A.M. No. RTJ-09-2200. April 2, 2014.
Antonio M. Lorenzana, Complainant, vs. Judge Ma. Cecilia I. Austria, Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Batangas City, Respondent.

FACTS

The administrative complaints arose from the corporate rehabilitation case of Steel Corporation of the Philippines (SP. Proc. No. 06-7993), where the respondent judge presided and the complainant was the Executive Vice President of the company. The complainant alleged multiple instances of misconduct by the respondent, including: appointing a rehabilitation receiver with an alleged conflict of interest; conducting informal “consultative meetings” outside her jurisdiction and dictating the terms of the rehabilitation plan; having secret communications with a creditor (Equitable-PCI Bank); appointing a financial adviser with alleged conflicts; encouraging complaints against SCP; denying requests for an evidentiary hearing; intimidating SCP’s counsel during a hearing; failing to observe the 180-day reglementary period for approving the rehabilitation plan; erroneously interpreting court powers; showing bias and refusing to inhibit. In a supplemental complaint, the complainant alleged impropriety for the respondent posting personal photographs on a “Friendster” social networking site, including one where her upper body was barely covered by a shawl. The respondent denied the allegations, justifying her actions as within her judicial discretion and necessary for the rehabilitation proceedings, and defended her social media photos as not vulgar. The case was referred to the Court of Appeals for investigation.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge is administratively liable for the alleged acts of Gross Ignorance of the Law, Grave Abuse of Authority, Gross Misconduct, Grave Bias and Partiality, and Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge, among others, in relation to her handling of the corporate rehabilitation case and her social media activity.

RULING

The Supreme Court found the respondent judge GUILTY of Gross Misconduct and Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge for her actions on social media, and GUILTY of Simple Misconduct for her improper demeanor towards counsel. The Court imposed a fine of P40,000 for the social media infraction and admonished her for her conduct in court. Regarding the allegations concerning the handling of the rehabilitation case, the Court found these pertained to judicial errors and the exercise of judicial discretion, which are not proper subjects of administrative sanction absent proof of bad faith, malice, or corrupt purpose. The complainant failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of bias, partiality, or malicious intent in the respondent’s judicial actions. The act of posting suggestive photographs on a public social networking site, however, violated the Code of Judicial Conduct requiring judges to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities, as it detracted from the dignity of the judicial office. Her exchanges with counsel during a hearing, characterized by arrogance, fell below the standard of decorum expected of a judge.