G.R. No.: A.M. No. RTJ-11-2279 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 08-3041-RTJ). Date: April 06, 2011.
Case Parties/Title: Florence Ebersole Del Mar-Schuchman, Complainant, vs. Judge Efren M. Cacatian, Regional Trial Court, Branch 35, Santiago City, Isabela, Respondent.
FACTS
The case originated from an administrative complaint filed by Florence Ebersole Del Mar-Schuchman against Judge Efren M. Cacatian. The complainant is a child of Norma Ebersole Del Mar, the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 35-2373 for reconveyance of ownership and possession of properties. The trial court, then presided by Judge Demetrio Calimag, Jr., rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiff on October 21, 1997. The defendant’s appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed, and a subsequent petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court was also dismissed on March 13, 2002. On September 7, 2005, respondent Judge Cacatian, upon motion, issued a Writ of Execution to implement the 1997 decision.
Complainant alleged that before the writ’s full implementation, Judge Cacatian called her to his chamber for a conference. During this meeting, the judge proposed a “package deal” for the issuance of titles in the names of the three heirs, including complainant, in exchange for a fee of P350,000.00 for “real estate research fixing.” Complainant claimed she gave P50,000.00 to Judge Cacatian on the same day and promised the balance. Later, discovering the actual estate tax settlement cost only P125,000.00, she settled it herself, and new titles were issued.
Subsequently, the defendant filed several motions. On July 17, 2007, Judge Cacatian granted these motions, reversing his prior orders and the writ of execution, and ordered the Register of Deeds to reinstate the titles in favor of the defendant and cancel the new ones issued to the plaintiff’s heirs.
The complainant filed an administrative complaint, asserting that the judge exercised grave abuse of discretion by effectively reversing a final judgment and that he violated the Code of Judicial Conduct by brokering the settlement and soliciting money. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) initially recommended dismissal for lack of merit. The Court adopted this recommendation in a Resolution dated September 16, 2009. Complainant then submitted additional affidavits from witnesses Roger P. Colobong and Helen Grace E. Alamar corroborating the payment of P50,000.00. Upon complainant’s motion for reconsideration, the Court referred the case for investigation.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Efren M. Cacatian is administratively liable for: (1) extortion; (2) knowingly rendering an unjust interlocutory order; and/or (3) violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
RULING
The Court, adopting the report and recommendation of the Investigating Justice, found Judge Cacatian GUILTY of violating Canon 5.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct but DISMISSED the charges of extortion and rendering an unjust order for insufficient evidence.
1. On Extortion and Rendering an Unjust Order: The charges of extortion and knowingly rendering an unjust order were dismissed. The complainant failed to prove by substantial evidence that Judge Cacatian demanded money in exchange for a favorable action. The judgment in the underlying case was already final and executory when he issued the writ. His subsequent order of July 17, 2007, which recalled the writ, was a judicial act. While it may have been erroneous, without proof of bad faith, malice, or corrupt purpose, it cannot be the basis for administrative liability, as errors are correctible by judicial remedies.
2. On Violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct (Canon 5.02): The Court found Judge Cacatian liable. Canon 5.02 prohibits a judge from engaging in private transactions that could reasonably appear to interfere with the impartial performance of judicial duties. The Investigating Justice found the complainant and her witness candid and sincere in their assertion of a chamber conference, which Judge Cacatian denied. Based on the evidence, it was possible the conference occurred. By proposing to facilitate the transfer of titles for a fee, Judge Cacatian engaged in a commercial transaction that affected the appearance of his impartiality. This act violated the rule against engaging in fiduciary relationships, such as brokering, unless expressly authorized by law.
SANCTION: For this less serious charge of violating a Supreme Court rule (Canon 5.02), and considering it was his first offense, the Court imposed a FINE of P11,000.00 with a stern warning that repetition would be sanctioned more severely.