G.R. No. RTJ-13-2366. February 4, 2015.
JILL M. TORMIS, Complainant, vs. JUDGE MEINRADO P. PAREDES, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Jill M. Tormis, a law student, charged respondent Judge Meinrado P. Paredes, Presiding Judge of Branch 13, RTC, Cebu City, with grave misconduct. Jill was a student of Judge Paredes in Political Law Review at Southwestern University, Cebu City, in the first semester of school year 2010-2011. She averred that in August 2010, during class discussions, Judge Paredes named her mother, Judge Rosabella Tormis (then Presiding Judge of Branch 4, MTCC, Cebu City), as one of the judges involved in the marriage scams in Cebu City, and stated that Judge Tormis was abusive, corrupt, and ignorant of the law. Jill claimed this was done not just once but several times. In one session where Jill was absent, Judge Paredes allegedly also called Jill’s brother, Francis Mondragon Tormis, a “court-noted addict.” Jill dropped the class and transferred to another law school to avoid humiliation.
Jill also alleged that in the administrative case “Lachica v. Tormis,” where her mother was suspended for six months for receiving a cash bail bond, Judge Paredes had reviewed the findings and recommended a reduced penalty. Jill claimed Judge Paredes committed a worse offense: on March 13, 2011, he accepted a cash bail bond of ₱6,000.00 for the temporary release of Lita Guioguio in a criminal case pending before another branch (MTCC, Branch 8, Cebu City).
In his Comment, Judge Paredes denied personally attacking Judge Tormis’s dignity. He admitted discussing the resolved administrative case of Lachica v. Tormis in class as part of teaching, and that the marriage scams were a matter of public knowledge discussed in judicial meetings and schools. He admitted stating that Judge Tormis’s son Francis was a drug addict and should be removed from the judiciary, but denied saying Francis was appointed due to influence. Regarding the cash bail bond, he admitted accepting it on a Sunday but claimed he acted pursuant to A.M. No. 03-8-62-SC, which allows executive judges to act on urgent matters on weekends, and that he followed procedure by issuing a temporary receipt and later having the Branch Clerk of Court remit it.
In her Reply, Jill countered that her mother’s case regarding the marriage scams was still unresolved in 2010, making the discussion premature, and that administrative cases are confidential. She claimed Judge Paredes’s intent to humiliate was evident.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found conflicting factual allegations and recommended a full-blown investigation by the Court of Appeals (CA). The Supreme Court referred the case to the CA, Cebu Station. Investigating Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy found Judge Paredes guilty of conduct unbecoming of a judge for his intemperate language and insensitive class discussions, rejecting his defense of freedom of expression. She found no irregularity in his acceptance of the cash bail bond as it was done in his capacity as available executive judge on a non-working day.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Meinrado P. Paredes is administratively liable for his actions, specifically for (1) his discussions in class regarding the administrative cases and personal circumstances of Judge Rosabella Tormis and her son, and (2) his acceptance of a cash bail bond in the Guioguio case.

RULING

The Supreme Court found Judge Paredes administratively liable for conduct unbecoming of a judge for his statements during class discussions, but not liable for his actions regarding the cash bail bond.
1. On the Class Discussions: The Court agreed with the investigating justice that Judge Paredes’s use of intemperate language during class was inappropriate. His statements projecting Judge Tormis as corrupt and ignorant, and labeling her son a “drug addict,” were insensitive and inexcusable. While judges, like citizens, enjoy freedom of expression, they must exercise it in a manner that preserves the dignity of the judicial office, impartiality, and independence of the judiciary, as mandated by the New Code of Judicial Conduct. His defense that the matters were of public knowledge did not excuse the unbecoming manner of his discussion, which lacked the circumspection required of a magistrate.
2. On the Acceptance of Cash Bail Bond: The Court found that Judge Paredes’s act of accepting the cash bail bond on a Sunday was in accordance with A.M. No. 03-8-62-SC, which allows executive judges to act on petitions for bail on weekends. The evidence showed he was the only judge available at the time, as the assigned judge and the MTCC executive judge were unavailable. He followed procedure by issuing a temporary receipt and ensuring its proper remittance. Thus, no administrative liability attaches to this act.
PENALTY: Conduct unbecoming of a judge is a light offense under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. Considering it was his first offense, the appropriate penalty is admonition.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, the Court finds Judge Meinrado P. Paredes, Presiding Judge of Branch 13 of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, administratively liable for conduct unbecoming of a judge and ADMONISHES him therefor. SO ORDERED.