A.M. No. 801-CFI February 2, 1979
DR. JORGE P. ROYECA, complainant, vs. JUDGE PEDRO SAMSON C. ANIMAS, respondent.

FACTS

The complainant, Dr. Jorge P. Royeca, charged Judge Pedro Samson C. Animas of the Court of First Instance of Southern Cotabato with improper decorum and acts unbecoming a judge. The allegations stemmed from an incident during a hearing in Civil Case No. 1445, where Royeca had filed a motion to disqualify the respondent judge. Feeling his integrity was assailed, Judge Animas issued a show-cause order for direct contempt. During the hearing on this order, the judge allegedly acted in a pugnacious and arrogant manner, uttering to the complainant the words: “You are stupid,” “There are octopuses and crocodiles here and you are one,” and calling him a “self-annointed local tyrant.”
The respondent judge denied acting arrogantly and claimed his words were not a personal allusion to the complainant. The case was referred for investigation. However, before the investigation, the complainant filed an affidavit of desistance, stating the complaint arose from a minor misunderstanding and that he had lost interest in prosecuting the case. Subsequently, both parties failed to appear at the scheduled investigation hearing. The investigating justice recommended dismissal due to the desistance and lack of evidence to substantiate the charge, especially given the respondent’s denial and the absence of a stenographic record of the incident.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Pedro Samson C. Animas should be held administratively liable for improper decorum based on the use of intemperate language, notwithstanding the complainant’s desistance and the recommended dismissal of the administrative case.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable and is admonished. The Supreme Court emphasized that administrative cases against judges are matters of public concern and are not dependent on the will or interest of a private complainant. While the investigating justice recommended dismissal due to the affidavit of desistance and the complainant’s non-appearance, the Court independently examined the merits based on the record.
The Court noted that the complaint originated from a prior certiorari proceeding (Royeca v. Animas, 71 SCRA 1) where the Court had already set aside the judge’s direct contempt order. In that decision, the Court explicitly found that Judge Animas had “departed from the proper judicial decorum” and used “intemperate” and “insulting” language, including the terms cited in the administrative complaint. The Court held that such language—”polluted and stupid man,” “self-annointed local tyrant,” “dictator,” and references to “crocodiles and octopuses”—has no place in a judicial record. A judge must be a “cerebral man” who deliberately restrains personal prejudices and avoids undignified language to maintain public respect for the judiciary.
Therefore, despite the desistance and the procedural recommendation for dismissal, the Supreme Court exercised its supervisory authority. It found the use of vitriolic language, as previously established in the related certiorari case, to be improper judicial conduct warranting an admonition. The respondent was sternly advised to refrain from using intemperate and insulting language in his future judicial actuations.