AM RTJ 05 1955; (May, 2007) (Digest)
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1955. May 28, 2007. Re: Anonymous Complaint Dated February 18, 2005 of a “Court Personnel” Against Judge Francisco C. Gedorio, Jr., RTC, Branch 12, Ormoc City.
FACTS
An anonymous complaint was filed against Judge Francisco C. Gedorio, Jr., alleging conduct unbecoming of a judge. The accusations included shouting at and reprimanding lawyers, personnel, witnesses, and litigants in open court; using intemperate and insulting language; and assigning his clerk of court to draft decisions. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) conducted a discreet investigation, which substantiated several allegations. The investigation found that Judge Gedorio had a short temper, frequently shouted using vulgar language like “punyeta,” and insulted court personnel by calling them “animal” and “bakla.” He was also confirmed to have publicly berated lawyers. Judge Gedorio, in his comment, generally denied the allegations, offering explanations for some specific incidents, such as claiming that the clerk of court only drafted orders in his capacity as a commissioner in land registration cases.
ISSUE
Whether Judge Francisco C. Gedorio, Jr. is administratively liable for his conduct.
RULING
Yes, Judge Gedorio is administratively liable for conduct unbecoming a judge. The Supreme Court emphasized that a judge’s behavior must be beyond reproach at all times, as they are the visible personification of law and justice. The Court found the OCA’s investigation report credible in establishing that Judge Gedorio habitually used intemperate, vulgar, and insulting language towards individuals in the courtroom and his staff. Such conduct violates the standard that judges must always be temperate, patient, and courteous. The Court rejected any justification based on his background or temperament, stating that government service requires self-restraint and civility. While the charge regarding the drafting of decisions was not sufficiently proven, the pattern of abusive language alone constituted a light charge under the Rules of Court. Accordingly, the Court imposed a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (₱5,000.00) and issued a reprimand with a warning that a repetition would merit a more severe penalty.