G.R. No. RTJ-11-2267; January 19, 2011
MANSUETA T. RUBIN, Complainant, vs. JUDGE JOSE Y. AGUIRRE, JR., Regional Trial Court, Branch 55, Himamaylan, Negros Occidental, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Mansueta T. Rubin, widow of the late Judicial Administrator Feliciano Rubin of the Estate of Spouses Dioscoro and Emperatriz Rubin, filed a verified administrative complaint against respondent Judge Jose Y. Aguirre, Jr. for Graft and Corruption, Betrayal of Public Trust, Grave Abuse of Authority, Manifest Bias and Partiality, and Violation of Judicial Conduct. The allegations stemmed from the judge’s handling of Special Proceeding No. 28 (Intestate Estate) and Civil Case No. 184 (Annulment of Adoption). Specifically, the complainant alleged that the judge: (A) extorted money from the Estate by facilitating a labor claim that had already been paid; (B) issued an order to pay P205,125.00 based on a non-existent final decision without notice or hearing; (C) threatened the late Administrator Feliciano Rubin with contempt and sale of estate properties to coerce payment, which allegedly worsened his health; (D) improperly ordered the change of Administrator and appointed his Clerk of Court as Special Administrator to sell estate properties after Feliciano Rubin refused unlawful orders; (E) exhibited bias by appointing Aileen Rubin (the adopted child whose status was under litigation) as Administratrix and prejudging her as the sole legal heir; and (F) allowed Aileen Rubin to ransack the estate premises. The complainant submitted supporting documentary evidence.
In his Comment, Judge Aguirre denied the allegations, characterizing the complaint as malicious and harassing, filed by a disgruntled complainant who wanted to be appointed Administratrix instead of Aileen Rubin. He defended his appointment of Aileen Rubin as Special Administratrix, noting it was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. He clarified that the labor cases involved were distinct, and his orders compelling payment in RAB Case No. A-593-81 were for lawful claims against the estate. He also noted he had previously been penalized by the Supreme Court for delaying the enforcement of a final NLRC decision against the estate. He submitted his own documentary evidence.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended docketing the case as a regular administrative matter. The Court referred the case to Investigating Justice Josefina Guevarra-Salonga. The Investigating Justice found that, except for one charge, the allegations against Judge Aguirre were “bereft of factual and legal basis.” However, she found that Judge Aguirre committed an impropriety by sending a letter to the late Feliciano Rubin inviting him for a personal conference “to discuss and to expedite a possible extra-judicial settlement,” which constituted an act of fraternizing with a party-litigant and violated the rule against in-chambers sessions without the other party present.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Jose Y. Aguirre, Jr. is administratively liable for the charges of Graft and Corruption, Betrayal of Public Trust, Grave Abuse of Authority, Manifest Bias and Partiality, and Violation of Judicial Conduct, based on the evidence presented.

RULING

The Supreme Court ADOPTED and AFFIRMED the findings and recommendation of the Investigating Justice.
1. On the Grave Charges: The Court found the complainant’s serious allegations of extortion, connivance, bias, and gross ignorance of the law to be unsupported by substantial evidence. A review of the records showed that Judge Aguirre’s orders pertaining to the labor claims and the administration of the estate were issued in the exercise of his judicial functions. His appointment of Aileen Rubin as Special Administratrix was upheld by higher courts. The charges were deemed to have no factual and legal basis.
2. On the Administrative Liability for Impropriety: The Court concurred with the Investigating Justice that Judge Aguirre committed an impropriety by sending a letter to a party litigant (Feliciano Rubin) for a personal conference. This act violated Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires a judge to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. Such ex parte communication risked undermining impartiality and the integrity of the judicial process.
3. Penalty: Considering that Judge Aguirre had already been compulsorily retired (as noted in a related resolution), the imposable penalty of reprimand could no longer be served. Following jurisprudence, the Court deemed the case closed and terminated.