AM RTJ 02 1670; (June, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. RTJ-02-1670; June 26, 2003
SPOUSES CAROLINA AND VILLAMOR GRAGERA, Complainants, vs. JUDGE PABLO B. FRANCISCO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 26, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainants, spouses Villamor and Carolina Gragera, charged respondent Judge Pablo B. Francisco with unauthorized practice of law. The complaint stemmed from Civil Case No. 98-0019 for rescission of contract pending before the RTC of Binangonan, Rizal, where the respondent judge acted as the attorney-in-fact for his sister, Luisa Francisco-Gonzales, a resident abroad. The spouses alleged that, except for the initiatory pleading, respondent Judge signed subsequent pleadings and actively participated in hearings related to the case. In his defense, respondent Judge explained he initially engaged counsel for his sister but, due to counsel’s unavailability, he personally filed a motion for reconsideration to avoid prejudice to her case. He asserted he always filed official leave for his appearances and that his role as attorney-in-fact did not affect his judicial functions.
In a subsequent letter, complainants further alleged that respondent Judge had also been appearing as a plaintiff in several other civil and ejectment cases in different courts. During the investigation by the Court of Appeals, evidence showed that respondent Judge did, on several occasions, personally prepare and sign pleadings in these cases. He maintained he was represented by counsel in all cases and appeared only as a private individual protecting his rights, but he admitted to preparing and signing pleadings himself under certain circumstances.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Pablo B. Francisco violated the prohibition against the practice of law by a sitting judge.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent Judge guilty of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct. Rule 5.07 explicitly prohibits a judge from engaging in the private practice of law. The Court held that the proscription is based on public policy and applies not only to formal legal practice but also to accepting designation as an attorney-in-fact in actual litigation. Such activity is incompatible with the judicial office as it can create a perception of undue influence, thereby undermining public confidence in the integrity and independence of the judiciary. The Court emphasized that a judge must avoid not only actual impropriety but also the appearance of impropriety.
The Court rejected the judge’s justifications. His actions—signing pleadings and participating in hearings—constituted the practice of law. The fact that he filed leaves of absence did not legitimize the violation. The investigating Justice and the Office of the Court Administrator both found clear evidence of unauthorized practice. While they recommended a fine of P5,000.00, the Supreme Court deemed the infraction serious and increased the penalty to P12,000.00, with a stern warning against future violations.