AM MTJ 05 1579; (October, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. MTJ-05-1579. October 11, 2005
Eduardo C. Dayuno vs. Judge Hector B. Barillo and Lucia L. Tangeres, Clerk of Court II
FACTS
Complainant Eduardo Dayuno, an agrarian reform beneficiary, was charged with qualified theft for harvesting coconuts from land he claimed to own. The criminal complaint was filed by an overseer of the estate administered by respondent Clerk of Court Lucia Tangeres. Respondent Judge Hector Barillo, presiding over the Municipal Trial Court of Guihulngan, found probable cause and issued a warrant for Dayuno’s arrest, leading to his detention. The Provincial Prosecutor later dismissed the case for lack of probable cause, finding Dayuno had shown proof of ownership. Dayuno alleged the prosecution was maliciously instigated by Tangeres, who had previously demanded and received a portion of proceeds from trees he sold, threatening him with imprisonment. He further accused Judge Barillo of partiality for issuing a notice for a conference in 2002, requiring Dayuno’s appearance despite no pending case, which he viewed as harassment to protect Tangeres.
ISSUE
Whether respondents Judge Barillo and Clerk of Court Tangeres are administratively liable for their actions in relation to the criminal case and associated conduct.
RULING
Yes, both respondents are administratively liable. The Court found Judge Barillo violated Rule 2.03, Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates judges to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. His issuance of a conference notice to Dayuno in the absence of a pending case, under circumstances suggesting an attempt to intervene in a personal dispute involving his clerk of court, constituted an abuse of judicial authority and created an appearance of partiality. This warranted a fine of ₱40,000.00 and a stern warning.
Clerk of Court Lucia Tangeres was found guilty of gross misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Her actions—using her official position as administratrix of an estate to instigate a baseless criminal complaint against Dayuno, demanding and receiving money from him under threat of imprisonment, and obstructing his access to public records—demonstrated a pattern of behavior that severely undermined the integrity of the judiciary. Such conduct erodes public trust and is intolerable for any court employee. Consequently, she was dismissed from service with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency.