G.R. No.: A.M. No. RTJ-11-2270; January 31, 2011 (Formerly A.M. No. OCA IPI No. 10-3380-RTJ)
Case Title: ELADIO D. PERFECTO, Complainant, vs. JUDGE ALMA CONSUELO DESALES-ESIDERA, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Catarman, Northern Samar, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Eladio D. Perfecto charged respondent Judge Alma Consuelo Desales-Esidera with several administrative violations. First, he alleged that on January 6, 2010, at the Prosecutor’s Office, the judge solicited and received ₱1,000.00 from practitioner Atty. Albert Yruma and a similar amount from Public Prosecutor Rosario Diaz for a religious celebration and barangay fiesta, without issuing receipts. This charge was supported by an affidavit from Public Prosecutor Ruth Arlene Tan-Ching, who claimed to have witnessed the incident involving Atty. Yruma and stated she “heard” about the solicitation from Prosecutor Diaz. Second, complainant questioned the judge’s conduct in Special Proceedings No. C-360, where she issued an order directing publication in a newspaper of general circulation instead of the Catarman Weekly Tribune (of which complainant is publisher), the only accredited newspaper in the province. Third, complainant charged the judge with acts of impropriety, such as scolding her staff in open court and treating practitioners and prosecutors in an “inhuman and hostile” manner.
In her defense, respondent judge explained that her visit to the Prosecutor’s Office was to follow up a pledge for a Sto. Niño image from a member of her Catholic charismatic group, and that Atty. Yruma voluntarily gave his donation through her upon overhearing the conversation. She dismissed Prosecutor Ching’s affidavit, attacking her credibility and suggesting she had a “narcissistic personality disorder.” Regarding the publication order, respondent claimed the Catarman Weekly Tribune was “not in circulation” and had repeatedly failed to publish court orders on time in other cases. She denied the charges of impropriety, asserting she maintained professional relationships.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Alma Consuelo Desales-Esidera is administratively liable for Impropriety and Unbecoming Conduct based on the charges of soliciting donations from lawyers and a prosecutor, issuing a disputed publication order, and using offensive language in her defense.

RULING

The Supreme Court found respondent judge GUILTY of Impropriety and Unbecoming Conduct. The Court adopted the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) but increased the recommended penalty.
1. On Solicitation: The Court held that respondent’s act of going to the Prosecutor’s Office to receive “donations” from a private lawyer and a public prosecutor, regardless of the religious purpose, constituted impropriety and created an appearance of impropriety, violating Canon 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The judge’s actions exploited her official position and could unduly influence lawyers practicing before her court. Her failure to categorically deny the solicitation from Prosecutor Diaz further weakened her defense.
2. On the Publication Order: The Court found this charge devoid of merit. It ruled that a judicial order may be published in a newspaper of national circulation, and such a newspaper need not be accredited in the locality. The judge’s decision was justified by the repeated failure of the Catarman Weekly Tribune to meet publication deadlines in other cases.
3. On Impropriety and Unbecoming Conduct: The Court strongly condemned the judge’s use of “acerbic,” “vicious,” and “offensive” language in her Comment to attack the personality and mental state of Prosecutor Ching (e.g., calling her “dubious,” suggesting a “narcissistic personality disorder”). This conduct was deemed unbecoming of a magistrate, who must always be temperate, patient, and courteous in speech and action.
The Court emphasized that a judge must be like Caesar’s wife—above suspicion and beyond reproach—and must avoid any appearance of impropriety in all activities. The OCA had recommended a fine of ₱5,000.00. However, considering the gravity of the improprieties, particularly the lack of discretion in soliciting and the vicious attack on a prosecutor, the Court deemed the recommended fine insufficient.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
Judge Alma Consuelo Desales-Esidera was ORDERED to pay a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (₱10,000.00) and WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.