G.R. No. A.M. No. 537-CJ December 19, 1974
FRANCISCO PAGUIRIGAN and ADOLFO PAGUIRIGAN, complainants, vs. CITY JUDGE NICHOLAS CLAVANO OF OROQUIETA CITY, respondent.

FACTS

Complainants Francisco and Adolfo Paguirigan charged City Judge Nicholas Clavano with abuse of authority and conduct unbecoming a judge. They alleged that on August 28, 1972, respondent, after overtaking a motorcab driven by Adolfo, shouted at him to surrender his driver’s license, pointed a revolver at him, and confiscated the license, which was subsequently lost. The case was referred for investigation. During the investigation, the complainants submitted affidavits of desistance, stating they had lost interest as their witnesses turned hostile and they discovered their case lacked merit. The investigating judge verified the voluntariness of these affidavits but still allowed the respondent to present his evidence.
Respondent Judge Clavano admitted to the act of confiscation but denied pointing a firearm, clarifying he only possessed a licensed pistol. He explained his actions were in compliance with a request from the City Mayor to assist in a campaign to curb traffic violations by pedicab drivers. He testified he had lectured drivers on traffic rules and, upon seeing Adolfo Paguirigan overloading and overspeeding, he pursued him, warned him, and confiscated his license as a deterrent, advising him to retrieve it the next morning from his office. The license was later misplaced when the driver failed to claim it promptly.

ISSUE

Whether respondent City Judge Nicholas Clavano is administratively liable for his actions in confiscating a driver’s license during a traffic incident.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found that while the initial charges of abuse involving a firearm were not substantiated due to the complainants’ desistance, respondent’s own admissions established improper conduct. The legal logic centers on the clear demarcation of judicial and law enforcement functions. A city judge’s role is to adjudicate cases brought before the court, not to personally engage in the investigation of violations, arrest offenders, or confiscate licenses, which are quintessential police duties. By taking it upon himself to confiscate the driver’s license—an act beyond his judicial authority—respondent improperly assumed executive or police functions.
The Court emphasized that a judge’s conduct must be free from any appearance of impropriety. Even if motivated by civic spirit, respondent’s actions were unbecoming of a judicial officer. His failure to issue a Traffic Violation Report and his subsequent loss of the confiscated license compounded the impropriety, bordering on abuse of authority. This misconduct undermined public confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality and adherence to lawful procedures. Consequently, the Court reprimanded Judge Clavano, warning that future similar acts would be dealt with more severely, thereby reinforcing the principle that judges must strictly confine themselves to their judicial responsibilities to preserve the integrity of their office.