A.M. No. RTJ-99-1453; December 14, 2001
Fr. Michael Sinnott, Erlinda Pedrano Pingkian, Rosita Pedrano-Lopez, Alfredo Pedrano, Antonio Pedrano, Carino Pedrano, Corazon Mendoza, Virginia Baling-Pestañas, complainants, vs. Judge Recaredo P. Barte, Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, Zamboanga del Sur, respondent.

FACTS

Complainants, relatives of murder victims and associated church workers, filed an administrative complaint against Judge Recaredo P. Barte for bias and partiality. The complaint stemmed from the judge’s acquittal of Nenito Gadonan for the double murder of Demetria and Basilia Pedrano. Complainants alleged the judge deliberately ignored overwhelming evidence due to his special personal relationship with Gadonan’s daughter, who was once his househelper, and rumors of a relationship with another daughter. They argued this warranted his inhibition and a declaration of mistrial.
Respondent judge denied the allegations of bias. He stated no motion for his inhibition was ever filed and explained his acquittal was based on the prosecution’s failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, citing major inconsistencies in the lone eyewitness’s testimony. He admitted a daughter of the accused had been a househelper but claimed she had left before the case was raffled to him. Subsequently, a court process server submitted an affidavit alleging the judge, from Manila, had solicited him to hire assassins to kill the complainants, specifically naming Fr. Sinnott.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Recaredo P. Barte is administratively liable for the charges of bias and partiality and for the serious allegation of soliciting murder.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the charge of bias and partiality but found Judge Barte guilty of grave misconduct for soliciting murder. On the first charge, the Court ruled that a judge’s decision, even if erroneous, is not necessarily proof of bias or partiality. Bias must be proven by clear and convincing evidence of a prejudicial mindset, not merely inferred from a judgment. The proper remedy for an erroneous judgment is judicial appeal, not an administrative case. The allegations of personal relationships were deemed unsubstantiated.
However, the Court found the allegation of soliciting murder, based on the process server’s affidavit and corroborated by witness testimony during the NBI investigation, to be substantiated. This act constitutes grave misconduct, a severe offense reflecting on a judge’s fitness for office. It is a transgression of the fundamental principle that a judge’s conduct must be beyond reproach. The Court emphasized that such behavior, directly threatening the lives of complainants, is utterly incompatible with judicial integrity. Consequently, the Court imposed a fine of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00), deductible from his withheld retirement benefits.