G.R. No. A.M. No R-281-RTJ August 26, 1986
PONCIANO A. ARBAN, complainant, vs. JUDGE MELECIO B. BORJA, Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Naga City, respondent.

FACTS

Ponciano A. Arban, a District Engineer, filed an administrative complaint for grave misconduct against Judge Melecio B. Borja. The petition alleged that on February 23, 1985, at a restaurant in Naga City, Judge Borja, without justification, struck Arban on the head with a pistol, rendering him momentarily unconscious. The respondent also allegedly threatened Arban’s companions with the gun and had fired it earlier from his apartment balcony before following the complainant to the restaurant. The incident received significant media coverage, causing public scandal. The case was referred for investigation, during which Arban filed a motion to withdraw his complaint, citing the respondent’s public apology and his belief that his personal honor had been vindicated.
Despite the withdrawal, the Supreme Court ordered a further investigation. The investigating justice found that the complainant, having been transferred to Cavite, no longer wished to pursue the case due to the apology and to avoid further expenses. The investigator noted the incident’s notoriety and reports suggesting a motive involving jealousy over a woman, though Judge Borja denied this specific allegation. The investigator recommended a two-year suspension.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Melecio B. Borja should be held administratively liable for grave misconduct based on the violent incident at a public restaurant.

RULING

Yes, Judge Borja is guilty of grave misconduct and is dismissed from service. The Supreme Court emphasized that administrative cases against judges are matters of public interest and do not depend on the complainant’s will to prosecute or withdraw. The Court’s duty is to preserve the integrity of the judiciary. The factual allegations, supported by sworn statements and media reports, established that Judge Borja committed a violent assault in a public place. Regardless of the motive—whether jealousy or another reason—such conduct is utterly incompatible with the standards of judicial office.
The legal logic rests on the principle that a judge is the visible representation of law and justice. Judicial conduct must be free from impropriety, both officially and in personal behavior, to maintain public confidence. The Court cited the Canon of Judicial Ethics and its ruling in De la Paz v. Inutan, stating that a judge must be the first to abide by the law and set an example. The violent act, characterized as conduct “associated with hoodlums,” severely tarnished the judiciary’s image. Given the seriousness of the offense, which struck at the very heart of judicial decorum and public trust, the Court deemed the recommended suspension insufficient. To uphold the best interests of the judiciary, the penalty of dismissal was imposed, with forfeiture of retirement benefits, though accrued leaves and back salaries were ordered paid. The decision is immediately executory.