AM 2385 Mj; (August, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. 2385-MJ August 19, 1982
JONATHAN A. LUZURIAGA, complainant, vs. JUDGE JESUS B. BROMO, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Jonathan A. Luzuriaga charged respondent Judge Jesus B. Bromo with electioneering during the January 30, 1980 elections in Tayasan, Negros Oriental. The allegations specified that Judge Bromo, whose wife was a vice-mayoral candidate, improperly intervened at a polling precinct by asking the election committee chairman to stop the casting of votes, causing suspension and delay. It was further claimed he openly campaigned for opposition candidates and personally intervened during the canvassing of votes to correct a tally error in his wife’s favor.
In his defense, Judge Bromo denied the charges. He explained his presence at the precinct was merely to accompany his wife and, observing confusion, he offered a procedural clarification based on his prior experience as an election registrar. He asserted he did not interrupt proceedings but only provided a suggestion upon the chairman’s apparent indecision. Regarding the canvassing, he contended he merely pointed out a clerical error in the tally, which the board corrected.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Jesus B. Bromo is administratively liable for electioneering and conduct unbecoming a judicial officer.
RULING
The Court found the evidence insufficient to hold Judge Bromo administratively liable for electioneering under the Election Code of 1978. The complainant’s testimony was based on hearsay, as he did not personally witness the alleged interruption and failed to present his father, the purported source, to corroborate the claim. The respondent’s explanations regarding his actions at the precinct and during canvassing were deemed plausible and not conclusively proven to constitute unlawful intervention.
However, the Court admonished Judge Bromo for failing to avoid the appearance of impropriety. While understanding his desire to protect his wife’s interests as a candidate, the Court emphasized that a judge must be studiously careful in both official and personal conduct to preserve public respect for the judiciary. His actions, though not proven illegal, created an impression of political involvement that tainted the perceived neutrality of his office. The Court warned that a repetition of such conduct would be met with severity.