A.M. No. RTJ-93-1021. January 31, 1997. OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs. JUDGE SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, JR., Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 142, Makati, Metro Manila, respondent.
FACTS:

The Office of the Court Administrator filed an administrative complaint against Judge Salvador P. De Guzman, Jr. for serious misconduct. The complaint stemmed from his handling of Civil Case No. 91-1123, a case for annulment of a deed of conveyance involving a parcel of land in Makati. The case was originally assigned to Judge Manuel Cosico, who had denied a motion to cancel the notice of lis pendens annotated on the title. Following Judge Cosico’s resignation, the case was re-raffled to respondent Judge De Guzman’s sala.
The administrative charge was based primarily on the testimony of former Judge Cosico before an Ad Hoc Committee. Judge Cosico testified that respondent Judge De Guzman had approached him at least twice, while the case was still pending before him, to ask that the motion to lift the lis pendens be granted and later to reconsider its denial. Subsequently, after the case was re-raffled to him, respondent Judge De Guzman issued an order granting the motion for reconsideration and canceling the notice of lis pendens, which Judge Cosico had previously denied.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge De Guzman is guilty of serious misconduct for attempting to influence a fellow judge in a case later assigned to him, thereby violating the Code of Judicial Conduct.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent Judge De Guzman guilty of serious misconduct. The Court gave credence to the detailed and categorical testimony of Judge Cosico, which remained unrebutted. Respondent’s denial was deemed insufficient to overcome the positive testimony. The Court found that respondent’s act of approaching Judge Cosico to intervene in the disposition of a pending motion constituted an unethical attempt to influence the course of litigation. This act violated Rule 2.04, Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates that a judge should not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct.
The legal logic is clear: a judge must not only be impartial but must also avoid any conduct that even gives the appearance of impropriety. By interceding with a colleague, respondent demonstrated a keen personal interest in the case’s outcome even before it reached his sala. This misconduct was compounded when he later reversed the very order he had previously lobbied for, after the case was assigned to him. Such behavior erodes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality. The Court imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) with a stern warning.