A.M. No. RTJ-03-1808; October 15, 2003
Radelia Sy and Erwin Cato, complainants, vs. Hon. Judge Antonio Fineza, Presiding Judge, RTC-Branch 131, Caloocan City, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Radelia Sy, an accused in an estafa case before respondent Judge Antonio Fineza, filed a verified complaint alleging the judge solicited a bribe of ₱300,000 to dismiss her case, threatening conviction if unpaid. She detailed six specific cash deliveries totaling ₱255,000 to Judge Fineza between March and July 2000, often in restaurants and his chambers, witnessed by her lawyer and others. When she could not pay the balance, she alleged harassment, including a direct contempt citation on December 8, 2000, for leaving the courtroom to fetch a bail bond agent, resulting in a five-day imprisonment and a ₱5,000 fine. Subsequently, her bail was increased from ₱200,000 to ₱1,000,000. A second joint complaint detailed further misconduct, alleging Judge Fineza used intemperate language in open court against Sy’s lawyers, made threatening remarks about her filing a case, and publicly berated co-complainant Erwin Cato in a hallway, calling him a liar.
Judge Fineza denied all allegations, characterizing the bribery claims as incredible. He justified the bail increase as a lawful exercise of discretion and presented affidavits from court employees to counter the allegations of improper remarks, though he admitted calling Cato a “sinungaling” (liar) for executing a false affidavit.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Antonio Fineza is administratively liable for the acts complained of, warranting disciplinary action.

RULING

Yes, Judge Fineza is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found substantial evidence supporting the allegations of misconduct, excluding the bribery charges which required a higher standard of proof. The Court emphasized that a judge’s conduct must be beyond reproach. Judge Fineza’s actions in citing Sy for contempt and drastically increasing her bail were deemed to have been done with malice and in bad faith, constituting gross ignorance of the law or procedure. His use of arrogant and intemperate language, both in open court and in pleadings, violated the decorum required of a magistrate and constituted conduct unbecoming of a judge.
The Court noted that Judge Fineza had a recent administrative infraction for which he was reprimanded and fined. Considering the totality of the misconduct, the Court suspended Judge Fineza for six months without pay and benefits. He was sternly warned that any repetition of similar transgressions would result in his dismissal from the service, giving him a final chance to reform. The decision underscores that a judge must dispense justice impartially and maintain the highest standards of personal and official conduct to preserve public confidence in the judiciary.