A.M. No. MTJ-10-1772; December 5, 2012
Dr. Janos B. Vizcayno, Complainant, vs. Judge Jasper Jesse G. Dacanay, Respondent.

FACTS

Dr. Janos B. Vizcayno, the defendant in a forcible entry case, filed an administrative complaint against Judge Jasper Jesse G. Dacanay for Gross Ignorance of the Law, Abuse of Authority, Manifest Partiality, and Delay. The complaint stemmed from two primary incidents. First, on March 31, 2009, Judge Dacanay conducted an ex-parte ocular inspection of the disputed property without notifying the complainant, doing so in the company of the plaintiffs. Second, during a hearing on May 29, 2009, the judge allegedly ignored and refused to resolve the complainant’s pending motion for inhibition, opting instead to proceed with the case hearing.
In his defense, Judge Dacanay claimed the inspection was a personal, good-faith investigation to assess the possibility of an amicable settlement and was not done with the parties. Regarding the motion for inhibition, he argued it was a “mere scrap of paper” because the complainant’s counsel failed to indicate his Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) compliance details as required, and thus, no judicial action on it was compelled.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Jasper Jesse G. Dacanay is administratively liable for his actions in relation to Civil Case No. 650-R.

RULING

Yes, Judge Dacanay is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found him guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, imposing a fine of P30,000. The Court emphasized that a judge must not only be impartial but must also appear impartial to maintain public confidence in the judiciary. Judge Dacanay’s ex-parte ocular inspection, conducted without notice to one party and in the company of the opposing party, created an undeniable appearance of impropriety and partiality, violating Canon 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. This act alone eroded the integrity of the judicial process.
Furthermore, the Court rejected his defense regarding the motion for inhibition. While counsel’s failure to include MCLE details was a procedural lapse, it did not justify the judge’s outright refusal to address a substantive plea for his inhibition. A judge has a duty to resolve such motions promptly. His failure to do so, coupled with the improper ex-parte inspection, demonstrated a cavalier attitude towards judicial duties and procedural norms. The Court increased the fine from the OCA’s recommended P25,000 to P30,000, considering this pattern of conduct and his previous administrative sanction in a separate case.