G.R. No. A.M. No. R-298 MTJ January 17, 1986
Atty. Gaydifredo T. Ocampo, complainant, vs. Hon. Tristan Guerrero, Municipal Trial Judge, Branch III, General Santos City, respondent.

FACTS

Atty. Gaydifredo T. Ocampo, acting as private prosecutor in People vs. Benjamin Ayop for malicious mischief, filed an administrative complaint against Judge Tristan Guerrero. The case had suffered repeated postponements and was finally scheduled for initial hearing on the morning of November 14, 1984. Upon the defense’s motion, the trial was moved to the afternoon of the same day. When the case was called in the afternoon, Judge Guerrero, without any apparent motion from either party, unilaterally ordered a further postponement of the trial to January 7, 1985.
Atty. Ocampo pleaded for the hearing to proceed, informing the court that he was advised the proceedings for the next scheduled case would be brief, thus allowing time for his case. In response, Judge Guerrero, in what was described as an overbearing and arrogant tone, rebuked the complainant, stating, “Do not interfere with the discretion of the court; set that case to January 7, 1985.” This incident formed the basis for the charges of serious abuse of discretion, misconduct, oppression, and neglect of duty.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Tristan Guerrero committed serious abuse of discretion, misconduct, oppression, or neglect of duty in unilaterally postponing the trial and in his discourteous treatment of the private prosecutor.

RULING

The Supreme Court found Judge Guerrero administratively liable. The Court acknowledged the inherent power of judges to control court proceedings and grant postponements. However, this discretion must be exercised judiciously and for good cause. In this instance, no valid or compelling reason was presented by the respondent to justify the sudden postponement from the afternoon of November 14, 1984, to a date nearly two months later. The absence of a good reason rendered the postponement an arbitrary act, constituting an abuse of discretion.
More critically, the Court emphasized that a judge’s authority must be tempered with courtesy and respect towards all officers of the court. Judge Guerrero’s dismissive and arrogant rebuke of Atty. Ocampo, a lawyer performing his duty, demonstrated a failure to observe proper judicial decorum. This conduct amounted to oppression and misconduct, as it degraded the dignity of the proceedings and showed a lack of the courtesy essential to the fair administration of justice. The power to postpone does not include the license to be discourteous or to disregard legitimate pleas from counsel without consideration.
Consequently, the Supreme Court reprimanded Judge Tristan Guerrero and admonished him to observe proper judicial decorum and to accord all parties before his court due consideration. The ruling underscores that judicial discretion must be exercised with both legal basis and basic courtesy.