Rules of Court Section 14. Evidence of good character of witness.

Evidence of the good

Section 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. Except as provided in the next character of a witness is not admissible until such character has been impeached.
succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make their
known perception to others, may be witnesses.
Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a
crime unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be ground for disqualification.
(18a)
Section 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity.
The following persons cannot be witnesses:
(a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for
examination, is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known their
perception to others;
(b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of
perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and of relating them
truthfully.

Section 51. Character evidence not generally admissible; exceptions:

(a) In Criminal Cases:
(1) The accused may prove his good moral character which is pertinent to the
moral trait involved in the offense charged.
(2) Unless in rebuttal, the prosecution may not prove his bad moral character
which is pertinent to the moral trait involved in the offense charged.
(3) The good or bad moral character of the offended party may be proved if it
tends to establish in any reasonable degree the probability or improbability of the
offense charged.
(b) In Civil Cases:
Evidence of the moral character of a party in civil case is admissible only when
pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case.
(c) In the case provided for in Rule 132, Section 14, (46a, 47a)

Rule 132 Section 11. Impeachment of adverse party's witness. A witness

may be impeached by the party against whom he was called, by contradictory
evidence, by evidence that his general reputation for truth, honestly, or integrity is
bad, or by evidence that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with
his present, testimony, but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts, except that
it may be shown by the examination of the witness, or the record of the judgment,
that he has been convicted of an offense. (15)
SECOND DIVISION ATTY. MANE:
I am very proud of it.
ATTY. MELVIN D.C. MANE,
Complainant, COURT:
Then youre not from UP. Then you cannot equate yourself to me because there is a
- versus - saying and I know this, not all law students are created equal, not all law schools are
created equal, not all lawyers are created equal despite what the Supreme Being
JUDGE MEDEL ARNALDO B. BELEN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 36, CALAMBA that we all are created equal in His form and substance.[2] (Emphasis supplied)
CITY,
Respondent.
Complainant further claimed that the entire proceedings were duly recorded in a
x--------------------------------------------------x tape recorder by stenographer de Guzman, and despite his motion (filed on April 24,
2006) for respondent to direct her to furnish him with a copy of the tape recording,
the motion remained unacted as of the date he filed the present administrative
RESOLUTION complaint on May 26, 2006. He, however, attached a copy of the transcript of
stenographic notes taken on February 27, 2006.
CARPIO MORALES, J.:

By letter-complaint dated May 19, 2006[1] which was received by the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA) on May 26, 2006, Atty. Melvin D.C. Mane (complainant)
charged Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen (respondent), Presiding Judge of Branch 36,
Regional Trial Court, Calamba City, of demean[ing], humiliat[ing] and berat[ing] him
during the hearing on February 27, 2006 of Civil Case No. 3514-2003-C, Rural Bank
of Cabuyao, Inc. v. Samuel Malabanan, et al in which he was counsel for the plaintiff.
To prove his claim, complainant cited the remarks made by respondent in the course
of the proceedings conducted on February 27, 2006 as transcribed by stenographer
Elenita C. de Guzman, viz:
COURT:
. . . Sir, are you from the College of Law of the University of the Philippines?
ATTY. MANE:
No[,] [Y]our Honor[,] from Manuel L. Quezon University[,] [Y]our Honor.
COURT:
No, youre not from UP.
In his Comments[3] dated June 14, 2006 on the complaint filed in compliance with
the Ist Indorsement dated May 31, 2006[4] of the OCA, respondent alleged that
complainant filed on December 15, 2005 an Urgent Motion to Inhibit,[5] paragraph
3[6] of which was malicious and a direct assault to the integrity and dignity of the
Court and of the Presiding Judge as it succinctly implied that [he] issued the order
dated 27 September 2005 for [a] consideration other than the merits of the case. He
thus could not simply sit idly and allow a direct assault on his honor and integrity.
On the unacted motion to direct the stenographer to furnish complainant with a
copy of the unedited tape recording of the proceedings, respondent quoted
paragraphs 4 and 3[7] of the motion which, to him, implied that the trial court was
illegally, unethically and unlawfully engaged in editing the transcript of records to
favor a party litigant against the interest of [complainants] client.
Respondent thus claimed that it was on account of the two motions that he ordered
complainant, by separate orders dated June 5, 2006, to explain within 15 days[8]
why he should not be cited for contempt.
Complainant later withdrew his complaint, by letter of September 4, 2006,[9] stating
that it was a mere result of his impulsiveness.
In its Report dated November 7, 2007,[10] the OCA came up with the following
evaluation:
. . . The withdrawal or desistance of a complainant from pursuing an administrative
complaint does not divest the Court of its disciplinary authority over court officials
and personnel. Thus, the complainants withdrawal of the instant complaint will not
bar the continuity of the instant administrative proceeding against respondent
judge.
The issue presented before us is simple: Whether or not the statements and actions
made by the respondent judge during the subject February 27, 2006 hearing
constitute conduct unbecoming of a judge and a violation of the Code of Judicial
Conduct.
After a cursory evaluation of the complaint, the respondents comment and the
documents at hand, we find that there is no issue as to what actually transpired
during the February 27th hearing as evidenced by the stenographic notes. The
happening of the incident complained of by herein complainant was never denied
by the respondent judge. If at all, respondent judge merely raised his justifications
for his complained actuations.
xxxx
. . . [A] judges official conduct and his behavior in the performance of judicial duties
should be free from the appearance of impropriety and must be beyond reproach. A
judge must at all times be temperate in his language. Respondent judges insulting
statements which tend to question complainants capability and credibility stemming
from the fact that the latter did not graduated [sic] from UP Law school is clearly
unwarranted and inexcusable. When a judge indulges in intemperate language, the
lawyer can return the attack on his person and character, through an administrative
case against the judge, as in the instant case.
Although respondent judges use in intemperate language may be attributable to
human frailty, the noble position in the bench demands from him courteous speech
in and out of the court. Judges are demanded to be always temperate, patient and
courteous both in conduct and language.
xxxx
Judge Belen should bear in mind that all judges should always observe courtesy and
civility. In addressing counsel, litigants, or witnesses, the judge should avoid a
controversial tone or a tone that creates animosity. Judges should always be aware
that disrespect to lawyers generates disrespect to them. There must be mutual
concession of respect. Respect is not a one-way ticket where the judge should be
respected but free to insult lawyers and others who appear in his court. Patience is
an essential part of dispensing justice and courtesy is a mark of culture and good
breeding. If a judge desires not to be insulted, he should start using temperate
language himself; he who sows the wind will reap a storm.
It is also noticeable that during the subject hearing, not only did respondent judge
make insulting and demeaning remarks but he also engaged in unnecessary lecturing
and debating. . .
xxxx
Respondent should have just ruled on the propriety of the motion to inhibit filed by
complainant, but, instead, he opted for a conceited display of arrogance, a conduct
that falls below the standard of decorum expected of a judge. If respondent judge
felt that there is a need to admonish complainant Atty. Mane, he should have called
him in his chambers where he can advise him privately rather than battering him
with insulting remarks and embarrassing questions such as asking him from what
school he came from publicly in the courtroom and in the presence of his clients.
Humiliating a lawyer is highly reprehensible. It betrays the judges lack of patience
and temperance. A highly temperamental judge could hardly make decisions with
equanimity.
Thus, it is our view that respondent judge should shun from lecturing the counsels
or debating with them during court hearings to prevent suspicions as to his fairness
and integrity. While judges should possess proficiency in law in order that they can
competently construe and enforce the law, it is more important that they should act
and behave in such manner that the parties before them should have confidence in
their impartiality.[11] (Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The OCA thus recommended that respondent be reprimanded for violation of Canon
3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct with a warning that a repetition of the same shall
be dealt with more severely.[12]
By Resolution of January 21, 2008,[13] this Court required the parties to manifest
whether they were willing to submit the case for resolution on the basis of the
pleadings already filed. Respondent complied on February 26, 2008,[14] manifesting
in the affirmative.
The pertinent provision of the Code of Judicial Conduct reads:
Rule 3.04. A judge should be patient, attentive, and courteous to lawyers, especially
the inexperienced, to litigants, witnesses, and others appearing before the court. A
judge should avoid unconsciously falling into the attitude of mind that the litigants
are made for the courts, instead of the courts for the litigants.
An author explains the import of this rule:
Rule 3.04 of the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a judge should be courteous
to counsel, especially to those who are young and inexperienced and also to all those
others appearing or concerned in the administration of justice in the court. He should
be considerate of witnesses and others in attendance upon his court. He should be
courteous and civil, for it is unbecoming of a judge to utter intemperate language
during the hearing of a case. In his conversation with counsel in court, a judge should
be studious to avoid controversies which are apt to obscure the merits of the dispute
between litigants and lead to its unjust disposition. He should not interrupt counsel
in their arguments except to clarify his mind as to their positions. Nor should he be
tempted to an unnecessary display of learning or premature judgment.
A judge without being arbitrary, unreasonable or unjust may endeavor to hold
counsel to a proper appreciation of their duties to the courts, to their clients and to
the adverse party and his lawyer, so as to enforce due diligence in the dispatch of
business before the court. He may utilize his opportunities to criticize and correct
unprofessional conduct of attorneys, brought to his attention, but he may not do so
in an insulting manner.[15] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The following portions of the transcript of stenographic notes, quoted verbatim,
taken during the February 27, 2006 hearing show that respondent made sarcastic
and humiliating, even threatening and boastful remarks to complainant who is
admittedly still young, unnecessary lecturing and debating, as well as unnecessary
display of learning
COURT:
xxx
Sir do you know the principle or study the stare decisis?
ATTY. MANE:
Ah, with due respect your
COURT:
Tell me, what is your school
ATTY. MANE:
I am proud graduate of Manuel L. Quezon University.
COURT:
Were you taught at the MLQU College of Law of the principle of Stare Decisis and
the interpretation of the Supreme Court of the rules of procedure where it states
that if there is already a decision by the Supreme Court, when that decision shall be
complied with by the Trial Court otherwise non-compliance thereof shall subject the
Courts to judicial sanction, and I quote the decision. Thats why I quoted the decision
of the Supreme Court Sir, because I know the problem between the bank and the
third party claimants and I state, The fair market value is the price at which a
property may be sold by a seller, who is not compelled to sell, and bought by a buyer,
who is not compelled to buy. Sir, thats very clear, that is what fair market value and
that is not assessment value. In fact even you say assessment value, the Court further
state, the assessed value is the fair market value multiplied. Not mere the basic
assesses value. Sir that is the decision of the Supreme Court, am I just reading the
decision or was I inventing it?
ATTY. MANE:
May I be allowed to proceed.
COURT:
Sir, you tell me. Was I inventing the Supreme Court decision which I quoted and
which you should have researched too or I was merely imagining the Supreme Court
decision sir? Please answer it.
A
TTY. MANE:
No your Honor.
COURT:
Please answer it.
xxxx
COURT:
Thats why. Sir second, and again I quote from your own pleadings, hale me to the
Supreme Court otherwise I will hale you to the bar. Prove to me that I am grossly
ignorant or corrupt.
ATTY. MANE:
Your Honor when this representation, your Honor . . .
COURT:
No, sir.
ATTY. MANE:
Yes your Honor . . .
COURT:
No sir unless you apologize to the Court I will hale you to the IBP Because hindi
naman ako ganon. I am not that vindictive but if this remains. You cannot take cover
from the instruction of your client because even if the instruction of a client is secret.
Upon consideration, the language of the pleader must still conform with the
decorum and respect to the Court. Sir, thats the rule of practice. In my twenty (20)
years of practice Ive never been haled by a judge to any question of integrity.
Because even if I believed that the Court committed error in judgment or decision or
grave abuse of discretion, I never imputed any malicious or unethical behavior to the
judge because I know and I believe that anyone can commit errors. Because no one
is like God. Sir, I hope sir you understand that this Court, this Judge is not God but
this Judge is human when challenge on his integrity and honor is lodged. No matter
how simple it is because that is the only thing I have now.
Atty. Bantin, can you please show him my statement of assets and liabilities?
ATTY. MANE:
I think that is not necessary your Honor.
COURT:
No counsel because the imputations are there, thats why I want you to see. Show
him my assets and liabilities for the proud graduate of MLQU. Sir, look at it. Sir, I have
stock holdings in the U.S. before I joined the bench. And it was very clear to
everyone, I would do everything not be tempted to accept bribe but I said I have
spent my fifteen (15) years and thats how much I have worked in fifteen (15) years
excluding my wifes assets which is more than what I have may be triple of what I
have. May be even four fold of what I have. And look at my assets. May be even your
bank can consider on cash to cash basis my personal assets. That is the reason I am
telling you Atty. Mane. Please, look at it. If you want I can show you even the Income
Tax Return of my wife and you will be surprised that my salary is not even her one-
half month salary. Sir, she is the Chief Executive Officer of a Multi-National Publishing
Company. Thats why I have the guts to take this job because doon po sa salary niya
umaasa na lamang po ako sa aking asawa. Atty. Mane, please you are still young.
Other judges you would already be haled to the IBP. Take that as a lesson. Now that
you are saying that I was wrong in the three-day notice rule, again the Supreme Court
decision validates me, PNB vs. Court of Appeals, you want me to cite the quotation
again that any pleadings that do not conform with the three-day notice rule is
considered as useless scrap of paper and therefore not subject to any judicial
cognizance. You know sir, you would say but I was the one subject because the judge
was belligerent. No sir, you can go on my record and you will see that even prior to
my rulings on your case I have already thrown out so many motion for non-
compliance of a three-day notice rule. If I will give you an exception because of this,
then I would be looked upon with suspicion. So sir again, please look again on the
record and you will see how many motions I threw out for non-compliance with the
three-day notice rule. It is not only your case sir, because sir you are a practitioner
and a proud graduate of the MLQU which is also the Alma Mater of my uncle. And I
supposed you were taught in thought that the three-day notice rule is almost
sacrosanct in order to give the other party time to appear and plead. In all books,
Moran, Regalado and all other commentators state that non-compliance with the
three-day notice rule makes the pleading and motion a useless scrap of paper. If that
is a useless scrap of paper, sir, what would be my ground to grant exception to your
motion? Tell me.
xxxx

COURT:
Procedural due process. See. So please sir dont confuse the Court. Despite of being
away for twenty years from the college of law, still I can remember my rules, In your
motion you said . . . imputing things to the Court. Sir please read your rules.
Familiarize yourself, understand the jurisprudence before you be the Prince Valiant
or a Sir Gallahad in Quest of the Holy Grail. Sir, ako po ay mahirap na tao, karangalan
ko lang po ang aking kayang ibigay sa aking mga anak at iyan po ay hindi ko
palalampasin maski kanino pa. Sir, have you ever heard of anything about me in this
Court for one year. Ask around, ask around. You know, if you act like a duck, walk
like a duck, quack like a duck, you are a duck. But have you ever heard anything
against the court. Sir in a judicial system, in a Court, one year is time enough for the
practitioner to know whether a judge is what, dishonest; 2), whether the judge is
incompetent; and 3) whether the judge is just playing loco. And I have sat hear for
one year sir and please ask around before you charge into the windmill. I am a proud
product of a public school system from elementary to college. And my only, and my
only, the only way I can repay the taxpayers is a service beyond reproach without
fear or favor to anyone. Not even the executive, not even the one sitting in
Malacanang, not even the Supreme Court if you are right. Sir, sana po naman inyo
ring igalang ang Hukuman kasi po kami, meron nga po, tinatanggap ko, kung inyo
pong mamarapatin, meron pong mga corrupt, maaari pong nakahanap na kayo ng
corrupt na Judge pero hindi po lahat kami ay corrupt. Maaari ko rin pong tanggapin
sa inyong abang lingcod na merong mga Hukom na tanga pero hindi po naman lahat
kami ay tanga. Ako po ay 8:30 or before ay nandito po ako sa husgado ko. Aalis po
ako dito sa hapon, babasahin ko lahat ang kaso ko para ko po malaman kung any po
ang kaso, para po pagharap ko sa inyo at sa publiko hindi po ako magmumukhang
tanga. Sir, please have the decency, not the respect, not to me but to the Court.
Because if you are a lawyer who cannot respect the Court then you have no business
appearing before the Court because you dont believe in the Court system. Thats why
one of my classmates never appeared before Court because he doesnt believe in
that system. He would rather stay in their airconditioned room because they say
going to Court is useless. Then, to them I salute, I give compliment because in their
own ways they know the futility and they respect the Court, in that futility rather
than be a hypocrite. Atty. Mane hindi mo ako kilala, Ive never disrespect the courts
and I can look into your eyes. Kaya po dito ko gusto kasi di po ako dito nagpractice
para po walang makalapit sa akin. Pero kung ako po naman ay inyong babastusin ng
ganyang handa po akong lumaban kahit saan, miski saan po. And you can quote me,
you can go there together to the Supreme Court. Because the only sir, the only
treasure I have is my name and my integrity. I could have easily let it go because it is
the first time, but the second time is too much too soon. Sir, masyado pong kwan
yon, sinampal na po ninyo ako nung primero, dinuran pa po ninyo ako ng pangalawa.
Thats adding insult to the injury po. Hindi ko po sana gagawin ito pero ayan po ang
dami diyang abugado. I challenge anyone to file a case against me for graft and
corruption, for incompetence.
xxxx
COURT:
I will ask the lawyer to read the statement and if they believe that you are not
imputing any wrong doing to me I will apologize to you.
Atty. Hildawa please come over. The Senior, I respect the old practitioner, whose
integrity is unchallenged.
Sir you said honest. Sir ganoon po ako. You still want to defend your position, so be
it.
Atty. Hildawa I beg your indulgence, I am sorry but I know that you are an old
practitioner hammered out by years of practice and whose integrity by reputation
precedes you. Please read what your younger companero has written to this
Honorable Court in pleading and see for yourself the implications he hurled to the
Court in his honest opinion. Remember he said honest. That implication is your
honest opinion of an implication sir.
Sir 1, 2 and 3. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. If that is your honest opinion. Remember the
word you said honest opinion.
Alam mo Atty. Mane I know when one has to be vigilant and vigorous in the pursue
of pride. But if you are vigilant and vigor, you should never crossed the line.
Sir, what is your interpretation to the first three paragraphs?
ATTY. HILDAWA:
There will be some . . .
COURT: A judge must address the merits of the case and not on the person of the counsel. If
respondent felt that his integrity and dignity were being assaulted, he acted properly
What sir? when he directed complainant to explain why he should not be cited for contempt.
He went out of bounds, however, when he, as the above-quoted portions of the
ATTY. HILDAWA: transcript of stenographic notes show, engaged on a supercilious legal and personal
discourse.
. . . indiscretion.
This Court has reminded members of the bench that even on the face of boorish
COURT: behavior from those they deal with, they ought to conduct themselves in a manner
befitting gentlemen and high officers of the court.[17]
Indiscretion. See, that is the most diplomatic word that an old practitioner could say
to the Court because of respect. Respondent having exhibited conduct unbecoming of a judge, classified as a light
charge under Section 10, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, which is penalized
Sir, salamat po. under Section 11(c) of the same Rule by any of the following: (1) a fine of not less
than P1,000 but not exceeding P10,000; (2) censure; (3) reprimand; and (4)
xxxx admonition with warning, the Court imposes upon him the penalty of reprimand.

COURT:

Kita po ninyo, iyan po ang matatandang abogado. Indiscretion na lang. Now you say
that is your honest opinion and the old practitioner hammered through years of
practice could only say indiscretion committed by this judge. Much more I who sits
in this bench?
Now is that your honest opinion?[16] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
WHEREFORE, respondent, Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen, Presiding Judge of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Calamba City, is found GUILTY of conduct
unbecoming of a judge and is REPRIMANDED therefor. He is further warned that a
repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

The Court thus finds the evaluation by the OCA well-taken.

An alumnus of a particular law school has no monopoly of knowledge of the law. By

hurdling the Bar Examinations which this Court administers, taking of the Lawyers
oath, and signing of the Roll of Attorneys, a lawyer is presumed to be competent to
discharge his functions and duties as, inter alia, an officer of the court, irrespective
of where he obtained his law degree. For a judge to determine the fitness or
competence of a lawyer primarily on the basis of his alma mater is clearly an
engagement in an argumentum ad hominem.
FIRST DIVISION
A. M. No. RTJ-03-1808 - October 15, 2003
RADELIA SY and ERWIN CATO, complainants, vs. HON. JUDGE ANTONIO FINEZA,
Presiding Judge, RTC-Branch 131, Caloocan City, Respondent.
DECISION
AZCUNA, J.:
A verified complaint1 dated May 22, 2001 was filed by Radelia C. Sy with the Office
of the Court Administrator, charging the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court
of Caloocan City (Branch 131), Judge Antonio J. Fineza, of bribery, grave misconduct,
conduct unbecoming of a judge and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service. Complainant Sy is the accused in Criminal Case No. C-53098 for estafa
pending before Judge Fineza. According to complainant Sy, Judge Fineza exerted
undue and improper pressure on her by offering to dismiss the estafa case in
exchange for P300,000. Otherwise, he threatened to convict complainant Sy of
estafa regardless of her innocence.
Complainant Sy declared that she delivered money to Judge Fineza six times on
separate occasions. The first payment occurred on March 22, 2000, inside Steak
Town Restaurant in West Avenue, Quezon City, wherein she handed over cash worth
P30,000 to Judge Fineza in the presence of her lawyer, Atty. Petronilo dela Cruz and
a legal researcher named Robert Cheng. The second payment took place during the
first week of May 2000, this time inside Judge Finezas chambers, where she gave
P20,000. The third time was later that same week, while inside Steak Town
Restaurant, where she gave P30,000 to Judge Fineza in the presence of Atty. dela
Cruz, Mr. Cheng and a certain Cristy Yambao. Again in the same restaurant, for the
fourth time, on or about May 19, 2000, she delivered P25,000 to Judge Fineza, as
witnessed by Atty. dela Cruz, Mr. Cheng and a certain Erwin Cato. The fifth delivery
occurred in the month of June 2000, through Atty. dela Cruz, who advanced the
amount of P50,000, which she later reimbursed. The sixth handover took place on
July 20, 2000 inside Barrio Fiesta Restaurant in Edsa, where she delivered P100,000
to Judge Fineza in the presence of Mr. Cheng.
Complainant Sy claimed that when she was unable to complete the remaining
balance, Judge Fineza began harassing her. One instance of harassment she
described was when Judge Fineza cited her for direct contempt on December 8,
2000. Complainant Sy recounted that after the hearing of December 8, 2000, Judge
Fineza inquired if she had renewed her bail bond, in response to which complainant
Sy showed a receipt issued by one Evelyn delos Santos of Pacific Union Insurance
Company. Judge Fineza then directed his branch clerk of court to verify the
authenticity of the receipt. In the meantime, complainant Sy was told not to leave
the court room. However, complainant Sy decided to fetch Evelyn delos Santos, who
was just minutes away, to attest personally to the authenticity of the bond receipt.
Upon returning with Ms. delos Santos, complainant Sy learned that Judge Fineza had
cited her in contempt and had ordered her arrest for having left the court room
against his instructions. Complainant Sy moved to reconsider the arrest order
contending that she merely left to fetch the agent of the bonding company to
manifest in person the authenticity of the bail bond. Despite the explanation, the
motion was denied.
As the first order failed to mention the exact penalty imposed upon complainant Sy
for contempt, Judge Fineza issued an amended arrest order directing that she be
imprisoned for five days and fined in the amount of P5,000. Then on March 29, 2001,
just when complainant Sy was about to finish serving her sentence for contempt,
Judge Fineza increased the bail of complainant Sy from P200,000 to P1,000,000.
A second verified complaint2 dated July 3, 2001 was jointly filed by complainant Sy
and Erwin Cato charging Judge Fineza with abuse of authority, grave misconduct and
oppression. The second complaint alleged that during the hearing of complainant
Sys estafa case on May 21, 2001, Judge Fineza shouted the following remarks in open
court:
Yan si Atty. dela Cruz, ilong lang ang walang sakit.
xxx xxx xxx
Sobra na! Abusado ang mga lawyers mo!
xxx xxx xxx
Sinungaling ka binastos mo ang Court, hindi
ako ang binastos mo! Sinungaling ka!
xxx xxx xxx
O! Bumaba na ang decision sa Court of Appeals, Dismissed na! Ano pa?
Ano pa? Ang (sic) susunod na ipapa-file mo? O! Sige nakahanda ako.
The second complaint further alleged that on May 23, 2001 complainant Sys counsel
in other cases, Atty. Jubay, had relayed to her that Judge Fineza warned him that
morning during a hearing that she had not been paying her other lawyers. Judge
Fineza added that complainant Sy had been threatening to file a case against the
former, and warned that if she does so, "she could no longer appear or set foot in
Caloocan City." This eventually led to the withdrawal of Atty. Jubay as complainant
Sys counsel.
The second complaint also alleged that complainant Cato was likewise harassed by
Judge Fineza. As stated therein, in the morning of June 26, 2001, while waiting at the
hallway, Judge Fineza came out from his office, pointed a finger at him and shouted:
"Ikaw, sinungaling ka! Gumawa ka pa ng affidavit!" then gave him a dagger look.
Judge Fineza denies the allegations contained in the two complaints. He argues that
the circumstances under which the bribes were allegedly given to him are too
incredible and preposterous to be believed. He admits having increased the bail
bond from P200,000 to P1,000,000 but claims that this was done well within the
performance of his official duty. As for the second complaint, Judge Fineza denies
having uttered such remarks in open court and presented the affidavits of two of his
court employees in support of his denial. He admits having chanced upon
complainant Cato in the hallway on June 26, 2001 and having called him
"sinungaling" for executing a false affidavit, but he denies shouting at him, or
pointing a finger or throwing dagger looks at him.
On March 13, 2002, Deputy Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock filed his report3
and recommended that the case be referred to an Associate Justice of the Court of
Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation. The Court in a resolution4
dated June 5, 2002 referred the case to Associate Justice Eugenio S. Labitoria.
During the hearing of the case before the investigating Justice, both parties agreed
to forego with the reception of evidence.5 They submitted instead position papers,
attaching documentary evidence and the affidavits of witnesses. In accordance with
the agreement, complainants Sy and Cato filed their memorandum6 on November
26, 2002. Judge Fineza filed his Reply7 thereto on January 14, 2003. A Rejoinder8
was filed by complainants Sy and Cato on February 12, 2003 which was answered by
Judge Fineza with his own Rejoinder on February 27, 2003.
After assessing the pleadings and memoranda filed, along with the documents and
affidavits attached, the investigating Justice saw no merit in the charge of bribery
but found Judge Fineza guilty of simple misconduct. He, therefore, recommended
that Judge Fineza be reprimanded and fined one months salary. The pertinent
portions of Associate Justice Labitorias Report state, as follows:
1. The complaint for bribery must fail.
The undersigned gives scant consideration on the complaint for bribery. As found by
the Supreme Court, bribery is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove, thus
complainant must present a panoply of evidence in support of such an accusation.
Complainant herein has only her friends to support her claims who would naturally
testify in her favor. Again, following the ruling in Calimag case (id), the Supreme
Court said
"x x x In order that the allegation of a charge of this nature may not be considered a
fairy tale, evidence other than the doubtful and questionable verbal testimony of a
lone witness should be adduced. Entrapment should have been pursued. Evidence
of a reasonable report to police authorities should been presented. Record of where
the bribe money came from, its specific denominations and the manner respondent
accepted and disposed of it should have been clearly shown."
Complainant has not shown any of the above, except the affidavits of her friends,
who are expected to side with her.
However, respondent Judges acts of harassing the complainant by citing her in
contempt of court for a very trivial reason; putting her in prison and ordering her to
pay fine of P5,000; raising the bail from P200,000.00 to P1,000,000.00; are clearly
acts which show abuse of authority.
A reading of respondent Judges Order of December 8, 2000 shows that the reason
for the issuance of the Order of Arrest was complainants leaving the court room
while her official receipt for the renewal of her bailbond was being verified.
Respondent Judge did not even care to listen to the explanation of one Evelyn delos
Santos, the agent of the insurance company, who personally went to him to explain
and confirm the authenticity of the official receipt, which if he only did he would be
more humane, benevolent, just and fair. Even the urgent motion for reconsideration
of said Order of December 8, 2000 filed by complainant, attaching therewith the
renewed bailbond and affidavit of said Evelyn delos Santos was never taken into
consideration.
In respondents haste in issuing the Order of Arrest, he failed to state the penalty for
allegedly defying the order of the former, and the manner by which complainant
would serve the penalty. It was only corrected when respondent issued an Order on
January 24, 2001 denying the motion to suspend the execution of the Order of Arrest
earlier issued and issuing an Amended Order of Arrest.
On the issue of raising the bailbond from P200,000.00 to an unconscionable and
excessive P1,000,000.00 without hearing therefore, at the time when complainant
was about to be released from detention due to her 5-day imprisonment on the
contempt order, the same is motivated by malice and bad faith and constitutes
misconduct. It is emphasized that "excessive bail shall not be required."
Respondent [relies] on
1. the amount involved in the Estafa case is as big as P4,600,000.00;
2. Radelia Sy had tried to mislead the Court that she had renewed her bailbond by
presenting a fake receipt;
3. Radelia Sy had jumped bail and remained in hiding from December 8, 2000 until
her arrest on March 27, 2001 and thus the presence of the risk of her jumping bail
again,
for increasing complainants bailbond. The first reason is not among the guidelines
set forth by the Revised Penal Code on Criminal Procedure. No. 2 reason has been
sufficiently explained and respondents opinion of "fake receipt" had been aptly
refuted and contested by the agent of the insurance company. There was no showing
that complainant jumped bail. The date December 8, 2000 was the date of the
issuance of the contempt order and order of arrest. From said date up to March 27,
2001, was the period when complainant was trying to move for the reconsideration
of the aforesaid arrest order and the putting up of the increased bailbond.
Undersigned could not find any reason why respondent would resort to increasing
the bailbond except for some ill-motives and malice.
xxx xxx xxx
2. As to the second complaint wherein respondent was accused of uttering
defamatory words, complainant has no cause of action. The utterances, granting that
they were defamatory were addressed to her lawyers and who would be affected
thereby. Complainant should not take the cudgels for her lawyers.
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the undersigned finds the accusation for bribery
to be without merit. However, respondent is guilty of simple misconduct, for which
a penalty of reprimand and a fine of one (1) month salary [are] recommended.
Associate Justice Labitoria correctly found that the charge of bribery was not proven.
The accusation of bribery is a very serious charge that would entail not only the
dismissal of a judge but also criminal prosecution. The affidavits and other
documents submitted by the complainants set forth allegations that are simply not
credible.
Nonetheless, this Court takes exception to the view of the investigating Justice that
Judge Fineza should be exonerated of the charge of uttering defamatory words
against complainant Sys lawyers for the reason that they were not uttered against
her, hence leaving her with no cause of action against Judge Fineza. The issue in
administrative cases is not whether the complainant has a cause of action against
the respondent, but whether the respondent has breached the norms and standards
of the judiciary.9 This Court has a duty to investigate and root out misconduct and
inefficiency of its judges regardless of the complainants immediate interest.
Unfortunately, the investigating Justice refrained from further determining whether
or not Judge Fineza indeed made such utterances. Thus, this Court is constrained to
look at the evidence.
To support the claim that Judge Fineza uttered derogatory remarks at complainants
lawyers in open court, the alleged witnesses to the incident, Mr. Cheng and
complainant Cato, submitted their respective affidavits. Judge Fineza denied having
uttered such remarks and presented affidavits of his stenographer and court aide
who declared therein that they did not see Mr. Cheng and complainant Cato in court
on that day. Given that the quantum of proof needed to sustain an administrative
case against a judge is substantial evidence,10 this Court finds the affidavits
presented by complainants insufficient to substantiate their charge, especially
considering that contradicting evidence of equal weight has been presented by
Judge Fineza.
On the charge that Judge Fineza abused his authority, this Court agrees with the
findings of the investigating Justice. The circumstances surrounding the arrest of
complainant Sy for direct contempt and the raising of her bail bond from P200,000
to P1,000,000 unmistakably show abuse of authority. However, this Court finds that
such acts do not merit a mere reprimand and fine, as they are not acts of simple
misconduct but rather of serious misconduct. In Suroza v. Honorado,11 this Court
defined what constitutes serious misconduct:
Misconduct implies malice or a wrongful intent, not a mere error of judgment. "For
serious misconduct to exist, there must be reliable evidence showing that the judicial
acts complained of were corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law, or
were in persistent disregard of well-known legal rules."
There was a definite finding by the investigating Justice that the order of arrest of
complainant Sy for contempt and the increase of her bond from P200,000 to
P1,000,000 were motivated by malice and bad faith. In addition to this, the records
of the case categorically reveal other acts of misconduct committed by Judge Fineza
which the aforecited report did not discuss: First, while Judge Fineza denied having
shouted, pointed a finger or glared at complainant Cato in the morning of June 26,
2001, he admitted having seen complainant Cato on that day along the hallway and
having called him "sinungaling;" Second, in Judge Finezas Comment to the Complaint
of Erwin Cato and Radelia Sy dated August 1, 2001,12 he had the temerity to write
about one of the complainants witnesses in the following manner:
Now as far as Robert Cheng is concerned, this person should not be given any
credence for not only that he is a "BAKLA," in its fullest sense, but also because even
in a very minor aspect of his identification, he could not be consistent nor relied
[upon].
These two incidents clearly show Judge Finezas utter disrespect for the office he
holds as a member of the judiciary. In the first instance, even assuming the absence
of shouting, finger pointing and menacing stares, the admitted act of Judge Fineza in
calling complainant Cato "sinungaling" in the hallway, already detracts from the
equanimity and judiciousness that are required of a judge. As for describing one of
the complainants witnesses as "BAKLA" in a pleading filed before this Court, resort
to argumentum ad hominem is certainly most unbecoming of a judge, to say the
least.
Lastly, the allegations contained in Atty. Jubays Manifestation and Motion dated
June 25, 2001, wherein he withdrew as counsel for complainant Sy after having
talked to Judge Fineza,13 is another disconcerting proof of Judge Finezas abuse of
authority:
1. That during the hearing of this case on May 23, 2001, the undersigned counsel
was called by the Honorable Presiding Judge of this Court [who] inquired if
undersigned is also the counsel of Radelia C. Sy who is an accused in another case
pending before this Honorable Court;
2. That undersigned counsel replied that he is the original counsel of Ms. Sy in her
other cases and earlier that (sic) the other counsel of Ms. Sy in her other cases;
3. That the Hon. Presiding Judge of this Court had told the undersigned counsel that
the other counsel of Ms. Sy had not been appearing in Court as they had not been
paid their legal fees or professional fees to which the undersigned counsel had
replied that he did not know if the other counsel had been paid to which the
Honorable Presiding Judge had volunteered the information that Ms. Sy had been
threatening to file a complaint against him, and said that if Ms. Sy will do it, she could
no longer appear or set foot in Caloocan City.
While Judge Fineza denies that the conversation ever happened, the manifestation
of Atty. Jubay cannot easily be dismissed as a fabrication. It was made by an officer
of the court who could be held liable for contempt if the same is proven to be false.
At this point, it bears noting that the manifestation was filed with the court of Judge
Fineza and that he made no mention of ever having imposed sanctions on Atty. Jubay
for making such allegations.
Now, for the appropriate penalty.
The integrity of the judiciary rests not only upon the fact that it is able to administer
justice but also upon the perception and confidence of the community that the
people who run the system have done justice.14 The assumption of office by a judge
places upon him duties and restrictions peculiar to his exalted position. He must be
perceived, not as a repository of arbitrary power, but as one who dispenses justice
under the sanction of the rule of law.15 This Court has repeatedly reminded
members of the judiciary to be irreproachable in conduct and to be free from any
appearance of impropriety in their personal behavior, not only in the discharge of
their official duties, but also in their daily life. For no position exacts a greater
demand for moral righteousness and uprightness of an individual than a seat in the
judiciary.16crlwvirtualibrry

In Castanos v. Escano, Jr.,17 this Court held that when the judges inefficiency springs
from a failure to consider so basic and elemental a rule, a law, or a principle in the
discharge of his duties, a judge is either too incompetent and undeserving of the
position and title he holds, or is too vicious that the oversight or omission was
deliberately done in bad faith and in grave abuse of judicial authority. In either
instance, the judge's dismissal is in order. In this case, Judge Fineza is found to have
acted with malice and bad faith in ordering the arrest of complainant Sy and in
increasing her bail bond from P200,000 to P1,000,000. Moreover, his use of arrogant
and intemperate language in his pleading and in his verbal remarks to complainant
Cato and Atty. Jubay is not the proper decorum expected of judges who preside over
courts of law. Finally, this Court also takes note of the fact that Judge Fineza was
recently found guilty of serious misconduct for refusing to order the execution of a
final and executory judgment.18 He was reprimanded and fined P30,000 with the
warning that a repetition of the same will be dealt with more severely.

Nevertheless, Judge Finezas offenses are not beyond rectification. Respondent Judge
Fineza is, therefore, given one last chance to correct his ways and is sternly warned
that one more transgression will merit his dismissal from the service.

ALL THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, respondent Judge Fineza is SUSPENDED from

office without salary and other benefits for six (6) months, with the STERN WARNING
that one more transgression will merit dismissal from the service.

SO ORDERED.