A.M. No. 72-MJ. July 22, 1975.
Igmedio T. Li, complainant, vs. Jose H. Mijares, Municipal Judge, respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case originated from testimony given by complainant Igmedio T. Li before Judge Natalio P. Amarga of the Court of First Instance of Northern Samar. Li alleged that respondent Municipal Judge Jose Mijares of San Roque, Northern Samar, demanded and received P40.00 from him, purportedly as a commissioner’s fee related to an ocular inspection in a forcible entry case (Civil Case No. 58) where Li was the plaintiff. Judge Amarga required Judge Mijares to explain the allegation.
In his explanation and during a formal hearing, respondent Judge admitted receiving P40.00 from the complainant. He defended the act by asserting the money was Li’s share of an P80.00 commissioner’s fee for the Chief of Police, whom the Judge had officially appointed as commissioner to conduct the ocular inspection, an action agreed upon by both parties in the civil case. The Chief of Police corroborated this, testifying he received P40.00 for his expenses.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Jose Mijares committed an unlawful or improper act in connection with his judicial duties by demanding and receiving money from a litigant for a commissioner’s fee.

RULING

Yes, the respondent Judge acted improperly and unlawfully. The Supreme Court found that while the appointment of the Chief of Police as commissioner and the need for a fee were ostensibly proper, Judge Mijares’s specific actions violated the Rules of Court and ethical standards. The Court emphasized that the facts established the Judge personally demanded the P40.00 from complainant Li, received it in open court before the case was concluded, and critically, failed to issue any official receipt for the payment.
These acts constituted a clear violation of Section 13, Rule 33 of the Rules of Court, which governs the appointment and compensation of commissioners, and Section 15, Rule 141, which mandates the issuance of a receipt for any payment received in such an official capacity. The Court cited its precedent in Paredes vs. Bayona to underscore the proper procedure. By handling the fee collection personally and without a receipt, Judge Mijares exposed himself to suspicion and misconstruction, failing to uphold the standard that a judge must not only possess integrity but must also conduct himself in a manner above reproach. Consequently, the Court reprimanded and admonished Judge Jose Mijares to be more careful and discreet in the performance of his duties.