AM 97 1395; (December, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. RTJ-97-1395 December 22, 1997
Pedro A. San Juan, complainant, vs. Judge Lore V. Bagalacsa, Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Naga City, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Pedro A. San Juan was an oppositor in Special Proceedings No. R-22 (1144), an intestate proceeding pending before respondent Judge Lore V. Bagalacsa’s court. A parcel of land involved in the proceedings, tenanted by Sergia Pontillas, was sold by the estate administrator to Pontillas under an emancipation patent on November 27, 1995, over the oppositors’ objection. Pontillas subsequently sold the land to Newreach Corporation on April 10, 1996. Complainant alleges that on June 6, 1996, respondent judge presented the deed of sale for registration to the Register of Deeds of Camarines Sur and wrote a note requesting the early release of the title to Mr. and Mrs. Salvador Motos (the attorney-in-fact for Pontillas), citing her need to be in Libmanan. Respondent judge, in her defense, claimed she did not know the property was involved in the case before her, that she merely assisted a personal friend (Victoria Pontillas-Motos) whom she met at the Register of Deeds office, and that her primary purpose for being there was to check the authenticity of certain bailbonds. The Register of Deeds corroborated the judge’s claim that the papers were in order and the title would have been issued promptly regardless. Respondent judge later inhibited herself from the case.
ISSUE
Whether respondent judge violated the Code of Judicial Conduct by her actions in facilitating the registration of the deed of sale and the issuance of the title.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court found that respondent judge’s actions, particularly writing a note to the Register of Deeds to expedite the release of the title, gave the impression that she was utilizing the power or prestige of her office to promote the interests of others, in violation of Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to avoid not only impropriety but also the appearance of impropriety in all activities. The Court noted that the evidence suggested she took charge of the registration process, contrary to her claim of merely assisting a friend incidentally. Accordingly, respondent judge was REPRIMANDED and WARNED that a repetition of the same conduct would be dealt with more severely.