A.M. No. RTJ-04-1823. August 28, 2006. ARCELY Y. SANTOS, Complainant, vs. JUDGE UBALDINO A. LACUROM, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Cabanatuan City, Branch 29 and Pairing Judge, Branch 30, Respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Arcely Y. Santos charged respondent Judge Ubaldino A. Lacurom with gross misconduct, bias, and violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The allegations centered on the judge’s handling of three cases involving Rogelio R. Santos, Sr. First, the judge permitted Rogelio, a non-lawyer already represented by counsel, to personally litigate and even “appointed” him as lead counsel in one case, while allegedly compelling the complainant to be represented by an attorney. Second, the complainant accused the judge of undue delay in executing a Court of Appeals decision against Rogelio and of consistently granting Rogelio’s pleadings. Third, the judge refused to inhibit himself despite a request, even though he had previously inhibited in another case citing his “close friendship” with Rogelio. The complainant also asserted the judge had an interest in the properties at issue as an incorporator and legal adviser of the relevant homeowners association.
In his defense, the judge cited Section 34, Rule 138, allowing a party to conduct litigation personally. He claimed he merely “recognized” Rogelio as lead counsel due to his lawyer’s absences. He denied bias, stating the execution of the decision was ordered, and explained his prior inhibition was because only one side was his friend, whereas in the present cases, he was friends with parties on both sides, creating neutrality. He admitted his son received favors from both Rogelio and the complainant’s associates but denied any personal favor.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Ubaldino A. Lacurom is administratively liable for gross misconduct, bias, and violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct based on the complained acts.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found him guilty of gross ignorance of the law and violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. On the first charge, the Court ruled the judge grossly misapplied Section 34, Rule 138. This rule allows a party to conduct litigation personally or by an attorney, not both simultaneously when already represented by counsel. By allowing a represented litigant to act as “lead counsel,” the judge effectively permitted the unauthorized practice of law, displaying ignorance of basic procedural rules. Regarding inhibition, the judge’s reasoning was flawed. His admission of a “close friendship” with Rogelio, for which he previously inhibited, constituted a valid ground for mandatory inhibition under Rule 137. His claim that friendship with both sides “neutralized” the bias is illogical; the mandatory rule does not contemplate such balancing. His failure to recuse himself violated the duty to avoid the appearance of impropriety. While the charges of undue delay and consistent grant of pleadings were not sufficiently substantiated, the established violations pertaining to the unauthorized practice of law and improper refusal to inhibit are serious. The Court imposed a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000) for gross ignorance of the law and violation of Canons 2 and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, with a stern warning.