A.M. No. RTJ-03-1792; March 10, 2004
EMILIANA M. GARCIA, complainant, vs. JUDGE FLORENCIO P. BUESER, Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Siniloan, Laguna, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Emiliana M. Garcia, widow of a murdered policeman, charged Judge Florencio Bueser with ignorance of the law, bias, tampering, and disrespect for the Supreme Court. The murder case against several accused was raffled to Judge Bueser’s sala. After initially denying the accused’s application for bail on 24 May 2001, finding the evidence of guilt strong, he later had a motion for reconsideration pending. On 27 June 2001, the Supreme Court issued a resolution granting a prosecution petition for a change of venue and directed Judge Bueser to transfer the case records to the Calamba City RTC.
Judge Bueser received the Supreme Court resolution on 07 August 2001. However, instead of complying, he issued an order dated “06 August 2001” on 21 August 2001, granting bail to the accused. Complainant alleged this order was antedated to preempt the Supreme Court’s directive. The accused were subsequently released. In his defense, Judge Bueser claimed the delay in releasing the order was due to revisions and consultations, and that he acted out of fear due to death threats against him and his family.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Florencio P. Bueser is administratively liable for his actions in relation to the bail order and his defiance of the Supreme Court’s resolution.

RULING

Yes, Judge Bueser is administratively liable. The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the Investigating Justice. While the charge of antedating the order was unsubstantiated, Judge Bueser’s issuance of the bail order after receiving the Supreme Court’s 27 June 2001 resolution directing the transfer of the case records constituted a clear defiance of a lawful order from a superior court. This act is a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
The Court emphasized that a judge is the visible representation of law and justice, required to exhibit equanimity, prudence, and courage. While the Court acknowledged the respondent’s explanation of acting under fear due to threats, it held that such pressure cannot excuse a judge from his sworn duty to uphold judicial independence and obey lawful directives. The Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a judge must not succumb to external influences and must resist pressure from any source to preserve the integrity and independence of the judiciary. By allowing fear to dictate his judicial action and by disobeying the Supreme Court’s order, Judge Bueser failed to meet these exacting standards.
Accordingly, the Court found Judge Bueser guilty of misconduct and imposed upon him a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.