AM MTJ 00 1330; (October, 2000) (Digest)
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1330. October 27, 2000. Elizabeth Alejandro, Romeo C. Alejandro, Lilia P. Seroma and Francisco Seroma, complainants, vs. Hon. Sergio A. Plan, in his Capacity as Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Cauayan, Isabela, respondent.
FACTS
Complainants, who were the accused in criminal cases for grave oral defamation and malicious mischief pending before respondent Judge Sergio A. Plan, filed an administrative complaint for partiality and acts unbecoming of a judge. They alleged that respondent judge would converse pleasantly inside his chambers with Simon Aquino, the complaining witness, while being rude and sarcastic towards them. They further claimed the judge attempted to persuade them to surrender a parcel of land claimed by Aquino, warning he would prolong their case if they refused. Respondent judge denied all charges, branding the complaint as harassment motivated by his refusal to withdraw the criminal cases. He noted complainants had a prior libel conviction. During the pendency of the administrative case, respondent judge optionally retired from service.
ISSUE
Whether respondent judge violated the Code of Judicial Conduct through acts demonstrating partiality and impropriety.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent judge administratively liable. The Court gave more weight to the clear and consistent testimonies of the complainants over the denials of the respondent. The judge’s defense of ill-motive was unsubstantiated, as no evidence showed complainants filed a motion to quash or that Aquino submitted an affidavit of desistance during the proceedings. The Court emphasized that judges must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial, as mandated by Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Respondent judge’s conduct—pleasant interactions with the complaining witness contrasted with rude behavior towards the accused, coupled with his attempt to mediate a settlement favoring one party—created an undeniable impression of bias. This undermined public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Although retired, his liability remained. Accordingly, the Court imposed a fine of Two Thousand Pesos (₱2,000.00) for violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.