Re : Anonymous Complaint Against Judge Edmundo T.

Acuna,
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1891,
July 28, 2005
Ponente: Callejo, Sr., J.:
Topic: Impropriety; discharge of official duties while on leave and language
Decision: Guilty; Reprimand
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received a Letter from "Concerned citizens of the
lower court" reporting the alleged "practices" of Judge Edmundo T. Acua, RTC Caloocan City.
According to the letter, the respondent conducted trials, signed orders and even sentenced
accused while on official leave from August 15, 2001 to September 15, 2001.
The letter also questions whether the respondent had authority to impose such sentences,
issue orders and conduct hearings. Respondent also used his "favorite expressions" as
follows: Putris, Anak ng pating, Putang Ina, Pogi, beauty, Tulungan nyo naman ako,
hirap na hirap na ko., Mali ka na naman.
According to the unknown complainants, the respondent also "spends much of his energy
talking" and loves to berate and embarrass people, not caring whether he speaks in open
court, as long as he has an audience. The complainants further stated that the respondents
decisions usually take about seven to ten drafts, as he "changes his mind so many times." It
was further alleged that the respondent loves to "glorify himself," and that his behavior was
weird.
In his comment, the respondent averred that the allegations in the letter were fabricated,
exaggerated, or misquoted.
Anent the allegation of his duties during official leave, the respondent alleged that he was
issued an Authority to Travel allowing him to travel to Canada to visit his brother, who
unfortunately passed away before he could leave. As evidenced by the entries in the daily
time records/logbook, he was not yet on leave from August 15, 2001 to August 21, 2001. As
such, he had the "right and duty to come to court and conduct trials, sign orders and issue
sentences." His application4 for a thirty-day leave was from August 21, 2001 to September
21, 2001.
On the allegation that he exhibited weird behavior, he explained that he was still mourning
the loss of his eldest son who died of a fatal aneurism.
As to the alleged humiliating statements that he made, the respondent Judge admitted
having made some of them while he was discussing the performance ratings of his staff. He
admitted, however, that "putris, putang-ina, beauty and pogi" were among his favorite
expressions, but clarified that he did not use them often, certainly not in open court.
The OCA recommended that the respondent be reprimanded for ignorance of a policy on
leave of absence, that when a judge is on leave of absence he "would have absolutely no
authority to discharge his duties or exercise the powers of a judge." The OCA made the
following evaluation:

Official records indicate that Judge Acua had an approved application for the period from 21
August 2001 to 21 September 2001. This application was approved on 3 August 2001. In
view of this approved application for leave, it was a natural expectation that Judge Acua
would cease from exercising his functions during the said period.
However, respondent Judge Acua presided over the following cases on 21 August 2001: 1.
"People v. Alex Sibayan"; 2. "People v. Renato Simo"; and 3. "People v. Canaberal".
In his Comment, the respondent judge admitted reporting for work on 21 August 2001 and
presiding over two (2) criminal cases. He even took pride in the fact that he did not go on
leave that day, pointing to the courts logbook as proof of his attendance.
The admission confirms the allegation in the anonymous letter that he performed his
functions on a day when he was already on leave of absence. He indeed performed his
duties on 21 August 2001 the first day of his official leave. We state that not even his
overzealousness to work can shield him from administrative liability for ignorance of the
consequences of his approved application for leave of absence.
In his supplemental comment, the respondent alleged that he decided to defer his leave for
another week as his siblings who would be going with him to Canada had not yet secured
their visas. The respondent alleged that he was even uncertain if this could be done by
amending his travel authority. The clerk in charge of criminal cases in the respondents sala,
informed him that this would take another week or so. Thus, the respondent decided not to
defer his leave anymore, and no longer reported for work beginning August 22, 2001.
The Investigating Justice recommended that the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit.
She ratiocinated that while the respondent admitted having performed his functions on
August 21, 2001, the date of the commencement of his approved leave, there was nothing
repulsive in deferring the date of his leave. Moreover, there was no showing that the
respondent was actuated by any ulterior motive other than to lessen his workload. According
to the Investigating Justice, the respondents decision to report for work that day appears to
have been motivated by his honest belief that he could defer his leave and make the
necessary adjustments later; he had no clear intent to deliberately ignore the rules
regarding vacation leaves.
As to the use of humiliating and insensitive expressions, the Investigating Justice agreed
with the OCA that the use of "putris" and "putang ina" were unfit expressions for men of the
robe. It did not matter that they were not directed to any person in particular, as they give
the impression of a persons ill manners. Considering that the respondent is not an ordinary
citizen, such intemperate language detracts from how a judge should conduct himself.
As a final note, respondent is reminded that as a judge, it is paramount that a judges official
conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety, and his personal
behavior, not only in the bench and in the performance of his official duties, but also in his
everyday life should be beyond reproach. This includes following simple rules as well as
conducting himself in the most respectable and honorable manner possible. Only through
such kind of demeanor of the members of the judiciary that the institution earns the respect
and faith of our people in the administration of justice.

Issue:
Whether or not the respondent judge in continuing his official duties despite his leave and
his use of language amounts to an act of impropriety.
The Court agrees with the Investigating Justices observation that the respondents use of
such expletives is improper for the extolled office of a magistrate of the law. By virtue of the
very office he holds, the public expects more of the respondent as he undeniably occupies
an exalted yet delicate niche in the administration of justice. Those who don the judicial robe
and wield the judicial gavel ought to impress in their consciousness that appearance is an
essential manifestation of reality. Thus, the respondents claim that his "favorite
expressions" were not directed at anyone in particular is unacceptable.
Judges are demanded to be always temperate, patient and courteous both in conduct and in
language. Indeed, a judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in
the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Propriety and the appearance of propriety are
essential to the performance of all the activities of a judge. We recognize, of course, that
judges are also human beings, with their own burdens and private affairs. However, having
accepted the esteemed position of judge, the respondent ought to have known that more is
expected of him than an ordinary citizen. As subjects of constant public scrutiny, personal
restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen should be freely and
willingly accepted by a judge. In particular, he or she must exhibit conduct consistent with
the dignity of the judicial office. Indeed, a judges personal behavior, not only while in the
performance of official duties, must be beyond reproach, being the visible personification of
law and of justice.
Thus, while we commiserate with the respondent Judge for the loss of his brother and son,
we cannot spare him from the consequences of his unacceptable behavior.
In Ignacio v. Valenzuela, a judge who heard a motion while he was on vacation was held
guilty of impropriety and was meted a fine of one months salary. To reiterate, a judge should
avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. Thus, in conducting
hearings and promulgation of decisions on the day when his official leave of absence was to
commence, the respondent Judge was guilty of impropriety. Considering, however, that no
bad faith or ill motive can be attributed to the respondent, the Court deems it proper to
reprimand him for his actuations.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Edmundo T. Acua is found GUILTY of impropriety and is
REPRIMANDED therefor. He is STERNLY WARNED that the repetition of the same or similar
act shall be dealt with more severely.