A.M. No. MTJ-00-1298; August 3, 2000
William R. Adan, complainant, vs. Judge Anita Abucejo-Luzano, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Initao-Libertad, Misamis Oriental, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant William R. Adan was the private complainant in two criminal cases for Grave Oral Defamation where respondent Judge Anita Abucejo-Luzano initially convicted the accused. Upon a Motion for Reconsideration, the judge reversed herself and acquitted the accused. Adan alleges that the judge modified her decision based on new information obtained through an improper ex-parte ocular inspection conducted without notice to or the presence of the prosecution. He further claims the judge privately interviewed the accused, demonstrating partiality, and failed to furnish him a copy of the acquittal order.
Respondent judge denied any personal acquaintance with the accused. She justified her reconsideration by stating a desire to correct a perceived injustice against the poor and less educated accused, contrasting them with the complainant, a university chancellor. She also highlighted her court’s efficiency in case disposal.

ISSUE

Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for her actions in reconsidering her decision and acquitting the accused.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable for gross ignorance of judicial procedure. The Court found that the judge indeed conducted an ocular inspection “on her way home” with only the accused present, learning new information that influenced her reversal. This ex-parte inspection after the case had been decided was highly improper. If she had post-trial doubts, the proper procedure was to motu proprio reopen the trial with due notice to both parties to ensure due process. By privately meeting with the accused and receiving evidence without the prosecution’s knowledge, she violated the fundamental rule against ex-parte communications and created an appearance of impropriety, contravening Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
However, the charges of failure to furnish a copy of the order and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment were dismissed. Furnishing copies is the duty of the prosecutor, not the judge, and the reversal, while procedurally flawed, was motivated by a misguided sense of justice rather than any corrupt or evil motive. Considering the absence of malice, the Court reduced the recommended fine from Twenty Thousand Pesos (₱20,000.00) to Ten Thousand Pesos (₱10,000.00). Judge Anita Abucejo-Luzano was fined and sternly warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.