EN BANC
CARMENCITA
D.
CACATIAN,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
MTJ-02-1418
(formerly OCA IPI No.
00-871-MTJ)
December 10, 2003
-versus-
JUDGE
RICARDO P.
LIWANAG,MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURT,SAN JOSE DEL MONTE,
BULACAN,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The instant administrative
case arose when Carmencita D. Cacatian charged Municipal Trial Court
Judge
Ricardo P. Liwanag of San Jose del Monte Bulacan, with grave
misconduct,
grave abuse of authority and conduct unbecoming of a member of the
bench
in a sworn complaint dated March 12, 2000. According to the
complainant,
Judge Liwanag, "far from adhering to the qualities of a wise and just
magistrate,"
committed the following:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A. Violated
the law, i.e., the "franking privilege" granted under the provisions of
PD 26 when he sent to herein complainant a demand letter pertaining to
a private transaction but using his judicial office to avoid the
payment
of a postal stamp as shown by the envelope of said letter (Annex
"B-1");chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
B. Exhibited
malicious,
abusive and criminal conduct when:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(1) he
shot
complainant with a firearm covered by an expired license;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(2) he filed a
criminal
charge against her for Estafa based on false and perjurious
allegations;
andchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(3) he issued
successive
warrants for her arrest knowing, fully well, that her failure to attend
the hearing of the case against her was due to his manipulations;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
C. Displayed
notoriety
and impropriety as shown by the fact that:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(1) the respondent
judge transacted business with herein complainant despite the fact that
herein complainant has a pending case before his sala;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(2) refused to
recuse
himself from hearing said case despite having filed an estafa case
against
herein complainant who likewise filed a complainant (sic) for
frustrated
homicide against him;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(3) filing the
estafa
case in his own sala; x
x
x[1]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The accusations against
the respondent as summarized by the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA)
in its Report dated March 1, 2002 are as follows:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant,
who is the accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 8367 to 8398 pending before
respondent,
alleges that during the pendency of the aforesaid cases, respondent
started
frequenting the club that she manages, the "Daeyun Videoke Club" at
Lagro,
Quezon City. When he learned that she had connections with the Firearms
and Explosives Division (FED) of the PNP, he requested her assistance
in
fixing his 9mm pistol as well as in acquiring a new 380-caliber Beretta
automatic pistol. Respondent handed to her P10,000 to be used as down
payment
for the new gun.
On 31 July
1999 at around 8:30 p.m., complainant was informed that respondent
wanted
to see her inside the VIP room of "Daeyun Bar and Videoke Club" which
is
located beside her residence. Upon entering the aforementioned room,
the
visibly drunken respondent started berating her, allegedly because of
her
failure to facilitate the immediate approval of the license covering
his
new firearm as well as the poor job done on his old gun. She then saw
him
point the gun at her after which a shot rang out hitting her on the
left
hand. She was brought to the hospital by respondent Judge's driver.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
While she was
still
at the hospital, respondent Judge promised to shoulder her hospital
expenses
and pleaded with her not to report the matter to the police or file
criminal
charges against him. Because of the said incident, she lost the use of
her left hand.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sometime in August
1999,
complainant sought reimbursement of the cost of her hospitalization
from
respondent. However, the latter became furious and refused to reimburse
her for the said expenses and even threatened to make things very
difficult
for her.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thereafter on 20
September
1999, she received a demand letter dated 7 September 1999 from
respondent
enclosed in a brown letter envelope which bore the sender's address as
"Judge Ricardo P. Liwanag, Municipal Trial Court, San Jose del Monte,
Bulacan"
and in lieu of the mandatory postal stamp are the words "Free Under PD
26."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Meanwhile
on
10 September 1999, respondent filed a criminal complaint against
complainant
for Estafa before the MTC of San Jose Del Monte. On the same day, a
warrant
for her arrest was issued. In his complaint, respondent alleged that
herein
complainant misappropriated the sum of P45,000.00 which was intended
for
the purchase of a new gun. Complainant admits that she received P10,000
from respondent Judge that the latter handed to her at the Videoke Club
as down payment for the purchase of a new firearm but denies having
received
from him an FEG 9mm pistol which is allegedly valued at P35,000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Verification with
the
Firearms and Explosives Division of the PNP revealed that only a 9mm
Daewoo
pistol with Serial No. BA005065 was licensed in the name of respondent.
Complainant also points out that if respondent's allegation that the
money
and pistol were handed to her in his chambers is true, then he
committed
a breach of judicial conduct for performing personal transactions
therein
with a person who had pending cases before his sala.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
She insists that
the
criminal complaint for estafa is baseless because as early as 16 August
1999 she had already submitted respondent's application for license
before
the FEB of the PNP. Moreover, the date of its filing (10 September)
precedes
the date of mailing of the demand letter (13 September 1999) indicating
that the case was filed even before the mailing of the letter to herein
complainant. She denies that she was previously furnished with a copy
thereof
on 9 September 1999.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On 12 October 1999
herein
complainant filed a criminal complaint for frustrated homicide against
respondent Judge before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Quezon
City.
The case was scheduled for preliminary investigation on 11 November
1999.
On said date, she was arrested by the elements of CIDG, PNP, Bulacan on
the strength of a warrant of arrest issued by respondent. She was then
brought to the Malolos Police Station.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The following day,
her sister had to appear on her behalf before respondent's sala for the
hearing of her cases. Despite his personal knowledge of her detention
and
complainant's sister's explanations, respondent ordered complainant's
arrest
for failure to appear during the said hearing. In said order,
respondent
cited an alleged report that complainant was released from detention at
around 10:00 a.m. Even if the same were true, complainant asserts that
she was neither physically nor emotionally prepared to appear at the
hearing.
Thereafter, the respondent inhibited himself from hearing all cases
against
the complainant which are pending before him.[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The respondent judge
denied all the charges against him in his Answer dated June 23, 2000.
He
never frequented the Daeyun Videoke Club, but admitted that he went
there
once to get his gun, thinking that it was the complainant's residence.
He averred that he had no time to engage in nocturnal activities even
after
office hours because of the volume of his work. Furthermore, as a
resident
of Plaridel, Bulacan, it would take him no less than an hour to reach
Lagro,
Novaliches, Quezon City. According to the respondent:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That what actually
happened that night of July 31, 1999 which resulted to the hand injury
unfortunately suffered by Mrs. Cacatian was the result of her own gross
negligence because when she requested to see the Daewoo pistol
respondent
told his driver to get the gun from his car as it was his driver who
placed
it earlier inside the vehicle. When the driver returned to the place
where
respondent Judge and Mrs. Cacatian were talking in the presence of her
common-law husband (Rowan Dominais) the driver removed the gun's
magazine
then handed over the same direct to Mrs. Cacatian who, because she
might
have been thinking then or of the erroneous impression that there was
no
bullet in the pistol's chamber, in turn recklessly pulled the trigger
in
the course of her cursory examination of the rebluing job done earlier
to the firearm and when the gun suddenly went off she unexpectedly hit
her left palm which shocked every one then present. If there really was
a berating act from the respondent's end and if the undersigned was
fuming
mad such behavior could not have escaped Rowan Dominais' attention and
also could have immediately forewarned said common-law husband to be
alert
at her defense and when the shooting happened he could have also waged
immediately an attack directed against the respondent Judge or shouted
somehow for help from the herd of their employees then physically
present
but the stunning silence or complete absence of any retaliatory or
defensive
reaction from anyone inside the establishment would already render Mrs.
Cacatian's account without legs to stand on and, at the same time,
unerringly
point that the version of Mrs. Cacatian as borne now by her complaint
is
certainly unfounded as it is untrue and against the normal reaction of
one confronted with a startling event or occurrence as a shooting done
right under the nose of one's live-in partner.[3]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The respondent admitted
that he had indeed sent a demand letter[4]
to the complainant, but averred that the mailing clerk must have
"inadvertently
commingled" the same with the other official letters coming from the
court,
resulting in the innocent usage of the official envelope. He also
averred
that his filing a complaint for estafa against the complainant before
the
MTC of San Jose del Monte, Bulacan is appropriate and legal, because
the
incident happened within the said town. The respondent also clarified
that
while he issued a warrant of arrest against the complainant in the
criminal
cases pending before his sala, it was. through the instance or
manifestation
of the private prosecutor, Atty. Antonio Senador and private
complainant
Teresita Gutierrez who filed numerous criminal cases against the
complainant.
The respondent judge also averred that he had no knowledge of the
complainant's
arrest on November 11, 1999, until the complainant's sister went to his
office and relayed the matter to the clerk of court who, in turn,
informed
the respondent. The respondent insisted that he had no liability to the
complainant, whatsoever, since the shooting incident was accidental,
thus: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That Mrs.
Cacatian
being a long time employee of the Firearms and Explosives Division of
the
PNP and experienced in handling of guns plus the fact that she was once
married to a police officer who has had also experience in handling
guns
even right at their residence as he could have been bringing home
likewise
his service firearms, she was expected to exercise extra precautionary
measures whenever handling a gun, however, she did not display such
behavior
nor prudence because of mental lapse which resulted to the accident of
her own making.[5]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Finally, after a
careful
analysis of the situation, the respondent judge issued an Order 6 dated
November 18, 1999, inhibiting himself in all cases filed against the
complainant
pending before his sala.[7]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Pursuant to the OCA's
recommendation, the case was redocketed as an administrative matter,
and
was assigned to Executive Judge Oscar C. Herrera, Jr. for
investigation,
report and recommendation.[8]
The Investigating Judge made the following findings in his Report dated
December 6, 2002:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After a
careful
study of the evidence presented, the undersigned submits that the
reasons
and explanation given by the respondent are totally unacceptable and
merely
insult one's intelligence.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As a judge,
respondent
knew or ought to have known that transacting business with a litigant
having
several cases in his sala violates the Code of Judicial Conduct. His
position
imposes upon him the sacred duty to avoid impropriety and the
appearance
of impropriety in all activities in order to promote public confidence
and respect in the integrity of the judiciary.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the demand
letter
that he sent to the complainant which violated his franking privilege,
the sender in enveloped (sic) was named "Judge Ricardo P. Liwanag,
Municipal
Trial Court of San Jose del Monte, Bulacan" (Exh. "G-1"), although it
referred
to a private, transaction, and in the letter itself (Exh. "G"), he
indicated
over his typewritten name which he signed the title "Judge." These are
things which he could not have possibly missed. These were obviously
meant
to use his official position in delivering a message that will
intimidate
the addressee.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent's
filing
of an estafa case against complainant right in his sala, when he could
have done so in the Prosecutor's Office in Malolos, Bulacan, was also
clearly
meant to use the power and authority of his office in harassing the
complainant.
This became evident when he caused the issuance by his assisting judge
of a warrant of arrest against the complainant (Exh. "H"), and by
himself
subsequently issuing a warrant of arrest (Exh. "I") in the B.P. No. 22
cases against complainant long pending in his sala.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The facts and
circumstances
in this case vividly demonstrate that respondent, in his transactions
and
actuation relative to his dealings with complainant, demeaned the
office
of a judge and gravely dishonored the judiciary.[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We agree with the
Investigating
Judge.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The personal behavior
of a judge, not only upon the bench but also in everyday life, should
be
above reproach and free from the appearance of impropriety.[10]
The Code
of Judicial Ethics dictates that a judge, in order to promote
public
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, must
behave
with propriety at all times. Being the subject of constant public
scrutiny,
a judge should freely and willingly accept restrictions on conduct that
might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen. He should
personify
judicial integrity and exemplify honest public service. The personal
behavior
of a judge, both in the performance of official duties and in private
life,
should be above suspicion.[11]
Irresponsible or improper conduct of judges erodes public confidence in
the judiciary.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The respondent's behavior
in this case fell short of the exacting standards required of him as a
magistrate. He transacted business with a party litigant who had a
pending
case in his sala. Notwithstanding the fact that this was done after
office
hours as he claimed, the respondent should not have put himself in such
a position as to arouse suspicion of improper conduct. He should have
known
that his dealings with a party litigant outside of the courtroom would
give rise to doubts as to the propriety of the same.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The respondent also
used his official position and authority as a judge to deliver a demand
letter[12]
to the complainant. He cannot hide behind his court personnel and claim
that the letter was mistakenly "commingled" with official
correspondence.
Prudence dictates that a judge should be aware of the goings-on in his
courtroom, particularly in this case where what is involved is the use
of his franking privilege. Furthermore, the tenor of the respondent's
letter
seeking the return of his 9mm gun and the amount of P10,000 was clearly
meant to intimidate the complainant into compliance, as he signed the
same
as "Ricardo P. Liwanag, Judge." The respondent even had the letter
delivered
to the complainant by Clerk of Court Rogelio Montero III and Court
Interpreter
Corazon Española, both employees under him.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The respondent also
filed a case for estafa[14]
against the complainant in his own sala, the MTC of San Jose, and
assisted
in the issuance of a warrant of arrest[15]
against the same.[16]
Although the said warrant was issued by another magistrate, Judge Aznar
D. Lindayag, the filing of the case before the respondent's sala may be
construed as the judge's attempt to influence the outcome of a case
where
he himself is an interested party. This placed the court in a bad
light.
The respondent should have known that under the circumstances, the more
prudent thing to do was to file the case with the provincial
prosecutor's
office. The respondent should have remembered the ironclad principle
that
a judge must not only be impartial, but must also appear to be
impartial.[17]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
These instances are
clear manifestations that the respondent judge is not fit to remain as
a member of the Judiciary. Such acts constitute serious misconduct,
which,
under Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules
of Court is classified as a serious charge. "Misconduct" implies
wrongful
intention and not mere error of judgment;[18]
corrupt, or inspired by an intention to violate the law or a persistent
disregard of well-known legal rules.[19]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
It must be remembered
that a judge is the visible representation of the law, and more
importantly,
of justice. From him, the people draw their will and awareness to obey
the law. They see in him an intermediary of justice between two
conflicting
interests. For the judge to return that regard, he must be the first to
abide by the law and weave an example for others to follow.[20]
Verily, no position is more demanding as regards moral righteousness
and
uprightness of any individual than a seat on the bench.[21]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As this Court held in
State Prosecutors v. Muro:[22]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In every
litigation,
the manner and attitude of a trial judge are crucial to everyone
concerned,
the offended party, no less than the accused. It is not for him to
indulge
or even to give the appearance of catering to the at-times human
failing
of yielding to first impressions. He is to refrain from reaching hasty
conclusions or prejudging matters. It would be deplorable if he lays
himself
open to the suspicion of reacting to feelings rather than the facts, of
being imprisoned in the net of his own sympathies and predilections. It
must be obvious to the parties as well as the public that he follows
the
traditional mode of adjudication requiring that he hear both sides with
patience and understanding to keep the risk of reaching an unjust
decision
at a minimum. It is not necessary that he should possess marked
proficiency
in law, but it is essential that he is to hold the balance true. What
is
equally important is that he should avoid any conduct that casts doubt
on his impartiality. What has been said is not merely a matter of
judicial
ethics. It is impressed with constitutional significance.[23]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court En Banc
recently
found the respondent guilty of violating Republic
Act No. 3019, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act,
and was dismissed from the service with prejudice to re-employment in
any
government agency and government-owned or controlled corporation and
with
forfeiture of all retirement benefits except accrued leave credits.[24]
In that case, we stated —chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent
tainted the image of the Judiciary to which he owes fealty and the
obligation
to keep it at all times unsullied and worthy of the people's trust.
Violation
of R.A. 3019 affects the moral fiber and personal integrity of the
respondent.
He becomes an ineffective tool in the administration of justice and the
court over which he is called to preside will be a mockery, one devoid
of respect. There is no place in the Judiciary for those who cannot
meet
the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity. Respondent
does
not deserve to remain in the Judiciary, where integrity is an
indispensable
credential, and should accordingly be removed from the service.[25]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court thereafter
issued a Resolution dated July 17, 2003 denying the respondent's motion
for reconsideration with finality and disbarring the latter from the
practice
of law for conduct unbecoming a member of the bar.[26]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Considering the foregoing,
the penalty of dismissal from the service is no longer feasible in the
instant case. Pursuant to Section 11-A (3) of Rule 141[27]
of the Revised
Rules
of Court, the Court finds that a fine of P40,000 is justified under
the circumstances. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, Judge Ricardo
P. Liwanag is found GUILTY of gross misconduct and is hereby meted a
FINE
of P40,000 to be deducted from his leave credits and whatever other
benefits
he may be entitled to.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This decision shall
take effect immediately.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno,
Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio,
Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio Morales, Azcuna and Tinga, JJ.,
concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 12–13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Id. at 52–54.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id. at 28–29.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Annex "B-1."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Rollo, p. 29.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Annex "9," id. at 49.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
The complainant was charged with 18 counts of estafa, docketed as
Criminal
Cases Nos. 8367-98 to 8378-98; and Criminal Cases Nos. 9563-99 to
9568-99,
entitled People of the Philippines v. Carmencita Cacatian Dominais.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Rollo, p. 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Report, p. 13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Canon 17, Canons of Judicial Ethics.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Castillo v. Calanog, 199 SCRA 75 (1991).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Annex "A-2," Rollo, p. 44.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Annex "5," id. at 43.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Docketed as Criminal Case No. 9549-99, entitled People of the
Philippines
v. Menchie D. Cacatian.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Annex "4," Rollo, p. 42.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
TSN, 26 September 2002, p. 18.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
De Guzman, Jr. v. Sison, 355 SCRA 69 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Raquiza v. Castañeda, 82 SCRA 235 (1978).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Galangi v. Macli-ing, 81 SCRA 91 (1978).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Impao v. Makilala, 178 SCRA 541 (1989).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Santos v. Buenaventura, 367 SCRA 83 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
251 SCRA 111 (1995).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Id. at 117–118 (Emphasis supplied).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Perlita Avanceña v. Judge Ricardo P. Liwanag, A.M. No.
MTJ-01-1383,
March 5, 2003.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
Id. at 11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
Perlita Avanceña v. Judge Ricardo P. Liwanag, A.M. No.
MTJ-01-1383,
July 17, 2003, p. 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
27. Sec. 11. Sanctions. — A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious
charge,
any of the following sanctions may be imposed:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1.
Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits
as
the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or
appointment
to any public office, including government-owned or controlled
corporations.
Provided however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case
include
accrued leave credits;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2.
Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than
three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; orchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3.
A fine of more than P20,000, but not exceeding P40,000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
|