G.R. No. A.M. No. 655-MJ. May 23, 1974
CESAR G. OTERO, complainant, vs. MUNICIPAL JUDGE JUAN G. ESGUERRA, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Cesar G. Otero, an attorney, filed a verified administrative complaint against Municipal Judge Juan G. Esguerra of Taytay, Rizal, for gross ignorance of the law and conduct unbecoming a judicial officer. The complaint stemmed from an incident on November 8, 1971, during a hearing on a petition for voter inclusion. Otero, representing a mayoralty candidate, opposed the petition. He alleged that after hearing the argument of the opposing counsel, Judge Esguerra immediately granted the petition. When Otero moved for reconsideration, the respondent judge allegedly lost his temper, shouted at Otero to stop talking and leave the courtroom, and ordered his ouster. Otero further claimed the judge arbitrarily dismissed his appeal from the inclusion order.
In his answer, Judge Esguerra offered justifications for his actions. He stated he granted the inclusion petition because the petitioner possessed a voter’s ID card. He disapproved the appeal to prevent the disenfranchisement of the petitioner, noting the hearing ended at 2:50 PM and the elections were to conclude at 3:00 PM. Regarding the courtroom incident, he asserted he ordered Otero removed to end a heated verbal argument where Otero, in the presence of many people, was imputing gross ignorance of the law to him.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Juan G. Esguerra should be held administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and conduct unbecoming a judge based on the allegations.

RULING

The Court dismissed the administrative complaint. The case was referred for investigation, but before it could commence, complainant Otero filed a “Manifestation” withdrawing his complaint. Consequently, the charges remained unsubstantiated and lacked evidentiary support. The withdrawal left the allegations as mere accusations without proof, making a finding of administrative liability untenable.
However, the Court took the opportunity to admonish the respondent judge. It emphasized that while the complaint was dismissed due to withdrawal and lack of substantiation, judges must always conduct themselves in a manner beyond reproach. The Court specifically directed Judge Esguerra to refrain from any official conduct that could be perceived as improper or intemperate. This admonition serves as a reminder of the high standard of decorum and propriety required of members of the judiciary, ensuring that their behavior, both on and off the bench, maintains the public’s trust and confidence in the judicial system. The dismissal was without prejudice to any future appropriate action should similar conduct be properly proven in another proceeding.