G.R. No. MTJ-02-1443. July 31, 2002
Josie Berin and Merly Alorro, complainants, vs. Judge Felixberto P. Barte, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Hamtic, Antique, respondent.

FACTS

Complainants Josie Berin and Merly Alorro, real estate agents, alleged that in January 2001, respondent Judge Felixberto P. Barte invited them to his office and requested them to find a lot for sale for the Manila Mission of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Inc. They identified a suitable lot owned by Eleanor Checa-Santos. They claimed the judge informed them the Church would pay P2.3 million and orally agreed to pay each complainant a P100,000 commission, with the judge handling the funds. The judge allegedly refused to reduce the agreement to writing. Complainants asserted the sale was consummated, but the judge, after receiving the purchase price, only gave them P10,000 each, telling them to “take it or leave it.”
In his defense, Judge Barte denied inviting the complainants or agreeing to any commission. He contended the Church had already purchased the lot through his own separate efforts, as evidenced by a payment on January 25, 2001. He admitted giving monetary gifts (P7,000 and P12,000) to the complainants out of goodwill for the initial information, but stressed this was not a commission. He argued the transaction was a private matter unrelated to his official duties and thus not a proper subject for administrative discipline.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Barte is administratively liable for his involvement in the real estate transaction.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Judge Barte guilty of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Court clarified that the determination of whether complainants were legally entitled to a commission was a judicial matter, not for administrative resolution. The core administrative issue was the propriety of a judge acting as a broker or agent in a commercial real estate sale.
The Court held that while the old Spanish Code of Commerce prohibition against judges engaging in commerce had been abrogated, the current ethical standard is supplied by Rule 5.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. This rule mandates that a judge shall refrain from financial and business dealings that tend to reflect adversely on the court’s impartiality, interfere with judicial duties, or increase involvement with persons likely to come before the court. By actively facilitating the sale and admitting to receiving a monetary benefit from the transaction, Judge Barte engaged in conduct that created the appearance of impropriety. Such business dealings increase the risk of his future disqualification from cases involving the parties to the sale and undermine public confidence in judicial impartiality and integrity.
Consequently, for this first offense and considering a similar pending case could not be used for aggravation, the Court fined Judge Barte P2,000 and sternly admonished him to be more discreet and prudent in his private dealings to avoid any semblance of ethical compromise.