ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

A.M. OCA-IPI No. 04-2123-RTJ. August 16, 2006]

DONSOL DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL CORPORATION THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FE T. CUSTODIO v. JUDGE SENECIO O. TAN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 34, BALAOAN, LA UNION

First Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG. 16, 2006

A.M. OCA-IPI No. 04-2123-RTJ (Donsol Development and Commercial Corporation through its Authorized Representative Fe T. Custodio v. Judge Senecio O. Tan, Regional Trial Court, Branch 34, Balaoan, La Union)

Acting on the Report and Recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator dated June 26, 2006, to wit:

The Verified Complaint-Affidavit dated 07 October 2004 of Fe T. Custodio, purportedly representing Donsol Commercial & Development Corporation (DCDC), charges respondent Judge Senecio O. Tan of RTC, Branch 34, Balaoan, La Union with violation of Section 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, and Rules 2.01 and 2.03 of Canon 1 and Rule 5.02 of Canon, both of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Complainant avers that respondent rents a residential unit belonging to DCDC at P4,919.15 a month. No written lease contract has been executed and the payment of rentals is deemed to be on a month to month basis. The respondent uses to pay a small fraction of his obligation but only when and if he wants to. As of 07 October 2004, the date of the Complaint-Affidavit, his outstanding obligation amounted to P129,272.50. He has not paid any rental for the past three (3) years until that date.

Furthermore, complainant claims that respondent even encourages the other tenants not to pay their rents as well.

In his Comment dated 17 December 2004, (pp. 9-12, Rollo) respondent Judge admits that he leases the residential unit owned by DCDC, and there is no written lease contract between them. Since the inception of their lease relationship it is his practice, and is allowed by DCDC, to pay his rentals on a lump sum basis. He acknowledges having an outstanding obligation to DCDC but vehemently denies not having paid any rental for the past three (3) years until 07 October 2004, the date of this Complaint-Affidavit. In fact he made some payments during that period, to wit:

a)����� P45,000.00 under OR No. 4884 dated April 20, 2001 (Annex "A-2", Comment);

b)����� P50,000.00 under OR No. 4610 dated December 28, 2001 (Annex "A-1", pd.);

c)����� P70,000.00 under OR No. 3117 dated February 8, 2003 (Annex A); and

d)����� P30,000.00 in March 2004.

The last alleged payment is not supported by any receipt of DCDC.

The perceived dispute between him and his landlord is only the result of misaccounting and/or miscomputation. He will pay all his unpaid rentals as soon as his account is finally determined.

The respondent Judge vehemently denies that he encourages the other tenants who look up to him as their leader to not pay their rents. The fact is that he is not known to the other tenants of the apartment except to his immediate neighbor, Ms. Concordia Capillar, who is not delinquent in her rents.

In a later MANIFESTATION dated 24 February 2005, the respondent informed the Office of the Court Administrator that he could not make good with his promise in his Comment to pay his unpaid rentals after proper accounting because the retirement of his wife from the Sugar Regulatory Commission has not yet been approved, but reassured that as soon as his wife's retirement is approved and her retirement benefits are released, he shall settle his obligation forthwith.

On August 4, 2005 (p. 34, Rollo) the respondent Judge informed the Court Administrator that, as he had earlier promised, he paid all his back rentals up to June 2005 in the amount of P148,827.21 as computed by DCDC (p. 44, Rollo) under Official Receipt No. 3252 dated July 27, 2005 (p. 45 Rollo). He thus prayed that the complaint be withdrawn and dismissed.

In the preliminary conference held on May 19, 2006, Mrs. Fe T. Custodio who signed the Complaint-Affidavit in this case in representation of DCDC, acknowledged the authenticity of OR No. 3252 dated July 27, 2005, thereby confirming that the respondent Judge paid the amount of P148,827.21 representing his unpaid rentals from August 2000 to June 2005. She likewise confirmed that respondent Judge has paid his rentals from July 2005 to February 2006 as evidenced by official receipt of DCDC Nos. 3289, 3296, 3327, 3346, 3416 and 3464 (pp. 49-56, Rollo), and the only unpaid rentals are for March and April 2006. The respondent handed to Mrs. Custodio in the presence of the undersigned the amount of P10,000.00 in cash as rentals for the said 2 months including surcharges. Mrs. Custodio and the respondent Judge agreed to submit the case for resolution, the complainant denying that they filed this complaint to malign the respondent, and the latter manifesting that he perceived he was being maligned because of the allegation in the complaint that he is encouraging the other tenants to not pay their rents, which he vehemently denied. (TSN Hearing on May 19, 2006, pp. 5-8)

FINDINGS

It is undisputed that the respondent Judge has not been up to date in the payment of his rentals to DCDC. Although no written contract of lease exists between them, since the agreed rental is fixed on a monthly basis, the rentals fall due at the end of every month.

Credible, however, is the respondent Judge's protestation that DCDC has tacitly allowed him to pay his rentals on a lump sum basis. Thus, from April 1 to March 2004, he made four lump sum payments in the total amount of P195,000.00 broken down as follows:

a)����� P45,000.00 under OR No. 4884 dated April 20, 2001;

b)����� P50,000.00 under OR No. 4610 dated December 28, 2001;

c)����� P70,000.00 under OR No. 3117 dated February 8, 2003; and

d)����� P30,000.00 on March 2004.

All of them were acknowledged as received by DCDC's representative Fe T. Custodio. (TSN, pp. 5-8, Hearing on May 19, 2006). This admission pointedly negates the allegation in the Complaint-Affidavit that respondent Judge has not made any payments during the three (3) years period until October 2004.

Although the respondent claims that the perceived dispute between him and his landlord is a result of "misaccounting and/or miscomputation", he impliedly admits some delays in his payment which, he asserts, "could not be avoided due to financial constraint/financial crisis where almost everyone is experiencing it, including the government, but the undersigned had no intention or even an incling (sic) of it, not to pay the rentals or to evade any valid obligation. And the same will soon be settled" (page 2, Comment dated December 17, 2002, p. 10, Rollo)

The respondent Judge may have incurred delays in the payment of his rentals but they cannot be attributed to any willful design on his part to shirk his obligations as they fell due. Apart from the fact that he paid his arrearages in lump sum amounts tacitly acquiesced to by the landlord, his other shortcomings could be due to what he cites as "financial constraint/financial crisis" that he and his family have encountered. As observed by the undersigned during the May 19, 2006 hearing, the respondent Judge appears to be an unpretentious, decent man and a simple public official living within the bounds of his legitimate income. In fact he had to cause his wife to retire prematurely from her employment in order to fully settle his accounts.

RECOMMENDATION

Upon the foregoing premises, this undersigned respectfully recommends that the instant administrative complaint against Hon. Senecio O. Tan, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 34, Balaoan, La Union, be DISMISSED.

We adopt the findings and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator.

The delays incurred by respondent judge in paying the rentals were not by willful design but because of financial difficulties encountered by the judge and his family. The records show that respondent judge was willing to settle his obligations. In fact, he caused his wife to avail of optional retirement in order to pay their obligations. Thereafter, he fully paid the arrearages as soon as his means allowed.

In view of the foregoing, the instant administrative complaint against respondent judge should be dismissed for lack of merit. However, we take this occasion to remind everyone that employees of the court are regarded by the public with respect. Consequently, the conduct of each court personnel should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of onus and must at all times be characterized by, among other things, uprightness, propriety and decorum. Every member of the Judiciary is expected to be a model of fairness and honesty not only in all their official conduct but also in their personal actuations, including business and commercial transactions. Any conduct that would be a bane to the public trust and confidence reposed on the Judiciary shall not be countenanced. [1] cralaw

It is trite to emphasize that the Code of Judicial Ethics no less mandates that a judge should avoid the appearance of impropriety. Even his personal behavior in his everyday life should be beyond reproach. This is the price that judges should pay for the honor bestowed upon those who occupy an exalted position in the administration of justice. No position exacts a greater demand on the moral righteousness and uprightness of an individual than a seat in the judiciary. A magistrate of the law must comport himself at all times in such a manner that his conduct, official or otherwise, can bear the most searching scrutiny of the public that looks up to him as the epitome of integrity and justice. [2] cralaw

ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant administrative case against Judge Senecio O. Tan, Regional Trial Court, Branch 34, Balaoan, La Union, for lack of merit.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court

First Division


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw In re: Complaint For Failure To Pay Just Debts Against Esther T. Andres, A.M. No. 2004-40-SC, March 1, 2005 452 SCRA 654, 663-664.

[2] cralaw Sevilla v. Salubre, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1336, December 19, 2000, 348 SCRA 592, 601-602.


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com