A.M. No. MTJ-16-1876. April 26, 2017. JOCELYN MCLAREN, ET AL., COMPLAINANTS, V. HON. JACINTO C. GONZALES, PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 2, OLONGAPO CITY, RESPONDENT.
FACTS

Complainants, defendants in an unlawful detainer case, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Jacinto C. Gonzales for Gross Misconduct and Gross Dishonesty. They alleged misconduct based on his conduct during hearings, claiming he treated their counsel with hostility by cutting short arguments, displaying a ferocious countenance, and acting arrogantly by not wearing his judicial robe, smoking, and unnecessarily banging the gavel. They also asserted he arbitrarily denied their motions, leading them to file an urgent motion for inhibition, which he denied. Separately, they charged him with dishonesty for failing to disclose a pending criminal case for sexual harassment in his 2005 application for judgeship before the Judicial and Bar Council.
In his Comment, respondent judge denied the allegations. He defended his courtroom management as necessary for order and made in good faith. He justified the denial of the motion to dismiss and the motion for inhibition as based on legal merits and procedural timing, noting the inhibition motion was filed only after the case was submitted for decision. He admitted to occasionally not wearing his robe due to extreme heat and failing air conditioning but denied smoking and unnecessarily banging the gavel. Regarding the nondisclosure, he contended that matter was for the appropriate forum where those cases were pending.

ISSUE

The issues are: (1) Whether respondent is administratively liable for gross misconduct based on his alleged behavior during hearings; and (2) Whether he is liable for dishonesty for not disclosing a pending criminal case in his application for judgeship.

RULING

The Court found respondent judge liable only for violating Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 25 on the wearing of judicial robes. The charges of gross misconduct relating to hostile behavior, arrogance, smoking, and gavel-banging were dismissed for lack of substantial evidence. The charge of dishonesty was also dismissed, as the matter of the undisclosed criminal case was deemed separate and within the cognizance of another appropriate body.
On the violation, the Court emphasized that the directive for judges to wear black robes during sessions under Administrative Circular No. 25 is mandatory, using the term “shall.” The practice is not ceremonial but serves to heighten the solemnity of proceedings and constantly remind the judge of the sacred obligations of the office. Respondent’s admission that he did not wear the robe at times, even if due to heat and brownouts, constitutes a violation of this circular. Under the Revised Rules of Court, such a violation is a less serious charge. Accordingly, the Court imposed a fine of Twelve Thousand Pesos (P12,000.00) with a warning.