A.M. No. 1214-CTJ December 1, 1977
Crisostomo P. Olivarez vs. Judge Francisco R. Llamas, City Judge of Pasay City

FACTS

Complainant Crisostomo P. Olivarez alleged that his sister and brothers-in-law deprived him of his share in their father’s estate. He sought assistance from the Office of Civil Relations (OCR) at Camp Crame and later the Department of National Defense (DND) to arrange confrontations for an amicable settlement. The relatives failed to appear at these proceedings. Olivarez denounced respondent Judge Francisco Llamas, a city judge, for improperly intervening to thwart these settlements. He claimed the judge advised his relatives not to attend the DND confrontation, asserting that civilian courts, not military offices, had jurisdiction. Olivarez also submitted a deed of donation where Judge Llamas acted as a witness, implying active involvement.
In his comment, Judge Llamas explained he was a relative of the parties involved and they sought his advice due to his legal background, not in a lawyer-client capacity. He admitted signing as a witness to a deed and writing a letter to the OCR Chief, a personal friend, on behalf of his nervous cousins who feared military detention. He asserted the dispute was civil, concerning property ownership evidenced by a 1941 deed of sale shown to Olivarez’s lawyer, who subsequently filed no case. The complainant did not file a reply to this explanation.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Francisco Llamas is administratively liable for (1) improperly intervening in a familial dispute to obstruct its amicable settlement, and (2) failing to promptly comply with the Supreme Court’s directive to comment on the complaint.

RULING

The Court dismissed the main complaint for lack of merit but censured the judge for procedural negligence. On the allegation of undue intervention, the Court found the judge’s explanation satisfactory. The core dispute was a civil matter over property inheritance, not a criminal case. The judge’s actions—giving informal advice to relatives, writing a letter to an acquaintance at the OCR, and witnessing a deed—were viewed in the context of his familial relationship and did not, under the circumstances, constitute improper judicial intervention or abuse of authority. The complainant’s remedy was correctly through the civil courts, not military offices, and the failure to file a case after receiving evidence of ownership weakened the complaint.
However, the Court held Judge Llamas administratively liable for failing to exercise due diligence. He ignored multiple directives from the Court Administrator, requiring a first and second tracer and a Supreme Court resolution before finally submitting his comment months after the initial 10-day deadline. This negligence in complying with official directives from the Supreme Court warranted disciplinary action. The Court had previously admonished him for a similar delay in another administrative matter. Consequently, while the substantive complaint was dismissed, the judge was censured for his delay and warned that a repetition would incur a more severe penalty.