AM RTJ 06 2026; (March, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. RTJ-06-2026. March 4, 2009.
ATTY. ANTONIO G. CAÑEDA, Complainant, vs. JUDGE ERIC F. MENCHAVEZ, Respondent.
FACTS
The complainant, Atty. Antonio G. Cañeda, counsel for a defendant in Civil Case No. CEB-30956 for judicial partition pending before the respondent Judge Eric F. Menchavez of the RTC, Branch 21, Cebu City, filed an administrative complaint. The incident arose from a hearing on December 14, 2005. During the hearing, after exchanges regarding the partition and the complainant’s remark about delayed summons by publication for defendants abroad, the respondent judge angrily banged his gavel, shouted “I said no publication period,” and the gavel’s head flew off. He then slammed the table, went to his chambers, returned with a holstered handgun, smashed it on the table, and shouted at the complainant in vernacular, “What do you want? Devil! Hardheaded!” The complainant apologized, but the judge ignored him. The complainant alleged the judge’s conduct violated judicial conduct rules and showed bias. In his Comment, the respondent admitted banging the gavel and bringing out his licensed firearm, which he placed on the table, claiming he feared for his life due to the complainant’s aggressive, belligerent, and disrespectful arguments. He denied breaking the gavel, brandishing the gun, or being biased.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Eric F. Menchavez is administratively liable for his conduct during the court hearing on December 14, 2005.
RULING
Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found that the respondent overreacted and failed to maintain the decorum, dignity, and courtesy required of a judge. While the complainant was argumentative, the judge’s proper recourse was to direct him to stop under pain of contempt, not to engage in a contentious manner. Bringing a gun into the courtroom and placing it on the table while confrontationally asking “What do you want?” was inexcusable in the absence of overt physical aggression and violated the norms of judicial conduct. The Court declared the respondent liable for vulgar and unbecoming conduct, a light charge under Section 10, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. Considering the severity of the transgression affecting the judiciary’s image, the Court imposed the maximum fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (₱10,000.00) with a warning. The complainant was also admonished to be mindful of the respect due to the court.