years.
Judge Salcedo avers that in June 2001, the owner lent him the vehicle and he did not know that it was the same vehicle subject of Criminal Case No. 11728, otherwise, he would not have used it for reason of delicadeza. According to him, there was no way of identifying the vehicle because the TMG authorized the change of color. The vehicle was green during the pendency of the criminal case while it was dirty white.
Re: Irregularities in Agrarian Case Nos. 31-99 to 51-99.
Judge Salcedo claims that he was designated as Acting Presiding Judge of the Special Agrarian Court in July 2000. He maintains that when he took over the said cases, the decision therein were already final and executory. Judge Salcedo asserts that he issued an order for the execution of the judgment which function is purely ministerial. He adds that if there was something wrong with the valuation of the land then the counsel for Land Bank should have questioned the same. As for the accusation that he received P3,000,000.00 for which he was able to construct a house in Tagum City, Judge Salcedo contends that the said house was constructed through a bank loan and the proceeds from the sale of a prime lot in Cagayan de Oro City.10
The complainant filed a Reply dated March 12, 2002.11 He argued that the handling of the reinvestigation of the Anti-Fencing case against Leopoldo Gonzaga was hastily concluded and resolved by Prosecutor Matias Aquiatan, who conducted the reinvestigation merely two days after the order to reinvestigate was issued by the respondent judge. The complainant further advanced the view that the respondent judge merely relied on the prosecutor's findings and dismissed the case with undue haste. According to the complainant, Leopoldo Gonzaga also had three (3) pending cases in the respondent judge's sala at that time.
The complainant also pointed out that two (2) checks for P800,000.00 were drawn from the payments made by Land Bank in Agrarian Case Nos. 31-99 to 51-99. The proceeds of one of these checks were given to the wife of the respondent judge.
Administrative Case No. RTJ-03-1782
On December 18, 2001, State Prosecutor Emmanuel Y. Velasco (State Prosecutor Velasco) brought to the attention of then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. the indictment of the respondent judge for violation of P.D. No. 1612 and recommended that appropriate administrative charges be initiated by the Supreme Court against him for violations of the provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct and of the Canons of Judicial Ethics.12 State Prosecutor Velasco stated:
'undersigned finds no cogent reason why Respondent JUDGE SALCEDO chose to use a vehicle which was the subject of a criminal case before his very own sala. There is no proof or evidence whatsoever that the Respondent Judge forgot that the alleged owner of the subject vehicle (Respondent LEOPOLDO GONZAGA) previously appeared before him as respondent in a criminal case. He could never forget it because the authorities apprehended him, Respondent JUDGE SALCEDO even showed them a copy of his very own July 7, 1999 Decision "exonerating" GONZAGA from the crime of Anti-Fencing. His contention that he did not know that he was using the very same vehicle (subject of the previous criminal complaint before his court) because its color has been changed is fallacious x x x Respondent JUDGE SALCEDO to be more cautious, out of delicadeza, in his dealing with GONZAGA, assuming for the sake of argument that he acted in good faith.13
In a Resolution dated April 10, 2002, we referred this administrative matter to the OCA and the respondent judge filed his Answer on August 30, 2002.14 In addition to the arguments he had already raised, the respondent judge posited that the whole incident was a smear campaign engineered against him by a carnapping syndicate operating in Manila-Mindanao. The respondent judge also posited that there was no impropriety in using the subject vehicle since it was no longer in custodia legis as Criminal Case No. 11728 had already been dismissed.
Thereafter, we referred the administrative cases to Justice Noel G. Tijam15 (Justice Tijam) of the Court of Appeals (CA) for investigation, report and recommendation. The referred cases involved:
(a) The respondent judge's investigation of Judge Agayan, his possession of a stolen Pajero and the alleged irregularities he committed in Agrarian Case Nos. 31-99 to 51-99;
(b) The suspension of Judge Salcedo pending the outcome of the instant case;
(c) The dismissal of the complaint of George Mercado dated April 22, 2002 for grave abuse of authority for being subjudice;16 and
(d) The referral of the dismissal of Criminal Case No. 11728 to the Department of Justice for it's appropriate action on the possible administrative liability of Prosecutor Matias Aquitan.
Pending investigation of these administrative cases before the CA, several significant developments took place. First, the respondent judge retired from the Judiciary on November 25, 2003. Second, the complainant was killed by unidentified men on April 14, 2004 and was substituted in the case by his wife and children.17 Lastly, the respondent judge himself was killed on July 26, 2009.
CA Report and Recommendation
Justice Tijam found the respondent judge guilty of dishonesty, inefficiency, incompetency and violation of Rules 1.01, 2.01 and 3.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and of Canon 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. Justice Tijam reported:
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION18
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY RESPONDENT JUDGE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CASE AGAINST THE LATE MTC JUDGE NAPY AGAYAN AND HIS COURT PERSONNEL
The 1st Indorsement dated June 6, 2000 referring the complaint against Judge Agayan and his staff to the Respondent Judge expressly directed the Respondent Judge to investigate therein respondents' irregular attendance in court. Hence, even if Minda Amar was not specifically named by Complainant Mercado in his first letter-complaint, the fact that the charges involved the alleged repeated absence not only of Judge Agayan, but also of the personnel assigned in Judge Agayan's court, Respondent Judge's investigation should have also included the court attendance of Minda Amar, the Clerk of Court.
x x x
. . . In the course of his investigation, the Respondent Judge would have discovered the fact of Minda Amar's prolonged absences. However, Respondent Judge failed to make any findings in this regard. Neither was there a statement that Clerk of Court Minda Amar was absent during said period of investigation and/or that her absences were authorized and approved by Judge Agayan. Instead, the Respondent Judge made a sweeping declaration that Complainant Mercado's charges of absenteeism against Judge Agayan's court personnel were unfounded.
There is no evidence that Respondent Judge examined the Court personnel's daily time records . . .
Indubitably, Respondent Judge was negligent and inefficient, if not dishonest, in his investigation of the administrative complaint filed against Judge Agayan and his court personnel. For this reason, the Respondent Judge must be held liable.
x x x
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
IN THE MATTER OF THE STOLEN PAJERO VEHICLE19
x x x
. . . although the criminal case against the Respondent Judge for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law was dismissed, the Respondent Judge could still be held liable for his improper conduct pursuant to Rules 1.0120 and 2.0121 of the Code Judicial Conduct . . . and Canon 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics22 [Emphasis theirs]
x x x
In this case, Respondent Judge displayed conduct that fell short of the standards expected of a magistrate of the law. Respondent Judge failed to be more circumspect in his dealings with Leopoldo Gonzaga.
Leopoldo Gonzaga was once an accused before Respondent Judge's sala in a criminal case for violation of the anti-fencing law which was later dismissed by the Respondent Judge. From this fact alone, any association which Respondent Judge may have with Leopoldo Gonzaga would be a cause for suspicion. When Respondent Judge borrowed the subject vehicle from the accused, he already displayed improper and reproachable conduct.
The fact that the vehicle lent to Respondent Judge was the same Pajero vehicle which was the subject of the dismissed criminal case makes the act more unethical. Respondent tried to justify that it was only after Gonzaga assured him that the Pajero was not a carnapped vehicle that he allowed himself to use it. This is inexcusable.
Respondent Judge was wrong when he borrowed from the accused the same vehicle subject matter of the criminal case which was dismissed and decided in the accused's favor. Respondent Judge failed to comport himself in such a manner that his conduct, official or otherwise, can bear the most searching scrutiny of the public. x x x
x x x
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION23
IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSOLIDATED AGRARIAN CASES
x x x
Complainant Mercado suggested that the Respondent Judge benefited from the awarded commissioner's fee. Complainant Mercado presented copies of the 3 cashier's checks and the deposit purportedly showing how Respondent Judge profited from said fees.
However, this claim is completely without factual basis. The complainant failed to adduce any substantial, direct and convincing evidence to substantiate his allegation that Respondent Judge materially benefited from the transaction. At most, such allegation is a mere suspicion or conjecture.
x x x
. . . unless there is direct and convincing evidence which will prove Respondent Judge materially benefited from the transaction, the Respondent judge cannot be held guilty of said charge.
However, . . . Respondent Judge is liable for gross ignorance of the law in according and/or modifying a final and executory decision.
As settled, when the judge's 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.???�r?bl?�