DE GUZMAN, ROXANNE TRIXIE D.

ETHICS
1ST YR. & SEC. B
CUERDO

LEGAL
JUDGE

JUDGE ESTRELLITA M. PAAS, petitioner, vs. EDGAR E. ALMARVEZ, respondent.

A.M. No. P-03-1690.
April 4, 2003
Ponente: J. Carpio-Morales
FACTS:
Pasay City Metropolitan Trial Court Judge Estrellita Paas administratively charged
Almarvez, a Court Aide/Utility Worker, with discourtesy to his fellow employees, neglect
in performing duties (by not maintaining the cleanliness around the court premises and
often being absent from work), and solicitation of money (from prisoners before serving
them their Release Orders, and from litigants by offering to divulge confidential
information in advance of its unauthorized release).
The Court found that the aforementioned charges were not supported by evidence
since those who filed affidavits as evidence against Almarvez were not present at the
hearings. The only offense which Almarvez was found to commit was inefficiency in the
discharge of his duties. Thus he was suspended for 3 months.
Almarvez filed a counterclaim alleging that Judge Paas ordered him to undergo a
drug test after the latter had already filed an administrative complaint against him.
Regarding this, the court held that this elicits the suspicion that the Judge is just fishing
for more evidence to support the administrative case she had already filed against
Almarvez. This was held to constitute conduct unbecoming of a member of the judiciary,
for which Judge Paas should be duly reprimanded.
In a separate case for inhibition of Judge Paas in a criminal case, it was found that
Judge Paas husband, Atty. Paas, who is a private practitioner, was using his wifes office
address in his law practice; particularly in a criminal case he was handling which was
docketed at an RTC also in Pasay. In support of this charge, documents were submitted
such as 1) a Notice of Appeal signed by Atty. Paas, and 2) notices from Pasay City RTC,
and from the Supreme Court.
This was admitted by Judge Paas, but she claims that this was done only to ensure
and facilitate the delivery of those notices.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Judge Estrellita Paas and Atty. Renerio Paas should be penalized for
allowing the latter to use the office of the former as his return address in his private
practice.
HELD:
Yes. Using the Judge office address is improper. In Supreme Court Administrative
Circular No. 01-99, it was stated that court officials and employees must never use their
officesfor any other purpose that for court or judicial functions.
Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge should avoid impropriety in all
activities and shall not allow the use of the judicial office to advance the private interests
of others. Supreme Court Circular No. 3-92 prohibits the use of halls of justice for
residential or commercial purposes. It is unprofessional and dishonorable to misuse a
public office to enhance a lawyers prestige. It violates canons 3, 10, 13, and 15 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility.

Atty. Paas is suspended for 3 months from the practice of law, while Judge Paas
shall pay a fine of Php12,000.