AM MTJ 94 962; (April, 1995) (Digest)
A.M. No. MTJ-94-962. April 24, 1995. Sps. Fernando and Elenita Marcelino vs. Judge Mariano M. Singson, Jr.
FACTS
Complainant Fernando Marcelino, a fish vendor, alleged that on April 27, 1994, while he was slowly backing his jeepney to give way, a car driven by respondent Judge Mariano M. Singson, Jr. crossed his path, resulting in a minor collision. The respondent judge allegedly alighted, boxed Fernando twice, retrieved a gun from his car, poked it at Fernando while shouting, tucked it in his waist, and delivered another blow before leaving with Fernando’s driver’s license. Fernando reported the incident to the police, sought medical treatment, and obtained a certification from the COMELEC that the judge had no authority to carry a firearm during the election period.
In his comment, respondent judge admitted to the minor traffic incident and to having lost his temper and slapping Fernando “slightly” after the latter acted belligerently and uttered unsavory remarks. He denied poking a gun. He later filed criminal complaints for Grave Oral Defamation and Damage to Property against Fernando. The complainants subsequently desisted from pursuing the administrative case.
ISSUE
Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the judiciary.
RULING
Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court emphasized that the withdrawal of a complaint does not divest the Court of its jurisdiction to discipline erring members of the judiciary, as the Court’s interest in maintaining judicial integrity is paramount. A judge’s personal behavior, both inside and outside the courtroom, must always be beyond reproach to preserve public confidence in the law and justice. The judge is the visible personification of these ideals, and the office imposes a high standard of personal conduct.
The Court found the respondent judge guilty of misconduct. His admitted act of physically assaulting a citizen during a traffic altercation, regardless of provocation, constituted conduct unbecoming a judicial officer and was prejudicial to the judiciary’s best interest. It demonstrated a failure to exercise the prudence, restraint, and temperance required of his position. While the Court considered his eventual realization of his intemperate actions as a mitigating factor, it nonetheless imposed a penalty to underscore the gravity of the transgression. Accordingly, respondent Judge Mariano M. Singson, Jr. was ordered to pay a fine of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) and was admonished to be more circumspect in his conduct.