AM 78 Mj; (August, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. 78-MJ August 30, 1982
BUENAVENTURA B. MARTINEZ, complainant, vs. JUDGE TEODORO O. PAHIMULIN, respondent.
FACTS
This administrative case stemmed from an incident during the hearing of Civil Case No. 2001 on September 30, 1972. Complainant Atty. Buenaventura B. Martinez, while cross-examining a witness, objected to the opposing counsel’s manner of objection, which he claimed was coaching the witness. Atty. Martinez asked respondent Judge Teodoro O. Pahimulin to intervene. The judge initially stated the opposing counsel was “still talking,” but when Atty. Martinez insisted, Judge Pahimulin became angered.
The judge, in a loud voice, told Atty. Martinez, “You are a disrespectful lawyer.” When the complainant remarked, “Then, Your Honor, I have to quit as a lawyer,” the judge banged his gavel, repeated the accusation, and ordered, “Get out. I do not want to hear you. You have already quitted (sic).” The case was investigated by then Judge Pedro C. Navarro, who found the charges of oppression, dishonesty, and others unsustained but noted the respondent “lost his cool.”
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Teodoro O. Pahimulin is administratively liable for his conduct during the court proceedings.
RULING
Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable. The Court, adopting the report of then Court Administrator Justice Lorenzo Relova, found both parties remiss in their duties. Atty. Martinez failed to heed the judge’s initial admonition, contributing to the disorder. However, Judge Pahimulin’s response was improper and excessive. Instead of maintaining judicial composure, he shouted at the lawyer, ordered him out of the courtroom, and caused him public embarrassment. This conduct fell short of the standard that a judge must act with calmness, sobriety, and proper decorum to uphold the court’s dignity effectively.
The Court considered that this was not Judge Pahimulin’s first administrative infraction, having been previously fined for negligence. While the present act did not warrant dismissal, it merited censure. Accordingly, the Court reprimanded Judge Pahimulin for his uncontrolled passion and lack of proper decorum, warning that a repetition would result in a more severe penalty. The ruling emphasizes that judicial temperament requires patience and self-control, even under provocation, to ensure orderly proceedings and public respect for the judiciary.