A.M. No. RTJ-03-1809 ; October 17, 2006
BUSILAC BUILDERS, INC. and ROMEO M. CAMARILLO, complainants, vs. JUDGE CHARLES A. AGUILAR, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, LAOAG CITY, BRANCH 12, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Romeo Camarillo, president of Busilac Builders, Inc., filed a specific performance case (Civil Case No. 12310) against the spouses Ramos to compel the conveyance of Lot 1, a parcel of land he had agreed to purchase. The case was raffled to Branch 12 of the RTC of Laoag City. Unbeknownst to Camarillo, the spouses Ramos had previously sold portions of Lot 1, including a 100-square-meter portion to then-prosecutor Charles A. Aguilar. Aguilar was later appointed as the presiding judge of Branch 12, the very branch where Camarillo’s case was pending. Judge Aguilar proceeded to hear the case and eventually issued an order dismissing it without prejudice, citing a joint motion by the parties’ counsels. Subsequently, Judge Aguilar, together with other co-owners, engaged in physical acts on Lot 1, including leveling the land with municipal equipment. He also appeared as his own counsel in a related civil case filed against him by Camarillo and issued a search warrant against Camarillo for illegal possession of firearms.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Charles A. Aguilar is administratively liable for his actions concerning Civil Case No. 12310, his conduct on Lot 1, and his appearance in a case where he was a party.

RULING

Yes, Judge Aguilar is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found him guilty of several infractions. First, he violated the rule on compulsory disqualification under Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court and the Code of Judicial Conduct by failing to inhibit himself from Civil Case No. 12310. His direct pecuniary interest in Lot 1, the subject matter of the litigation, was undeniable. His claim that both counsels advised him not to inhibit is immaterial, as the prohibition is mandatory and based on public policy to ensure impartiality. His subsequent order dismissing the case constituted gross misconduct and ignorance of the law.
Second, his act of spearheading the leveling of the contested property, using equipment from the local government, was grossly improper. It demonstrated a disregard for the pending judicial controversy over the land and created an appearance of impropriety, undermining public confidence in the judiciary.
Third, his appearance as his own counsel in hearings for Civil Case No. 12635, where he was a defendant, without prior permission from the Supreme Court, violated civil service rules and the principle that a judge should not appear as counsel in any court.
However, the charge regarding the issuance of the search warrant was dismissed for lack of evidence of malice or bad faith. The Court imposed the following penalties: a three-month suspension without pay for failure to inhibit, a fine of P11,000 for impropriety, and a reprimand for unauthorized appearance as counsel.