PROBLEM AREAS IN LEGAL ETHICS

Grounds for Disciplinary Proceedings against Lawyers

LEOPOLDO G. DACERA, JR. vs Judge TEODORO A. DIZON, JR.

A.M. No. RTJ-00-1573. August 2, 2000

Facts:
Leopoldo Dacera, Jr. was the complainant in a prosecution for Qualified Theft filed with Branch
37 of the RTC of General Santos City with Judge Teodoro Dizon presiding. The said accused, members
of the Blaan tribe plus one (1) Indonesian, were suspected of stealing coconuts from the Dacera plantation
formerly belonging to the estate of the father of Leopoldo Dacera, Jr. The prosecutor of the sala later filed
a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that Dacera had executed and signed an Affidavit of Desistance from
pursuing the prosecution. Dacera, however, opposed the Motion to Dismiss, alleging that said affidavit
was the "outcome of undue influence applied by certain quarters (Judge Dizon) upon Leopoldo Dacera,
Jr. who was persuaded to execute the same without being appraised of the full import and consequences
of such relinquishment of legal right." The Supreme Court assigned an Associate Justice of the Court of
Appeals (Justice Delila Vidallon-Magtolis) to investigate into the matter.

Issue:
Whether respondent Judge has shown bias in the performance of his judicial duties.

Held:

NOT GUILTY. The investigation did not find any conclusive evidence that Judge Dizon was
personally biased in favor of either party in the disposition of the case in question. It must be noted that
respondent judge did not actually dismiss the case upon motion of the prosecutor and even voluntarily
inhibited himself upon motion of Dacera to disqualify him. However, the investigation did reveal that
Judge Dizon had made telephone calls to Dacera and even had discussions with him inside his chambers
in order to verify the truth about the Affidavit of Desistance. Privately calling any party even just to verify
something is suspicious and does not speak well of the cold neutrality of a judge. While there is no clear
proof of malice, corrupt motives or improper considerations, the acts of respondent in calling and meeting
with the complainant still leave much to be desired and are deserving of reprimand. A judge is not only
required to be impartial; he must also appear to be impartial. Fraternizing with litigants tarnishes this
appearance. Canon II of the Code of Judicial Conduct basically provides that judges should avoid
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities whether in his public or private life and
should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary. It is clear that the acts of the respondent judge have been less than circumspect. He should have
kept himself free from any appearance of impropriety and should have endeavored to distance himself
from any act liable to create an impression of indecorum. The complaint filed by Dacera against Judge
Dizon, Jr., was dismissed for lack of merit. However, respondent Judge was admonished to refrain from
making calls to any parties-litigant and/or counsel with cases pending in his sala and sternly warned that a
repetition of the same will be dealt with more severely.

ANACAY, DENISE B.