A.M. No. 491-MJ. October 30, 1980.
Primitivo Santos, et al., petitioners, vs. Municipal Judge Arturo E. Cruz, respondent.

FACTS

Primitivo Santos filed a sworn-letter complaint dated November 16, 1972, with the Secretary of Justice, charging Municipal Judge Arturo E. Cruz of Bulacan, Bulacan, with partiality and conduct unbecoming a judge. The complainant alleged that the respondent judge intervened to prevent him from filing criminal cases in the Municipal Court. Specifically, Santos claimed that a complaint for slander and closing of a pathway, which his wife attempted to file against a certain Teresita Cruz, was not acted upon due to the judge’s interference. He also suspected the judge of improperly following up a separate case filed against him by Teresita Cruz, based on seeing the judge present during a fiscal’s investigation.
The complaint was referred to Executive District Judge Floreliana Castro-Bartolome for investigation. After a formal hearing, the investigating judge found the charges of partiality and intervention to be unsubstantiated. The report concluded that the failure to file the slander case was due to the complainant’s own inaction, as there was no evidence the sworn statement was ever presented to or signed by Judge Cruz. The presence of Judge Cruz at the fiscal’s office was misinterpreted by Santos and did not constitute improper intervention, especially since that case was later dismissed upon Santos’s own instance.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Municipal Judge Arturo E. Cruz should be held administratively liable for the charges of partiality and conduct unbecoming a judge.

RULING

The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the investigating judge and exonerated Judge Cruz from the charge of partiality. The legal logic is that the burden of proof in administrative cases rests on the complainant, and the evidence presented—primarily the testimony of Primitivo Santos—was insufficient to establish that the judge actively prevented the filing of cases or showed bias. The police blotter entry and Santos’s testimony failed to prove any affirmative act of obstruction by the judge. His mere presence during another office’s investigation, without evidence of undue influence, does not constitute partiality.
However, the Court found Judge Cruz administratively liable for conduct unbecoming a judge based on his behavior during the formal investigation of this very administrative case. The transcript revealed that while cross-examining a witness, Alberto T. Cano, the respondent judge lost his temper and uttered the intemperate words: “You can go to hell I don’t care or where do you want to go Mr. Cano.” This language, used in an official proceeding, violates the standard of decorum, patience, and courtesy required of judges, as it demeans the judicial process and shows a lack of judicial temperament. Consequently, while exonerated on the main charge, Judge Cruz was found guilty of unbecoming conduct for his intemperate language. The Court imposed a fine equivalent to one month’s salary and issued a stern warning.