G.R. No.: A.M. No. MTJ-09-1736; July 25, 2011
Case Title: ATTY. CONRADO B. GANDEZA, JR., Complainant, vs. JUDGE MARIA CLARITA C. TABIN, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 4, Baguio City, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Conrado B. Gandeza, Jr. filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Maria Clarita C. Tabin for Gross Misconduct and Conduct Unbecoming a Judge. The complaint stemmed from a vehicular accident on November 20, 2007, involving a vehicle owned by complainant and a vehicle owned by respondent Judge’s nephew. Complainant alleged that respondent Judge interfered with the police investigation at the accident site by accusing his driver of being at fault and under the influence of liquor. At the hospital, respondent Judge insisted on a second alcoholic breath test for complainant’s driver after the first test yielded a negative result, leading to the issuance of a new medical certificate stating the driver was under the influence. Complainant also alleged that respondent Judge facilitated the rapid filing of a criminal complaint against his driver, borrowed the case records from another court branch, and inquired about the case at the Philippine Mediation Center, creating an impression of using her position to influence the proceedings. In her defense, respondent Judge denied exerting undue influence, claiming she merely assisted her relative, did not publicize her judicial position, borrowed the records to inform her sister, and accompanied her sister to the PMC. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended referral for investigation. The Investigating Judge recommended dismissal due to insufficient evidence of malice, but the OCA later found respondent Judge liable for impropriety.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Maria Clarita C. Tabin is administratively liable for her actions related to the investigation and proceedings following the vehicular accident involving her nephew.

RULING

The Court found respondent Judge GUILTY OF IMPROPRIETY. While the evidence was insufficient to prove gross misconduct or conduct unbecoming a judge due to lack of malice, her actions constituted impropriety in violation of Canon 4, Section 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. Specifically, it was inappropriate for her to interfere in the police investigation by demanding a second breath test for the complainant’s driver, to borrow court records of the related criminal case, and to accompany her relative to the mediation center. These actions, regardless of her intentions, created an appearance of using her office to influence the proceedings in favor of her relative, failing to avoid the appearance of impropriety and to uphold public confidence in the judiciary. Applying Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as the offense is a light charge, the Court imposed the sanction of REPRIMAND with a WARNING that a repetition will be dealt with more severely.