A.M. No. RTJ-98-1427. November 27, 2000. PABLO C. REQUIERME, JR. and DOMINADOR MAPHILINDO O. CARILLO, complainants, vs. JUDGE EVANGELINE S. YUIPCO, Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur, respondent.
FACTS

Complainants Pablo C. Requierme, Jr., a third-party defendant, and his counsel, Atty. Dominador Maphilindo O. Carillo, charged Judge Evangeline S. Yuipco with serious misconduct and manifest partiality in Civil Case No. 838. The procedural history revealed a pattern of questionable actions favoring the original defendants. After the defendants were declared in default and non-suited for failure to appear at pre-trial, respondent judge granted their “Motion to Lift the Order of Default,” which was a fatally defective motion lacking a notice of hearing and improperly addressed to the Clerk of Court. The judge privately requested the complainants’ counsel not to oppose this motion. During trial, she repeatedly urged Atty. Carillo to forego presenting evidence on his client’s counterclaims, asking him to “take pity” on the defendants. When he insisted, she displayed animosity, banging her gavel and admonishing him in open court.
Following a motion for her inhibition, respondent judge scheduled hearings but later cancelled them. When a new lawyer from Atty. Carillo’s firm appeared, informing the court of Carillo’s resignation, the judge made derogatory remarks about Carillo’s competence. She then ordered the personally absent Carillo to appear to prove the allegations in the inhibition motion, despite being informed he was no longer counsel of record. When neither the parties nor their new counsel appeared on the rescheduled date, she found Atty. Carillo in direct contempt of court, fined him, and denied the inhibition motion.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Evangeline S. Yuipco is administratively liable for serious misconduct through manifest partiality and abuse of authority.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is guilty of serious misconduct. The Supreme Court found her actions demonstrated manifest bias and a blatant disregard for procedural rules, undermining the integrity of her office. Her grant of the defective “Motion to Lift” violated fundamental procedural due process, as a motion without a notice of hearing is a mere scrap of paper that should not be acted upon. Her ex parte appeals to the complainants’ counsel to relent, coupled with her hostile demeanor when her requests were denied, evidenced partiality towards the defendants, violating the Code of Judicial Conduct mandate for impartiality and the appearance of impartiality.
Furthermore, her contempt citation against Atty. Carillo was a clear abuse of the court’s coercive powers. She cited him for non-appearance despite knowing he had resigned from the handling law firm and was no longer counsel of record. This act was retaliatory, intended to punish him for filing the inhibition motion, and contravened the principle that contempt powers must be used judiciously for correction, not vindication. Collectively, these acts constituted serious misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The Court fined her P5,000.00 with a stern warning.