A.M. No. MTJ-00-1338. January 21, 2004. ROGELIO R. RAMOS, Complainant, vs. JUDGE EUSEBIO M. BAROT, Presiding Judge, 8th Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Branch 2, Aparri-Calayan, Cagayan, Respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Rogelio R. Ramos charged respondent Judge Eusebio M. Barot with violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Grave Misconduct. Ramos alleged that the judge, acting as attorney-in-fact for his uncle Florencio Barot in a DARAB case concerning land also claimed by Ramos, participated in or ordered the unauthorized harvesting of Ramos’s rice crops. The judge admitted in his Comment that he served as attorney-in-fact for his uncle and represented him in the DARAB proceedings, which resulted in a decision favorable to his uncle. However, he vehemently denied any involvement in the alleged harvesting incident, attributing the complaint to a personal grudge held by another attorney against his family.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Eusebio M. Barot is administratively liable for serving as an attorney-in-fact for his uncle in a DARAB case, thereby violating the Code of Judicial Conduct.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found a clear violation of Rule 5.06, Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which prohibits a judge from serving as an executor, administrator, trustee, guardian, or other fiduciary, except for the estate or person of an immediate family member (spouse or relatives within the second degree of consanguinity), and only if such service does not interfere with judicial duties. The term “fiduciary” encompasses a person, like an attorney-in-fact, who holds a position of trust and confidence analogous to a trustee, acting primarily for another’s benefit.
By acting as an attorney-in-fact for his paternal uncle (a relative outside the permitted second degree), the judge engaged in a prohibited fiduciary role. This created an unacceptable risk of conflict with his judicial duties, as the schedule for the DARAB case could have conflicted with his court calendar. More importantly, it created the appearance of impropriety, as his official position and stature could be perceived as influencing the outcome of the DARAB proceedings, thereby undermining public confidence in the judiciary. His defense that he attended only one hearing is immaterial; the mere acceptance of the role is the violation. The Court dismissed the charge of Grave Misconduct for lack of merit but imposed a fine of Three Thousand Pesos (₱3,000.00) for the ethical breach, with a stern warning.