G.R. No. RTJ-00-1567. January 19, 2001.
Fernando Dela Cruz, complainant, vs. Judge Jesus G. Bersamira, RTC, Branch 166, Pasig City, respondent.

FACTS

This is an administrative case against Judge Jesus G. Bersamira. In a prior Resolution dated July 24, 2000, the Court found respondent judge administratively liable and imposed upon him a reprimand and a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00). The Court also issued a stern warning that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.
Subsequently, respondent judge filed a Motion for Reconsideration. In his motion, he strongly attacked the integrity of the investigating Justice, Associate Justice Marina L. Buzon of the Court of Appeals, who prepared the report upon which the Court’s earlier resolution was based. He labeled the “Magtolis Report” as incomplete, slanted, subjective, misleading, and untruthful. He insinuated that the investigating Justice was actuated by malice and bias against him, and asserted that the factual findings were speculative fabrications and a dishonest distortion of the record.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judge’s Motion for Reconsideration, characterized by intemperate and offensive language against a fellow magistrate, merits reconsideration of the administrative sanctions imposed upon him.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit. The Court held that the respondent judge’s charges of dishonesty and distortion against the investigating Justice were baseless and revealed a deplorable deficiency in courtesy expected of magistrates. The language used in the motion betrayed a character flaw, further convincing the Court of the propriety of the administrative sanctions.
The Court emphasized that while a judge may firmly express dissent or call attention to perceived errors, he must do so in a temperate and respectful manner. Intemperate speech detracts from the equanimity and judiciousness required of a dispenser of justice. A judge’s language, both written and spoken, must always be guarded and measured. Offensive speech directed against a colleague on the bench cannot be condoned and itself deserves reproof. The Court found that the respondent’s conduct in filing the motion was anything but exemplary.
Upon review, the Court found that the factual findings of the investigating Justice were supported by the documentary evidence on record. The points raised by the respondent judge did not absolve him of the whiff of impropriety in the underlying administrative case. The Court reiterated that judges must adhere to the highest standards of judicial conduct, as their behavior directly impacts public confidence in the judiciary. However, in the interest of compassionate justice, the Court MODIFIED the earlier Resolution by reducing the fine from Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) to Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00). The denial of the motion for reconsideration was declared FINAL.