AM RTJ 04 1833; (June, 2005) (Digest)
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1833. June 28, 2005. ALEXANDER B. ORTIZ, complainant, vs. JUDGE IBARRA B. JACULBE, JR., REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF DUMAGUETE CITY, BRANCH 42, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Alexander B. Ortiz, a defendant in a civil case before respondent Judge Ibarra B. Jaculbe, Jr., filed an administrative complaint. He alleged that Atty. Richard Enojo, the son-in-law of Judge Jaculbe, appeared as counsel for the plaintiff. Despite this relationship, the judge did not inhibit himself. The judge approved a compromise agreement and later granted the plaintiff’s motion for a writ of execution. Complainant argued this violated Rule 3.12 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates disqualification when a judge is related to counsel within the fourth degree of affinity.
In his defense, Judge Jaculbe admitted his general practice was to inhibit himself or have his son-in-law withdraw when such a case was raffled to his court. He claimed this instance was an exception because his son-in-law entered his appearance only as additional counsel very late in the proceedings to facilitate a compromise favorable to the defendants. The judge argued he resolved no factual or legal issues with bias, as the judgment merely approved the parties’ agreement and the writ of execution was a ministerial duty.
ISSUE
Whether Judge Ibarra B. Jaculbe, Jr. violated the rules on compulsory disqualification by presiding over a case where his son-in-law appeared as counsel.
RULING
Yes, the judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found a clear violation of both Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court and Rule 3.12, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The prohibition is compulsory and based on a relationship of affinity within the first degree (son-in-law), which is well within the prohibited fourth degree. The rule is designed to preserve the appearance of impartiality and public confidence in the judiciary, regardless of the stage of proceedings or the judge’s actual motives.
The Court rejected the judge’s justifications. The entry of appearance by a relative, even as additional counsel or at a late stage, triggers the duty to inhibit immediately. The judge’s desire to include the case among his disposals is an improper reason to disregard a mandatory rule. His failure to recuse himself constitutes simple misconduct. Considering his previous administrative sanction, the Court adopted the Office of the Court Administrator’s recommendation and imposed a fine of Eleven Thousand Pesos (P11,000.00).