A.M. No. RTJ-01-1662; November 26, 2001
Victor Tuzon, complainant, vs. Judge Loreto Cloribel-Purugganan, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Victor Tuzon filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Loreto Cloribel-Purugganan of the Regional Trial Court, Tuguegarao, Cagayan, Branch 3, for illegal practice of law, gross ignorance of the law, serious misconduct, evident bias and partiality, knowingly rendering unjust judgment, and willful violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The complaint stemmed from two primary incidents. First, after Tuzon filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals assailing an order issued by the respondent judge, the judge herself filed and signed a comment on behalf of the private respondent, Raymundo Catral, in that appellate proceeding. Second, Tuzon alleged that the judge antedated a decision in a related civil case.
In her comment, respondent judge admitted to authoring and filing the comment for Catral, justifying that his counsel was ill and unable to work. She denied the accusation of antedating any decision, asserting that complainant presented no evidence to support it.

ISSUE

Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for engaging in the private practice of law and for the other charges alleged in the complaint.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable for illegal practice of law, but the other charges are dismissed for lack of evidence. The Court found it undisputed that respondent judge filed a comment in the Court of Appeals on behalf of a private party, Raymundo Catral, whose interests were aligned with defending her own challenged order. This act constituted a clear violation of Section 5, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which mandates that public respondents, like judges, shall not appear in or file an answer to a petition for certiorari unless specifically directed by the court. A judge whose order is under review is merely a nominal party and must maintain a detached attitude, not actively defend the challenged ruling.
By preparing, signing, and filing the pleading, respondent judge engaged in the private practice of law, which encompasses the preparation of papers in anticipation of or in connection with litigation. This is expressly prohibited under Rule 5.07 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Section 35, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court. The prohibition is grounded on public policy, as the functions of a lawyer are inherently incompatible with the judicial office. Her defense that she acted due to the illness of Catral’s counsel is unavailing; it was not her role to assume the duties of a private attorney.
Regarding the charge of antedating a decision, as well as the allegations of gross ignorance of the law, serious misconduct, bias, and rendering an unjust judgment, the Court found no substantial evidence to support them. Consequently, these charges were dismissed. The Court imposed a penalty of suspension from office for three months without pay and a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), with a stern warning.