G.R. No. A.M. No. 486-MJ September 13, 1977
JOSE MARIA ANTONIO FERNANDEZ, complainant, vs. JUDGE JULIO PRESBITERO, Municipal Judge of Pulupandan, Negros Occidental, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Jose Maria Antonio Fernandez, son of the incumbent Municipal Mayor, was involved in a stabbing incident on April 16, 1973. The following day, he was investigated by PC-CIS agents and directed to remain at home. On Holy Wednesday, April 18, the victim and witnesses went to the municipal court to file an attempted murder complaint but found respondent Judge Julio Presbitero absent. Upon a CIS agent’s suggestion, the group proceeded to the house of Mario Peña, a relative of the mayor’s political opponent, located 3-4 kilometers from the town hall. The judge was fetched from his home and arrived at Peña’s residence in the evening with his court docket and seal.
At the private residence, the respondent judge personally took new sworn statements from the complainant and witnesses, despite existing affidavits sworn before a fiscal. He then docketed the case, issued a warrant for complainant’s arrest, and set bail at P15,000. The arrest was effected on Maundy Thursday, a public holiday, complicating the filing of a bail bond. Subsequently, in an order denying a motion to dismiss the case, the judge strongly recommended the investigation of the complainant’s father, Mayor Joaquin Fernandez, for an unrelated killing, despite the mayor not being a party to the case.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Julio Presbitero is administratively liable for conduct unbecoming a judge, specifically for partiality and oppression, based on the irregular circumstances of the preliminary examination and his subsequent actions.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent judge administratively liable. The legal logic centers on the imperative for judges to not only be impartial but to also maintain the appearance of impartiality to preserve public confidence in the judiciary. The Court held that the judge’s actions created a clear appearance of bias. Conducting a preliminary examination at night in the private residence of a relative of the mayor’s political opponent, far from the courthouse, was highly irregular and susceptible to suspicion. His explanation—citing a lack of courtroom lighting and an alleged urgency to prevent witness harassment by the mayor—was deemed unpersuasive, as arresting the son would not logically stop the mayor from intimidating witnesses.
Furthermore, the judge’s act of recommending the criminal prosecution of the complainant’s father in a judicial order, regarding a matter where the father had no opportunity to be heard, demonstrated a lack of judicial restraint and indicated personal animus. This was compounded by his testimony justifying the act as a defense against allegations in a motion, which the Court found improper for inclusion in a judicial order. These collective actions violated the standard of prudence and objectivity required of judges. Consequently, the Court imposed a fine equivalent to two months’ salary, modifying the investigator’s recommended suspension and rejecting a mere reprimand, to emphasize the seriousness of maintaining judicial decorum and the perception of fairness.