A.M. No. RTJ-99-1463. January 16, 2001. LORETO T. YU, complainant, vs. JUDGE MATEO M. LEANDA (Ret.), Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Tacloban City, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Loreto T. Yu, the protestee in Election Case No. 95-05-58, charged respondent Judge Mateo M. Leanda with impropriety and discourtesy. The first charge alleged that respondent instructed his court stenographer, Ramon Cortel, to render secretarial services in drafting the decision for said election case, with the compensation to be paid by the protestant, Ricardo Salazar. Cortel eventually rendered services on several evenings and received P800.00 from respondent, who allegedly told him to collect the balance from Salazar. The second charge stemmed from a hearing on April 7, 1997, where respondent, in the presence of complainant and other lawyers, allegedly shouted at retired Judge Leodegario Alimangohan when the latter pointed out the omission of a motion from the court calendar. Respondent retired from service on June 10, 1998, during the pendency of this administrative matter.
Respondent admitted that Cortel assisted him but claimed he paid Cortel using money borrowed from a court’s Revision Committee Fund, which he intended to repay from his salary, denying any arrangement with Salazar. Regarding the hearing incident, respondent asserted he merely reminded retired Judge Alimangohan about proper decorum in court and did not shout or act discourteously.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Mateo M. Leanda is administratively liable for conduct unbecoming a judge.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The investigating Justice found the evidence sufficient to establish an act of impropriety concerning the payment to stenographer Cortel. While the exact source of the funds (whether from Salazar or the Committee fund) remained contested, the act of having a subordinate court employee perform secretarial services for a decision in a pending case, with compensation arranged by the judge, creates an appearance of impropriety. A judge must avoid not only actual impropriety but also any conduct that might appear improper to ensure public confidence in the judiciary. The discourtesy charge was not sufficiently substantiated.
The Court emphasized that a judge’s conduct, both in public and private life, must be beyond suspicion. Respondent’s actions fell short of the high standards of moral righteousness and uprightness demanded of a magistrate. However, considering it was his first offense and he had already retired, the recommended fine of two months’ salary was deemed excessive. Accordingly, respondent was ordered to pay a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), to be deducted from his retirement benefits.