A.M. No. 2240-MJ. May 31, 1982.
COSME ABIOG, ET AL., complainants, vs. MUNICIPAL JUDGE JOSE M. PASCUAL of Lallo, Cagayan, respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case arose from complaints filed by numerous residents of Barangay Binag and Cagoran, Lallo, Cagayan, against Municipal Judge Jose M. Pascual. The complainants alleged that Judge Pascual, who also served as the Cadastral Judge, collected varying amounts of money from them as payments for survey fees and the titling of their lots, which were subjects of cadastral proceedings before his court. Critically, these collections were made without issuing any official receipts. The matter came to light during a civic action dialogue in May 1979, prompting a military investigation. The case was subsequently referred through channels to the Supreme Court, which ordered a formal investigation by Judge Napoleon R. Flojo of the Court of First Instance of Cagayan.
During Judge Flojo’s investigation, several complainants testified. Domingo Abiog, representing himself and other relatives, testified that they paid a total of P4,000 to Judge Pascual for survey and titling-related expenses concerning their lots. This amount was broken down into specific payments: P1,750 for a lot under PLS-533, P900 and P1,350 for two lots under PLS-607-D. The payments were handed directly to Judge Pascual, and no receipts were issued for any of these amounts. Judge Pascual, in his clarification, did not deny receiving the money but explained the specific allocations, claiming the funds were intended for surveyors and a settlement with another claimant.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Jose M. Pascual is administratively liable for his conduct in receiving money from litigants with cases pending before his court.

RULING

Yes, Judge Pascual is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found him guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The legal logic is clear: a judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be beyond reproach to maintain public confidence in the judiciary. By personally receiving cash payments from parties with active cadastral cases in his court, Judge Pascual engaged in highly improper conduct. Even accepting his explanation that he acted merely as a conduit and did not personally misappropriate the funds, his actions were indefensible. He effectively demeaned his judicial office by transforming it into a collection agency for private surveyors and other individuals. This act cast a serious cloud over his integrity and objectivity, creating an appearance of impropriety and potential conflict of interest. Such behavior erodes the dignity of the judicial institution. Consequently, the Court imposed a fine equivalent to seven days’ salary with a stern warning that any repetition would be met with more severe sanctions.