G.R. No.: A.M. No. RTJ-04-1860; September 8, 2004
Case Title: SPOUSES FLORENCIO & ESTHER CAUSIN, complainants, vs. JUDGE LEONARDO N. DEMECILLO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 24, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, respondent.

FACTS

The complainants, Spouses Florencio and Esther Causin, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Leonardo N. Demecillo of the RTC, Branch 24, Cagayan de Oro City. The complaint stemmed from a 1994 civil case for quieting of title (Civil Case No. 94-278) raffled to the respondent’s sala, involving overlapping boundaries of adjacent lots owned by the parties. The complainants charged the respondent with: (1) bias and partiality; (2) violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct for allowing another RTC judge, Judge Rodrigo Lim, Jr. (Acting Judge of Branch 21 and brother of plaintiff Raul Lim), to participate as counsel for the plaintiffs without authority from the Supreme Court; and (3) knowingly rendering an unjust decision.
The complainants alleged that Judge Lim actively participated in the trial—cross-examining witnesses, interposing objections, choosing hearing dates, and delivering oral arguments—without special authority. They claimed respondent judge showed partiality by accommodating Judge Lim’s schedule, resetting hearings for his convenience, sustaining his objections, and denying their request for an ocular inspection. They further alleged the decision awarding the disputed land to the plaintiffs was unjust.
In his defense, respondent judge argued he presumed Judge Lim had proper authority under the Rules of Court, and the complainants never questioned this authority or moved for his inhibition. He denied bias, explaining his scheduling practices and that a relocation survey was preferable to an ocular inspection. He defended his decision as based on evidence and law.
Judge Lim admitted he did not secure authority from the Supreme Court but claimed his appearance was in good faith for a family case, without remuneration, and thus not illegal practice of law.
The case was referred to the Court of Appeals for investigation. The investigating Justice found: (1) insufficient evidence for bias; (2) no liability for rendering an unjust decision as it was affirmed on appeal; but (3) respondent judge liable for violating the Code of Judicial Conduct by allowing Judge Lim’s unauthorized appearance. A fine of ₱5,000 was recommended. The Office of the Court Administrator agreed but recommended a lesser penalty.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Leonardo N. Demecillo is administratively liable for the charges of bias and partiality, knowingly rendering an unjust decision, and violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

RULING

The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the investigating Justice.
1. On the charge of bias and partiality: The charge was dismissed for lack of merit. The Court found no convincing evidence of partiality. The trial transcripts showed respondent judge sustained and overruled objections from both sides without a pattern of favoritism. His explanations for scheduling and denying the ocular inspection were reasonable.
2. On the charge of knowingly rendering an unjust decision: The charge was dismissed. The decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court on appeal, negating any claim of it being unjust.
3. On the charge of violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct: Respondent judge was found liable. The Court ruled that judges must not only be impartial but must also appear impartial. By allowing a fellow RTC judge to appear as counsel without the required Supreme Court authority, respondent judge violated Canon 2, Rule 2.01 (requiring propriety and the appearance of propriety) and Rule 2.03 (prohibinating impropriety or the appearance of impropriety in all activities) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. His presumption of Judge Lim’s authority was insufficient; he had a duty to verify given Judge Lim’s judicial position.
PENALTY: The Court imposed a fine of One Thousand Pesos (₱1,000.00) on respondent Judge Leonardo N. Demecillo for the violation, with a stern warning that a repetition shall be dealt with more severely. The penalty was aligned with that imposed on Judge Lim in a separate administrative case.