Anonymous vs. Dajao

Judges who employ insulting, sexually charged, or otherwise intemperate language in official court orders commit vulgar and unbecoming conduct, and judges who append non-judicial academic titles to their judicial signatures engage in prohibited self-promotion and vanity, both in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and its canons on propriety and integrity. The dignity of the judicial office demands constant sobriety, courtesy, and restraint, and forbids any act that suggests egotism or personal vainglory.

Judge Laarni N. Dajao, presiding over Branch 27 of the Regional Trial Court in Siocon, Zamboanga del Norte, issued an Order dated 27 November 2013 in three consolidated criminal cases for illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions entitled People of the Philippines v. Julman Asim. The Order granted the accused’s Omnibus Motion to Quash and dismissed the cases without prejudice. Its content, however, went well beyond the legal ruling: the judge reproduced a counter-affidavit that quoted law enforcement agents questioning the accused about an alleged intimate relationship with the judge and commenting on the size of the accused’s penis, then proceeded to characterize the lead PDEA agent in harsh and sexually suggestive terms. The judge also signed the Order as “DR. LAARNI N. DAJAO Ph.D (CL-HC).” An anonymous observer submitted a letter-complaint alleging that these features constituted unprofessional conduct.

• The Anonymous Complaint: An unidentified letter-complainant alleged that Judge Dajao manifested a pattern of unprofessional conduct in language and deed, that he detailed his name in official documents as “Dr. Laarni N. Dajao, Ph.D (CL-HC),” and that his Order dated 27 November 2013 in Criminal Case Nos. 2013-08-05 to 2013-08-07 contained words that were malicious, degrading, and disgraceful. The complaint specifically cited the judge’s use of “big dick/penis, homophobic baklita, idiot, ugok, psychopath” and the imputation of a sexual relationship with the accused. The letter prayed for reprimand and discipline.

• The Subject Order: Judge Dajao’s 27 November 2013 Order granted the defense’s Omnibus Motion to Quash and dismissed the three illegal-possession cases without prejudice. In it, the judge reproduced the accused’s counter-affidavit verbatim, which recounted how PDEA agents, while the accused was blindfolded, asked whether he had an intimate relationship with Judge Dajao and forced him to admit a physical relationship, stating that “maybe I have a big dick (penis).” The order then contained the judge’s own characterizations: he described PDEA Agent II Jury Rocamora as “an idiot,” “a brilliant, highly evolved psychopath,” and a “very high security risk”; he further stated that Agent Rocamora had a “strange way of unveiling his hidden desires” toward the accused, and that “Rocamora’s courting of Baolo is quite literal-wanton cruelties,” concluding that the agent’s “true self” was “a Homophobic Baklita.” The order was signed “DR. LAARNI N. DAJAO Ph.D (CL-HC).”

• Judge Dajao’s Comment: The judge asserted that the complaint was purely intended to malign him, noted that the underlying criminal cases had been dismissed without prejudice, and mentioned that he had already accepted the apology of the PDEA Regional Director on behalf of the operatives criticized in the Order. He prayed that the complaint not be acted upon.

• OCA Findings: The OCA concluded that the judge’s order employed intemperate language that fell short of judicial standards and that the act of adding “Dr.” and “Ph.D.” to his name gave the impression of egotism and a desire to be recognized beyond his judicial office. The OCA recommended re-docketing the matter as a regular administrative case, a finding of liability for vulgar and unbecoming conduct, a fine of ₱5,000, and a stern warning.

• Malign Intent: Judge Dajao maintained that the sole purpose of the complaint was to malign him, without independently addressing the substance of the offensive language.

• Mootness and Apology: He emphasized that the criminal cases subject of the Order had been dismissed without prejudice and that he had accepted an apology from the PDEA Regional Director on behalf of the operatives mentioned, effectively asserting that the incident should be treated as closed and the complaint not acted upon.

• Vulgar and Unbecoming Conduct: Whether Judge Dajao’s use of language such as “idiot,” “psychopath,” “big dick (penis),” “sadistic,” and “homophobic baklita,” together with his insinuations of a sexual relationship involving a PDEA agent and the accused, in an official court order constitutes vulgar and unbecoming conduct in violation of Sections 1 and 2, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.

• Unauthorized Titles and Self-Promotion: Whether Judge Dajao’s act of appending “Dr.” and “Ph.D” to his name in the same order amounts to prohibited self-promotion and vanity under Canon 2, Rule 2.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

• Vulgar and Unbecoming Conduct: Liability was established. The language used—insulting epithets, graphic sexual references, and the imputation of deviant desires—was not befitting a judge. Judges are enjoined to be temperate, patient, and courteous in both conduct and language. Resort to intemperate written words detracts from the respect due the judiciary, is self-destructive, and erodes public confidence. The judge’s words fell far below the requisite standard of propriety and dignity under Sections 1 and 2, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.

• Unauthorized Titles and Self-Promotion: The appending of “Dr.” and “Ph.D” to the judicial signature constituted improper self-promotion. Canon 2, Rule 2.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that “a judge should not seek publicity for personal vainglory.” Additions to an official order other than the judge’s judicial designation are unwarranted and project egotism, insecurity, and a craving for recognition from litigants and lawyers. Such conduct is incompatible with the canon on integrity and propriety, and erodes public trust in the judiciary.

• Gravitas and judicial temperament — A judge must possess the virtue of gravitas: dignity in demeanor, refinement in speech, and virtuous character. Judicial office demands utmost sobriety and self-restraint; discourtesy, incivility, or intemperate language toward any person appearing in court constitutes impropriety. Here, the judge’s vulgar and insulting written remarks were treated as a violation of that fundamental duty.

• Intemperate language is self-destructive — Citing Spouses Jacinto v. Judge Vallarta, the Court reaffirmed that resort to intemperate language detracts from the respect due a judge and becomes self-destructive, eroding public confidence in the judiciary.

• Prohibition against self-promotion and vainglory — Under Canon 2, Rule 2.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, judges are forbidden from seeking publicity for personal vainglory. Publicizing non-judicial academic titles in an official order is an act of vanity that suggests insecurity and diminishes the dignity of the court. Judges must not use the courtroom as a platform for announcing their qualifications.

• Idiosyncratic and spectacular conduct prohibited — Justice should not be bounded by the individual idiosyncrasies of those who administer it. A judge must adopt the usual and expected method of doing justice and not seek to be extreme, peculiar, spectacular, or sensational in the conduct of the court. The judge’s order, with its provocative language and sexual imputations, exemplified the kind of spectacle the Canons proscribe.

• “Insulting and insensitive language used by Judge Dajao in the Order he issued such as ‘idiot’, ‘psychopath’, ‘big dick (penis)’, ‘sadistic’, and ‘homophobic baklita’ is a language not befitting a judge. It must be emphasized that judges are enjoined to always be temperate, patient and courteous both in conduct and language.”

• “From the standpoint of conduct and demeanor expected of members of the bench, a resort to intemperate language only detracts from the respect due them and becomes self-destructive. The judicial office circumscribes the personal conduct of a magistrate and imposes a number of restrictions. This is a price that judges have to pay for accepting and occupying their exalted positions in the administration of justice.” (citing Spouses Jacinto v. Judge Vallarta)

• “The inclusion of the titles ‘Dr.’ and ‘Ph.D’ by Judge Dajao in the questioned Order is a clear example of self-promotion and vanity and disseminates unnecessary publicity. … Judges should not use the courtroom as platform for announcing their qualifications especially to an audience of lawyers and litigants who very well might interpret such publicity as a sign of insecurity.” (citing Office of the Court Administrator v. Floro, Jr.)

• “Justice should not be bounded by the individual idiosyncrasies of those who administer it. A judge should adopt the usual and expected method of doing justice, and not seek to be extreme or peculiar in his judgment, or spectacular or sensational in the conduct of his court.”

• Spouses Jacinto v. Judge Vallarta, 493 Phil. 255 (2005) — Followed; established that intemperate language from the bench detracts from respect and becomes self-destructive, serving as the foundational precedent for the ruling on vulgar and unbecoming conduct.

• Office of the Court Administrator v. Floro, Jr., 520 Phil. 591 (2006) — Followed; applied the rule that judges must not use the courtroom as a platform for self-promotion and that publicizing academic titles signals insecurity, eroding public confidence.

• Uy v. Javellana, 694 Phil. 159 (2012) — Cited for the principle that Canons on Integrity and Propriety proscribe judges from engaging in self-promotion and indulging vanity and pride.

• De La Cruz v. Carretas, 559 Phil. 5 (2007) — Cited for the standard of judicial temperament: a judge should possess the virtue of gravitas, be dignified in demeanor, refined in speech, and virtuous in character.

• In the Matter of the Alleged Improper Conduct of Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Anacleto D. Badoy, Jr., 443 Phil. 296 (2003) — Cited for the maxim that justice should not be bounded by individual idiosyncrasies and that judges should not seek to be spectacular or sensational.

• Sections 1 and 2, Canon 4, New Code of Judicial Conduct (A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC) — Mandate that judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities and conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the dignity of the judicial office. Applied to condemn the intemperate and vulgar language in the Order as conduct unbefitting a judge.

• Canon 2, Rule 2.02, Code of Judicial Conduct — Provides that a judge should not seek publicity for personal vainglory. Applied to the judge’s use of “Dr.” and “Ph.D” in the official order, which was held to be self-promotion and vanity.

• Section 10(1), Rule 140, Revised Rules of Court — Classifies vulgar and unbecoming conduct as a light charge. Used to determine the proper classification of the offense.

• Section 11(C)(1), Rule 140, Revised Rules of Court — Prescribes a fine of not less than ₱1,000 but not exceeding ₱10,000 for light charges. Applied as the basis for imposing the ₱5,000 fine.

Perlas-Bernabe, J. (Chairperson); A. Reyes, Jr., J.; Hernando, J.; and Inting, J., concurred.