AM RTJ 01 1625; (March, 2003) (Digest)
A.M. No. RTJ-01-1625. March 10, 2003. JOSELITO S. PASCUAL, complainant, vs. JUDGE RODOLFO R. BONIFACIO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 151, PASIG CITY, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Joselito S. Pascual charged Judge Rodolfo R. Bonifacio with conduct unbecoming a judge for allegedly attempting to improperly influence the settlement of a case pending in his own court. The case involved an annulment of marriage and legal separation filed by complainant’s wife. Complainant alleged that on November 25, 1998, respondent judge approached him at his workplace, the Manila Hotel Lobby Lounge, and proposed a specific settlement: a 1/3 to 2/3 sharing of conjugal assets in favor of the children, with the sale of the family home and the denial of complainant’s administration over the children’s share. Complainant refused this unsolicited proposal.
Following this encounter, complainant filed a motion for respondent judge’s inhibition, initially on general grounds and later specifically citing the ex parte conversation and his loss of confidence in the judge’s impartiality. Respondent judge denied both the motion and a subsequent motion for reconsideration. He denied the allegations, claiming the meeting was a social gathering with another judge where complainant, upon learning respondent’s identity, began discussing his case. An investigation was conducted by a Court of Appeals Justice.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Rodolfo R. Bonifacio violated the Code of Judicial Conduct through his actions.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent judge guilty of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically Rule 2.01, which mandates that a judge must behave in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. The Court gave credence to the complainant’s version of events, supported by an affidavit from a disinterested witness, over the respondent’s denial. The investigating justice found that the judge’s attempt to convince a litigant to settle a case pending before him under specific terms compromised the appearance of impartiality.
The legal logic is grounded in the imperative of preserving judicial integrity. A judge must not only be impartial but must also avoid any appearance of impropriety. By initiating an ex parte discussion on the merits and proposing a specific settlement to a party, respondent judge created a situation that eroded public trust. This misconduct was aggravated by his subsequent denial of the motion to inhibit and his decision on the case after the administrative complaint was filed, demonstrating a lack of delicadeza. The Court imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), mitigated by it being his first offense, with a stern warning against repetition.