G.R. No. AM-MTJ-10-1762 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 09-2176-MTJ), May 05, 2021
Mark Anthony I. Paga, Complainant, vs. Hon. Emmanuel W. Paderanga, Presiding Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Balingoan-Talisayan, Misamis Oriental, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Mark Anthony I. Paga, a quarantine personnel at the port of Benoni, Camiguin Island, had two encounters with respondent Judge Emmanuel W. Paderanga. In December 2008, Judge Paderanga arrived at the port with mango seedlings. When Paga asked if he had a permit, the Judge questioned the need for one and demanded to see the law. When Paga could not produce a copy, Judge Paderanga threatened, “since you cannot show me anything, then stand aside, otherwise, I will slap your face,” and left with the seedlings.
On April 19, 2009, while Paga was walking, he was grabbed from behind by Mython Emmanuel Paderanga, the Judge’s son, who took him to where Judge Paderanga and his other son, Ethaniel Evagrio Paderanga, were. Judge Paderanga asked why Paga was glaring at him, which Paga denied. Mython then hit Paga on the neck, and Ethaniel beat him with fists. During the assault, Judge Paderanga slapped the left side of Paga’s face. Paga reported the incident to the police and sought medical examination.
Paga filed an administrative complaint charging Judge Paderanga with violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct for the physical assault and for Gross Ignorance of the Law for questioning his quarantine functions. Judge Paderanga denied the allegations, claiming he did not own the seedlings and merely inquired about the need for a permit, and that the second incident was a confrontation initiated by Paga after his son Mython tapped Paga’s back and was parried.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) referred the case for investigation. The Investigating Judge found Paga’s narration credible, supported by the medical report, and concluded that Judge Paderanga violated Canon 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The OCA agreed and recommended a fine, noting Judge Paderanga’s previous administrative penalty for undue delay in rendering a decision.

ISSUE

Whether or not Judge Emmanuel W. Paderanga is administratively liable for violation of Sections 1, 2, and 8, Canon 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

RULING

Yes, Judge Paderanga is administratively liable. The Court found him guilty of violating Sections 1, 2, and 8 of Canon 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Canon 4 requires judges to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities, accept personal restrictions consistent with the dignity of the judicial office, and not use or lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance private interests. The Court emphasized that a judge’s conduct, both official and personal, must withstand the most searching public scrutiny.
In the first encounter, Judge Paderanga’s sarcastic remark and threat to slap Paga, who was performing his official duty, betrayed a lack of judicial restraint. In the second encounter, his act of slapping Paga, corroborated by medical evidence, and his failure to prevent his sons from assaulting Paga, demonstrated a predisposition to violence and impropriety. His sons’ statements, invoking their father’s identity, indicated the use of his judicial prestige to instill fear.
Considering Judge Paderanga’s previous administrative penalty, the Court increased the fine. He was found GUILTY and FINED P50,000.00, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition shall warrant a more severe penalty.