A.M. No. RTJ-03-1802. September 21, 2004. J. KING & SONS COMPANY, INC., represented by its President, Richard L. King, complainant, vs. JUDGE AGAPITO L. HONTANOSAS, JR., Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 16, Cebu City, respondent.
FACTS:

Complainant J. King & Sons Company, Inc. was the plaintiff in a civil case for specific performance pending before respondent Judge Agapito L. Hontanosas, Jr. The judge initially granted the complainant’s application for a writ of preliminary attachment. However, just three days later, on July 5, 2002, he issued an order lifting the writ upon the defendants’ filing of a counter-bond. The complainant alleged this order was issued without the required notice and hearing under the Rules of Court. Furthermore, the complainant asserted that the judge approved the counter-bond despite knowing the bonding company’s Supreme Court clearance had expired and its net retention capacity was deficient by over Twenty-Two Million Pesos.
The complainant also accused the judge of serious misconduct. It was alleged that the judge summoned the complainant’s officers to his residence and solicited a payment of ₱250,000 to match an alleged offer from the opposing party, promising to reconsider his order lifting the attachment if paid. Additionally, the judge was accused of habitually availing himself of free services at a karaoke lounge owned by the complainant. The respondent judge denied all accusations, claiming the orders were issued in the lawful exercise of judicial discretion and that the complaint was filed by a dissatisfied litigant.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Agapito L. Hontanosas, Jr. is administratively liable for his actions in relation to Civil Case No. CEB-27870 and the accompanying allegations of misconduct.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the Investigating Justice. The Court found the complainant’s evidence, particularly the detailed and consistent testimonies of the King brothers regarding the solicitation of money, to be credible and convincing. This act constitutes gross misconduct, a severe transgression that undermines judicial integrity and public confidence. The act of asking a litigant for money in exchange for a favorable judicial action is a blatant violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Furthermore, the Court found the judge liable for gross ignorance of the law or procedure for lifting the writ of preliminary attachment without conducting the mandatory notice and hearing as expressly required by Section 12, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court. Judges are expected to know elementary rules of procedure, and failure to comply constitutes gross ignorance. His act of approving a counter-bond from a company with an expired clearance and insufficient net retention also amounted to simple misconduct, demonstrating a lack of due diligence. His practice of accepting free entertainment from a litigant further compounded his administrative liability. Considering the gravity of the offenses and the fact that he was previously found guilty in another administrative case, the Supreme Court imposed the ultimate penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of benefits.