A.M. RTJ-20-2600 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-4952-RTJ), January 12, 2021
Roberto L. Obiedo, Complainant, vs. Hon. Soliman M. Santos, Jr., Presiding Judge, Branch 61, Regional Trial Court, Naga City, Camarines Sur, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Roberto L. Obiedo filed a criminal case for Estafa against the Spouses Nino Rico and Mary Anne Nery, docketed as Criminal Case No. 2012-0426, raffled to respondent Judge Soliman M. Santos, Jr.’s sala. After trial, respondent Judge rendered a Judgment dated December 17, 2018, acquitting the Nery Spouses but ordering them to pay Obiedo actual and moral damages totaling P1,390,000.00. After promulgation, respondent Judge sent a text message to the counsels of both parties. The message stated, among other things, that his legal researcher had recommended a conviction for “other deceits,” that a conviction might become a possibility if the prosecution appealed the acquittal, that a document to revoke the sale should be worked out, and that he does not make “hometown decisions.” Obiedo filed the present administrative complaint, alleging the text message constituted gross violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and gross ignorance of the law, as it improperly justified the ruling, suggested the possibility of appeal, and indicated bias. Respondent Judge defended his action as a practical, candid communication aimed at discouraging further litigation, explaining he knew the counsels from private practice and that his “no hometown decisions” remark meant he was impartial.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Judge should be held administratively liable for violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge is guilty of impropriety and violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Court found his act of sending an explanatory text message to the parties’ counsels after rendering judgment highly improper. A judge’s decision must speak for itself, and such extrajudicial communications cast doubt on his integrity, impartiality, and competence. The act violated Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities and to avoid situations that might give rise to suspicion of favoritism. The Court noted respondent Judge’s previous administrative infractions in two other cases. Considering the violation as a less serious charge under the Rules of Court and the presence of aggravating (repeated offenses) and mitigating (length of service, acknowledgment of impropriety) circumstances, the Court modified the OCA’s recommended penalty. Respondent Judge was FINED in the amount of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.