AM 94 921; (March, 1996) (Digest)
A.M. No. MTJ-94-921. March 5, 1996. DR. AMPARO A. LACHICA, complainant, vs. JUDGE ROLANDO A. FLORDELIZA, MCTC, Jose Abad Santos-Sarangani, Davao del Sur, respondent.
FACTS:
Complainant Dr. Amparo Lachica, the Municipal Health Officer, charged respondent Judge Rolando Flordeliza with abuse of judicial position and intimidation. The incident stemmed from her refusal to sign a death certificate for Hilario Kiawan, as she was not the attending physician and had no personal knowledge of the cause of death. Two women, Dina Masaglang and Norma Puton, approached her multiple times, insisting she sign because “Judge Flordeliza” said so. During a municipal party, Judge Flordeliza, allegedly intoxicated, summoned Dr. Lachica and angrily demanded she sign the certificate, threatening to file an administrative case against her if she refused.
Judge Flordeliza denied the accusations. He claimed he merely inquired casually about her refusal during the party, was not drunk, and had no personal interest in the matter. He submitted affidavits from witnesses, including police officers, to support his version. Complainant rebutted with counter-affidavits, including one from the Mayor stating he was not at their table during the incident, and evidence challenging the presence of one of the judge’s witnesses.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Rolando Flordeliza is administratively liable for abuse of judicial position and intimidation, violating the Code of Judicial Conduct.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found Judge Flordeliza administratively liable. The Court adopted the investigating judge’s findings, which hinged on credibility and concluded the complainant’s version was more credible. The judge’s undue interest in compelling the signing of a death certificate for a non-patient, coupled with his drunken and coercive behavior at a public function, constituted misconduct.
The legal logic is that a judge’s conduct, both inside and outside the courtroom, must be beyond reproach to preserve public confidence in the judiciary. Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary, while Canon 2 mandates that their behavior avoid even the appearance of impropriety. By using his judicial position to intimidate a public official into performing an irregular act and by engaging in drunken, disorderly conduct in public, Judge Flordeliza failed to meet this exacting standard. His actions demeaned his office and eroded public trust. The Court imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) as a penalty, serving as a stern warning that such conduct is intolerable.