A.M. No. MTJ-05-1605 ; June 8, 2006
Pedro C. Abesa, Complainant, vs. Judge Jose P. Nacional, Municipal Trial Court, Branch 1, Naga City, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Pedro C. Abesa filed an administrative complaint for Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge against respondent Judge Jose P. Nacional. The complaint stemmed from a criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide pending before the judge’s sala. Complainant alleged that after an ocular inspection, the judge summoned him and his wife to his chambers without their counsel or the adverse party present. Therein, the judge discussed the merits of the case, opined that the prosecution’s evidence was weak and likely insufficient for conviction, and implied the accused would be acquitted. The judge further attempted to convince the complainant to settle the related civil case, acting, in complainant’s view, as an emissary for the defense.
In his comment, respondent judge admitted calling the conference but claimed his intent was benevolent. Having also lost a son in an accident, he explained he wanted to forewarn the complainant that a potential acquittal in the criminal case could jeopardize his civil claim for damages. He stated he merely inquired, through the defense counsel, if financial assistance could be extended to the victim’s family regardless of the case’s outcome. He denied prejudging the case or acting as counsel for the accused, expressing regret if his actions created a wrong impression and noting he had already inhibited from the case.

ISSUE

Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for his act of summoning and discussing a pending case with a litigant ex parte in his chambers.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent judge administratively liable. The Court emphasized that a judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be so. A judge should avoid any conduct that breeds suspicion and undermines public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity. By summoning the complainant and his wife to a private conference without the adverse party or counsel, and proceeding to discuss the case’s merits and the weakness of the prosecution’s evidence, respondent judge committed an impropriety. This act created an impression of bias and prematurely revealed his evaluation of the evidence, which was highly improper regardless of his claimed good intentions. Such conduct is prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Considering his 23 years of service, lack of proven malice, and his prior inhibition from the case, the Court deemed a reprimand with a stern warning as the appropriate penalty. He was sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely.