AM 2247 Mj; (August, 1982) (Digest)
A.M. No. 2247-MJ. August 19, 1982. PEDRO G. VALENTIN, complainant, vs. JUDGE MARIANO P. GONZALES, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Pedro G. Valentin filed an administrative complaint against Judge Mariano P. Gonzales of the Municipal Circuit Court of Dingras-Piddig-Carasi, Ilocos Norte. The complaint alleged that the judge, conspiring with the complainant’s sister-in-law, Lagrimas Tabios Valentin, unlawfully issued a subpoena for the complainant and his sisters to appear in court on July 25, 1979, concerning a property dispute over which he allegedly had no jurisdiction. During that appearance, the respondent judge, in an arrogant and loud voice, publicly insulted the complainant by uttering words translated as “grabber, swindler, prostitute,” causing damage and prejudice. The complainant subsequently filed a criminal complaint for grave oral defamation with the Provincial Fiscal, which was later dismissed.
In his defense, Judge Gonzales explained that Lagrimas Valentin had requested his assistance to summon her late husband’s siblings for a confrontation to settle property rights amicably. He admitted issuing the summons and, during the meeting, admonishing the complainant in Ilocano. He stated he used the words “kinaagum and pananggundaway” (greediness and opportunism) to critique the complainant’s act of buying his dying brother’s conjugal properties without the widow’s consent, but claimed no malicious intent to defame. During the administrative investigation, the complainant filed a motion to dismiss, citing loss of interest and unavailability of witnesses.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Mariano P. Gonzales should be held administratively liable for conduct unbecoming a judge based on the alleged unlawful issuance of a subpoena and defamatory utterances.
RULING
The Supreme Court exonerated Judge Gonzales but cautioned him to be more careful with his language. The Court emphasized that a complainant’s loss of interest does not automatically warrant dismissal of an administrative case if the respondent’s guilt can be established from the records. Here, the respondent admitted issuing a summons without a formal complaint, which was irregular. However, the Court found his actions were motivated by a desire to facilitate a family settlement, consistent with the conciliatory function of his office, and not by improper motive.
Regarding the alleged defamatory words, the Court noted the respondent did not directly call the complainant “greedy” and “chancer” but characterized his acts as showing greediness and opportunism. The dismissal of the parallel criminal case by the Fiscal indicated a lack of malice. The Court perceived no reprehensible motive in the judge’s admonition, which was a reaction to the complainant’s admitted conduct. Thus, while his language was indiscreet, it did not rise to the level of administratively sanctionable conduct. The exoneration was tempered with a caution for the judge to exercise greater prudence in his speech to avoid offending sensibilities.