A.M. No. RTJ-00-1565. August 16, 2001.
FEDERICO S. BERNARDO, complainant, vs. JUDGE PATERNO G. TIAMSON, RTC, Branch 69, Binangonan, Rizal, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Federico S. Bernardo, president of Sinag-Dagat, Inc., alleged that his association had a pending application with the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) concerning a fishpond area in Binangonan, Rizal. He claimed that respondent Judge Paterno G. Tiamson, owner of adjacent parcels of land, built dikes without a court order and, on July 4, 1999, together with others, entered the fishpond and cut and destroyed bamboo poles and fishing nets installed by complainant’s men. Complainant argued these acts constituted misconduct and conduct unbecoming a judge, rendering respondent unfit for judicial office.
In his defense, respondent judge asserted he was the owner of the fishpond and was merely exercising his property rights. He contended that complainant and his men had surreptitiously entered his property, and that the LLDA had informed complainant that his prior temporary permit had expired. Respondent emphasized that the issue of possession was pending before the LLDA, and his actions were taken in his private capacity as a landowner protecting his property.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Paterno G. Tiamson is administratively liable for misconduct and conduct unbecoming a judge for his actions in destroying the bamboo poles and fishing nets on the disputed fishpond.

RULING

No, the respondent judge is not administratively liable for misconduct, but he is admonished to use lawful means to vindicate his rights. The Supreme Court, adopting the investigation report, found that the acts complained of were committed by respondent in his private capacity as a property owner. Jurisprudence establishes that for a judge to be held guilty of misconduct, the act must directly relate to and affect the performance of official judicial duties. The Court cited Amosco v. Magro and Salcedo v. Inting, which require that the misfeasance must amount to maladministration or willful neglect of official duties. Here, respondent’s actions concerning a property dispute were not connected to his judicial functions.
However, the Court emphasized that a judge’s private conduct cannot be entirely divorced from his public persona. Judges are held to a high standard as models of law-abiding citizenship and symbols of law and order. The Investigating Justice noted that under LLDA rules, the fishpond, being below the 12.50-meter lake level, is considered public land that can only be leased, complicating claims of absolute ownership. While the dispute was pending before the LLDA, respondent should have refrained from self-help measures that exacerbated tensions. The Court ruled that except in extreme cases like self-defense, a judge must resort to orderly legal processes and not take the law into his own hands. Therefore, while the administrative complaint was dismissed for lack of direct relation to official duties, respondent was ADMONISHED to employ pacific and lawful means for the protection of his rights.