G.R. No. RTJ-91-660. June 30, 1994.
NAPOLEON A. ABIERA, complainant, vs. JUDGE BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA, Regional Trial Court, Br. 12, San Jose, Antique, respondent.

FACTS

District Public Attorney Napoleon A. Abiera filed an administrative complaint against Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda for: (1) grave abuse of discretion and misconduct, and (2) gross dishonesty and inefficiency.
The first charge arose from Civil Case No. 2119. Both parties agreed to set the hearing for August 2022, 1990. On August 20, complainant requested a second call as he was attending a trial in another branch. When the case was called again, neither complainant nor his clients appeared. Respondent judge then issued an order declaring that plaintiffs had waived further presentation of evidence. The next day, complainant verbally moved for reconsideration, explaining his non-appearance was due to a lengthy cross-examination in another case. Respondent denied the motion and proceeded with the hearing, during which complainant participated by objecting and cross-examining witnesses. On September 5, 1990, complainant filed a written motion for reconsideration. On December 7, 1990, respondent denied the motion and ordered complainant to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt. On December 20, 1990, respondent issued an order suspending complainant from the practice of law. Complainant challenged this suspension order via a petition for certiorari (G.R. No. 96636), and the Supreme Court, on August 26, 1991, vacated the order for lack of procedural due process, directing that any suspension proceedings must follow Rule 138.
The second charge alleged that respondent judge willfully falsified his monthly certificates of service from February to September 1989, February to April 1990, and June to October 1990, by certifying he had no pending unresolved cases when in fact he had eight civil and ten criminal cases unresolved beyond 90 days from submission, thereby enabling him to receive salaries and allowances.
Respondent judge defended his actions, asserting that complainant had a pattern of obtaining postponements and that the conflict in schedules was complainant’s fault. He argued that complainant’s participation in the August 21 hearing showed bad faith. Regarding the certificates of service, respondent claimed that most cases were inherited, and he had been granted extensions by then Chief Justice Fernan and the Supreme Court to decide the pending cases.

ISSUE

1. Whether respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion and misconduct in issuing the order suspending complainant from the practice of law.
2. Whether respondent judge is guilty of gross dishonesty and serious inefficiency for falsifying his certificates of service and failing to decide cases within the reglementary period.

RULING

1. On the charge of grave abuse of discretion and misconduct: The Court dismissed the charge. It noted that the Supreme Court had already nullified the suspension order in G.R. No. 96636 for non-observance of the proper procedure under Rule 138. The investigating justice found that complainant’s conduct was not contumacious; his participation in the August 21 hearing was a protective measure for his clients and did not bar him from later questioning the August 20 order. The Court held that while respondent judge’s language in his orders was intemperate and harsh, it did not constitute grave abuse of discretion or misconduct warranting administrative sanction. The Court emphasized that judges should exercise contempt powers with restraint and maintain decorum in their language.
2. On the charge of gross dishonesty and serious inefficiency: The Court dismissed the charge as baseless. The evidence showed that respondent judge had been granted extensions by the Supreme Court to decide the cases in question. The investigating justice found that respondent decided the cases within the extended periods granted. Therefore, there was no falsification of certificates of service, as the certifications were made in good faith based on the granted extensions.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
The complaint against Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda for grave abuse of discretion and misconduct, gross dishonesty and serious inefficiency, and failing to decide cases within the reglementary period is DISMISSED.