RE: INHIBITION OF JUDGE EDDIE R. ROJAS, RTC-Branch 39, Polomolok, South Cotabato in Crim. Case No. 09-5668.
FACTS
This administrative matter concerns the order of inhibition issued by respondent Judge Eddie R. Rojas of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 39, Polomolok, South Cotabato, in Criminal Case No. 09-5668, entitled People of the Philippines v. Rosalina Tauro, et al. The case was initially tried in the RTC with Judge Rojas acting as the public prosecutor. While the case was pending, respondent was appointed judge of the trial court on November 12, 1996. As the original counsel for the accused did not interpose any objection, Judge Rojas proceeded to try the case. On April 13, 1998, however, Judge Rojas decided to inhibit himself, explaining in his order that to avoid legal implications or any doubt, he voluntarily inhibited himself upon reflection of the records and considering that he was the prosecutor in the case years back. The Supreme Court required Judge Rojas to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for sitting in a case where he previously acted as counsel. In his explanation, Judge Rojas claimed he only discovered and remembered his previous participation as prosecutor after a close scrutiny of the transcript of stenographic notes (TSN), which were delayed in transmission. He argued that he never conducted any “full-blown trial” in the case since his assumption as judge, as hearings were always postponed.
ISSUE
Whether Judge Eddie R. Rojas violated Rule 137, Section 1 of the Rules of Court and relevant canons of judicial conduct by sitting as judge in a criminal case where he had previously acted as public prosecutor, without the written consent of all parties in interest.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court found Judge Rojas guilty of violating Rule 137, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, which prohibits a judge from sitting in any case in which he has been counsel for a party without the written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the record. The Court rejected Judge Rojas’s excuses. First, his claim of only discovering his prior involvement after scrutinizing the TSN was deemed flimsy, as the records would indicate counsel appearances, and his own order revealed he had asked the previous defense counsel about any objection, showing prior awareness. Second, his contention that he never conducted a “full-blown trial” was immaterial. The prohibition on “sitting” in a case encompasses not only hearing evidence but also performing judicial acts such as resolving motions and issuing orders. Judge Rojas, from November 12, 1996, to April 13, 1998, issued various orders resetting hearings and for the reception of evidence, thereby acting on the case. This failure to immediately inhibit violated the rule intended to prevent conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety, and breached the canons requiring a judge to administer justice impartially and to avoid situations where his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Considering the breach was confined to this failure to inhibit, unlike a prior case where a judge was dismissed for additional infractions, the Court imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) with a warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.
