Capuno vs. Jaramillo, Jr.

A judge commits grave misconduct and a corrupt practice warranting dismissal when he demands money from a party-litigant under the guise of mediating the case and accepts and uses a vehicle in custodia legis for personal benefit, in violation of Canons 1 and 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Sec. 7(d), R.A. No. 6713. Absence of notice for the appointment of a special administrator does not itself warrant administrative liability where the party was heard on a motion for reconsideration.

Respondent Ausberto B. Jaramillo, Jr. was the Presiding Judge of Branch 30, Regional Trial Court, San Pablo City. Complainants Rizalia Capuno and Thelma Villanueva were mother and daughter involved in a land dispute with Pedro Calara, Jr.; complainant Celia E. Pampolina was President of PSM Development Corporation and executrix of the estate of Pastor S. Marino. The administrative cases implicated the standards of conduct for judges under the Code of Judicial Conduct and the ethical standards for public officials under R.A. No. 6713.

In A.M. No. RTJ-93-944, Rizalia Capuno borrowed P15,000 in 1987 from Pedro Calara, Jr., secured by a mortgage over an 85-square-meter property originally covered by Tax Declaration No. 34-1260. Despite partial payments, the property was extrajudicially foreclosed on August 21, 1990; respondent Judge Ausberto B. Jaramillo, Jr. issued the certificate of sale on the same date, and it was registered on October 12, 1990, with Calara as buyer for P47,021. An affidavit of consolidation of ownership and deed of sale were registered on December 9, 1991, cancelling Tax Declaration No. 541260 and issuing Tax Declaration No. 34-2753 in Calara's name. Calara filed a petition for a writ of possession on February 24, 1992, which was assigned to respondent's branch; on May 15, 1992, respondent granted the petition, and the writ was implemented by Sheriff Aranguren.

According to complainants, after the writ was issued, Sheriff Leonardo Ho went to Rizalia's house and told her respondent wanted to see her. Rizalia, with Thelma and Gregorio Capistrano, met respondent in his chambers around 10:00 a.m.; respondent allegedly told them that if Rizalia did not want to be evicted, they should give P200,000 in cash, preferably in P100 bills, and a P150,000 postdated check for 30 days. When Thelma said they could not afford it, respondent asked her to find the amount and return within two days. When Thelma and Gregorio returned, respondent allegedly reduced the cash to P150,000 plus a P150,000 postdated check for 60 days, to be delivered by 2:00 p.m. that day, and warned them not to talk to anybody. Because they failed to comply, Rizalia was evicted and her house demolished. Gregorio corroborated Thelma's testimony.

Respondent denied the demand. He testified that he tried to mediate at the request of Deputy Sheriff Leonardo Ho to help the parties settle the purchase price, and that Thelma voluntarily offered to pay P200,000 in cash and P150,000 in postdated checks. The investigating justice found a color of truth in the complaint and deemed the allegation credible. The Court noted that the mediation was initiated by respondent's sheriffs, not by the parties or their lawyers; the meetings were unrecorded and unattended by counsel; respondent intended to see the parties alone; and the meetings were always with complainants, with Pedro Calara, Jr. never participating. The sheriffs' statements about Calara's presence conflicted with respondent's testimony. Respondent had also been informed by Sheriff Aranguren and his wife, and by utility worker Concepcion L. Aranguren, that Thelma had money coming from her sister in America, making a demand for money not farfetched. The Court concluded that meeting complainants without counsel, warning them not to tell anyone, and demanding money under the guise of forging peace constituted grave misconduct.

In A.M. No. RTJ-93-959, complainant Celia E. Pampolina, President of PSM Development Corporation and executrix of the will of Pastor S. Marino, alleged that on April 6, 1992, respondent dismissed Sp. Proc. No. 849(92), the guardianship proceeding over Pastor S. Marino, for lack of merit. During that proceeding, respondent ordered Jesus Azores, Pastor's nephew, to surrender a Mitsubishi Galant Super Saloon to the court. After the car was surrendered, respondent requested complainant and the PSM Board to issue a resolution allowing him to use the car on weekends and as he pleased; the corporation appropriated P10,000 for its reconditioning, adjustment, and tune-up. Respondent had custody of the car from April 1992 to May 5, 1993. Complainant further alleged that he demanded and received food, money, and jewelries from her and Pastor Marino; requested help in securing an exemption from the election gun ban; used the alias "E. Pilapil" in calls; and extorted money.

After Pastor Marino's death, complainant filed a petition for probate of his will, Sp. Proc. No. 859(92), which was raffled to respondent. One issue was the testator's mental capacity, which respondent had already passed upon in the guardianship case. During the probate proceedings, respondent called the parties to a conference at Roño's Place, a public restaurant in San Pablo City, from 8:00 p.m. to midnight, to discuss a possible settlement; shares and properties were discussed except the car, which respondent omitted from the list he prepared. Despite complainant being named executrix, respondent appointed Rosevelinda Calingasan and Antonio Azcarate as joint special administrators without notice and hearing; complainant's motion for reconsideration was denied. Respondent later ordered complainant to produce stock certificates, corporate books, and other papers; her motion for reconsideration was denied. The joint administrators moved to cite her in contempt. Complainant moved for respondent's inhibition; respondent threatened to cite her in contempt for stating that he had custody, possession, and enjoyment of the car, and set the contempt hearing for January 29, 1993, prompting complainant to file a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.

Respondent answered that the car was in the possession of the court; he drove it only on a few occasions to inflate the tires or recharge the battery; the corporation paid P10,000 for minor repairs; and he never demanded money, food, or valuables. He claimed the alias "E. Pilapil" was used to be discreet in seeking names of persons who could help him obtain a gun ban exemption, that he got the exemption on his own efforts, and that complainant also used the alias. He maintained that his probate orders were just and proper and that the pre-trial conference was held at Roño's Place because the parties selected it. The investigating officer found most probate issues sub judice, recommended dismissal of the unjust-order and bribery/anti-graft charges, but found respondent guilty of using the car in custodia legis and of appointing special administrators without notice. The Court declined to hold him liable for the appointment order because the Court of Appeals had dismissed the certiorari petition but granted inhibition, and complainant had been heard on her motion for reconsideration; what the law prohibits is absolute absence of notice and lack of opportunity to be heard. The Court nevertheless found him accountable for violating Canons 1 and 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and committing a corrupt practice under Sec. 7(d), R.A. No. 6713, for accepting and using the car for over a year, omitting it from the estate list, supervising its maintenance, and availing of free battery recharging. It dismissed him from service.

• Grave Misconduct in A.M. No. RTJ-93-944: Complainants Rizalia Capuno and Thelma Villanueva alleged that respondent demanded P200,000 in cash and a P150,000 postdated check, later reduced to P150,000 cash and a P150,000 postdated check, in exchange for not evicting Rizalia, under the guise of settling with Pedro Calara, Jr.; that the meetings were held without counsel and with an instruction not to tell anyone.
• Corrupt Practices and Violations in A.M. No. RTJ-93-959: Complainant Celia E. Pampolina alleged that respondent requested and used the Mitsubishi Galant Super Saloon in custodia legis, accepted P10,000 for repairs, demanded and received food, money, and jewelries, sought favors for a gun ban exemption, used the alias "E. Pilapil," omitted the car from the estate list, appointed special administrators without notice and hearing, and issued adverse orders.
• Statutory Violations: The A.M. No. RTJ-93-959 complaint sought disciplinary action or dismissal for violation of Sec. 3, pars. (b), (c), and (j) of R.A. No. 3019; Sec. 7, pars. (a) and (d) of R.A. No. 6713; and Arts. 206 and 210 of the Revised Penal Code.

• Denial of Money Demand: Respondent denied demanding money; he claimed he mediated at the request of Deputy Sheriff Leonardo Ho and that Thelma Villanueva voluntarily offered to pay P200,000 in cash and P150,000 in postdated checks.
• Use of the Car: Respondent claimed the car was in the possession of the court; he drove it only to inflate the tires or recharge the battery; the corporation paid P10,000 for minor repairs; and he never demanded money, food, or valuables.
• Alias and Gun Ban Exemption: Respondent claimed the alias "E. Pilapil" was used to be discreet in seeking names of persons who could help him secure a gun ban exemption; he never called to extort money, obtained the exemption on his own efforts, and complainant also used the alias.
• Probate Orders and Conference Venue: Respondent contended that his orders in the probate proceedings were just and properly issued without bias, and that he set the pre-trial conference at Roño's Place because it was the site selected by the parties.

• Grave Misconduct — Demand for Money: Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for grave misconduct for demanding money from complainants under the guise of mediating their case, meeting them without counsel, and warning them not to tell anyone.
• Corrupt Practice — Use of Vehicle in Custodia Legis: Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for corrupt practice under Sec. 7(d), R.A. No. 6713, and for violating Canons 1 and 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct for accepting and using the Mitsubishi Galant Super Saloon in custodia legis and omitting it from the estate's property list.
• Appointment of Special Administrators: Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for issuing an order appointing joint special administrators without notice and hearing.
• Penalty: Whether the proper penalty is dismissal from service with forfeiture of benefits.

• Grave Misconduct — Demand for Money: Yes. The act of meeting complainants without counsel, warning them not to tell anyone, and demanding money under the guise of forging peace constitutes grave misconduct.
• Corrupt Practice — Use of Vehicle in Custodia Legis: Yes. Free use of the car during and after the pendency of the guardianship proceedings for over a year, and acceptance of the favor, constituted a corrupt practice under Sec. 7(d), R.A. No. 6713, and violated Canons 1 and 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
• Appointment of Special Administrators: No. Respondent cannot be administratively liable for issuing the order appointing special administrators because complainant was heard on her motion for reconsideration; the law prohibits absolute absence of notice and lack of opportunity to be heard.
• Penalty: Dismissal. Gross misconduct and the violations found warrant dismissal from service with prejudice to reinstatement or appointment to any public office, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and immediate execution.

• Grave Misconduct — Demand for Money: The investigating justice found respondent guilty and recommended suspension for one month without pay, but the Court found the penalty too light. The active mediation in Sp. Proc. No. 852 was highly questionable because it was initiated not by the parties or their lawyers but by respondent's sheriffs; the meetings were unrecorded and unattended by counsel; and respondent intended to see the parties alone. Unless conducting a pre-trial under Rules 20 and 118, a judge's role is to decide contentious cases with finality, and in the absence of lawyers a judge ought not to meddle in issues confronting the parties even on the pretext of settling their cases. The meetings were always with complainants, and Pedro Calara, Jr. never participated; the sheriffs' statements about Calara's presence conflicted with respondent's testimony. The amount of P350,000 was admittedly the subject of conversation, and respondent had been informed by Sheriff Aranguren and his wife, and by utility worker Concepcion L. Aranguren, that Thelma had money coming from her sister in America, making a demand for money not farfetched. The act of meeting complainants without counsel, warning them not to tell anyone, and demanding money under the guise of forging peace constituted grave misconduct and diminished faith in the administration of justice.
• Corrupt Practice — Use of Vehicle in Custodia Legis: The records established that during the guardianship proceedings, respondent took advantage of the authority granted by complainant and the PSM Board to use the Mitsubishi Galant Super Saloon on weekends or as he pleased. This alone raised valid speculations about his objectivity, yet he did nothing to apprise complainant and the Board about the impropriety of accepting the favor, nor did he require them to withdraw the authority. His free use of the car during and after the pendency of the guardianship proceedings for over a year constituted a corrupt practice under Sec. 7(d), R.A. No. 6713, i.e., acceptance by a public officer of a favor from any person in the course of his official duty. He exhibited personal interest in the vehicle and accepted the offer to use it; by his own admission, he drove it several times. In the conference at Roño's Place, he purposely omitted the car from the list of properties belonging to the estate, and he personally supervised its maintenance beyond what his office required, charging expenses to the P10,000 appropriated by the Board. He also availed of the battery recharging service of Cortes Battery Shop free of charge. These serious transgressions defiled the public trust character of the judicial office and demonstrated his inability to keep up with the conduct required of judges.
• Appointment of Special Administrators: The Court did not fully subscribe to the investigating officer's recommendation. Respondent cannot be made administratively liable for issuing the order appointing the special administrators. On July 13, 1993, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision dismissing complainant's petition for certiorari but granting her plea for inhibition of respondent from hearing the probate case. While there was no notice of the hearing for the appointment of the special administrators, complainant was nevertheless heard on her motion for reconsideration of the appointment; what the law prohibits is not the absence of notice but absolute absence thereof and lack of opportunity to be heard.
• Penalty: Respondent's gross misconduct and violations of Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct in A.M. No. RTJ-93-944, and of Sec. 7(d), R.A. No. 6713, and Canons 1 and 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct in A.M. No. RTJ-93-959, warranted dismissal. The Court cited prior cases in which judges were dismissed for soliciting contributions from litigants and visitors, for accepting free repairs and seat covers from a litigant, and for accepting free bus rides. Integrity in judicial office is a necessity, and there is no place in the judiciary for those who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity.

• Grave Misconduct in Judicial Office — A judge commits grave misconduct when he demands money from a party-litigant under the guise of mediating or settling a case, meets the party without counsel, and warns the party not to tell anyone. The Court applied this doctrine to respondent's conduct in A.M. No. RTJ-93-944, finding that his actions diminished faith in the administration of justice and warranted a penalty more severe than the one-month suspension recommended by the investigating justice.
• Corrupt Practice under Sec. 7(d), R.A. No. 6713 — A public officer commits a corrupt practice when he accepts a favor from any person in the course of his official duty. The Court applied this provision to respondent's acceptance and free use of the Mitsubishi Galant Super Saloon while it was in custodia legis, for over a year during and after the guardianship proceedings, and to his omission of the vehicle from the estate's property list.
• Appearance of Impropriety and Canons 1 and 2, Code of Judicial Conduct — Judges must avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all their activities, and their official conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety. The Court found respondent violated these canons through his in-chambers meetings with complainants without counsel, the pre-trial conference at a public restaurant, his use of the vehicle in custodia legis, his use of an alias, and his acceptance of free battery recharging services.
• Limits on Judicial Mediation — Unless a judge is conducting a pre-trial under Rules 20 and 118, his role in the administration of justice is to decide contentious cases with finality; in the absence of lawyers, a judge ought not to meddle in issues confronting the parties even on the pretext of settling their cases. The Court applied this doctrine to condemn respondent's active mediation of the dispute between complainants and Pedro Calara, Jr.
• Notice and Hearing in Appointment of Special Administrator — What the law prohibits is not the absence of notice but absolute absence thereof and lack of opportunity to be heard. The Court applied this doctrine to hold respondent not administratively liable for appointing special administrators without notice, because complainant was heard on her motion for reconsideration.
• Public Office is a Public Trust — Judicial office demands that the incumbent conduct himself in a manner that merits the respect, reverence, and confidence of the people. The Court applied this principle to conclude that respondent's acceptance of the Galant Super Saloon for personal use and convenience, and his evident personal interest in it, defiled the public trust character of the judicial office.

• "The active mediation of respondent judge in Sp. Proc. No. 852 allegedly to settle the differences between complainants and Pedro Calara, Jr., was highly questionable." — This passage states the Court's starting point for finding grave misconduct in A.M. No. RTJ-93-944, emphasizing that the mediation was not a legitimate judicial function under the circumstances.
• "Unless a judge is conducting a pre-trial under Rules 20 and 118, his role in the administration of justice is to decide contentious cases with finality. In the absence of their lawyers, a judge ought not to meddle in issues confronting the parties even on the pretext of settling their cases." — This excerpt defines the limits of judicial mediation and is the ratio for holding that respondent's meetings with complainants without counsel were improper.
• "Undeniably, his free use of the car during and after the pendency of the guardianship proceedings for over a year constituted a corrupt practice under Sec 7, par. (d), of R.A. 6713, i.e., acceptance by a public officer of a favor from any person in the course of his official duty." — This passage is the Court's canonical application of Sec. 7(d), R.A. No. 6713, to a judge's use of property in custodia legis.
• "We have repeatedly held that there is no place in the judiciary for those who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity." — This excerpt states the Court's justification for the penalty of dismissal and is frequently cited in judicial ethics cases.

• Office of the Court Administrator vs. Gaticales, 208 SCRA 508 — Cited in the investigating justice's report for the rule that a judge's demand for money from a party-litigant before his court constitutes serious misconduct in office; the Court agreed with the finding of guilt.
• Benito B. Nate vs. Hon. Enrique A. Agana, Sr., et al., 91 SCRA 1 — Cited in the investigation of A.M. No. RTJ-93-959 for the rule that it is misconduct for a judge to use a car levied in execution by virtue of an order issued by him; the investigator noted the judge there was censured and admonished.
• Arcenio vs. Pagorogon, A.M. MTJ-89-270; Office of the Court Administrator vs. Pagorogon, A.M. No. MTJ-92-637 — Cited for the removal of a judge with manifest interest in a vehicle in custodia legis by spending for its repairs and thereafter using it for personal benefit and convenience.
• Ompoc vs. Torres, A.M. No. MTJ-86-111, 178 SCRA 14 — Cited for the dismissal of a judge who had the seats of his van repaired and received new seat covers free from a litigant.
• Felongco vs. Dictado, et al., A.M. No. RTJ-86-50, etc. — Cited for the termination of a judge who accepted the benefit of riding regularly in Sarkies Tour Buses free of charge.
• Garciano vs. Sebastian, et al., A.M. No. MTJ-88-160, etc. — Cited for the dismissal of a judge who established a common fund purportedly for his low-income employees and solicited contributions from litigants and visitors.
• Vistan vs. Nicolas, A.M. No. MTJ-87-79 and A.C. No. 3040, 201 SCRA 524 — Cited for the rule that there is no place in the judiciary for those who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity.
• Iglesia ni Kristo vs. Judge Geronilla, July 25, 1981 — Cited by the investigating officer for the propriety of holding pre-trial conferences within the four walls of the judge's sala to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
• Enriquez vs. Araulla, in re: Horellano, 43 Phil. 212 — Cited for the rule that an administrative charge against a judge is highly penal in nature and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, otherwise the charge will be dismissed.
• Natividad Calauan Uy, et al. vs. Judge Florentino M. Alumbre — Cited for the imposition of a fine on a judge for appointing a special administrator without a hearing.

• Canon 1, Code of Judicial Conduct — Requires judges to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. Respondent violated this canon in both administrative cases, forming part of the basis for his dismissal.
• Canon 2, Code of Judicial Conduct — Requires judges to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all their activities. Respondent violated this canon through his use of the vehicle in custodia legis, his meetings with complainants without counsel, and his other improper conduct.
• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, and Rule 2.01, Canon 2, Code of Judicial Conduct — Cited for the requirement that judges conduct themselves in a manner that enhances respect and confidence in the judicial system and avoid the appearance of impropriety.
• Sec. 7, par. (d), R.A. No. 6713 — Prohibits a public officer from accepting a favor from any person in the course of his official duty. The Court found respondent violated this provision by accepting and using the Mitsubishi Galant Super Saloon in custodia legis for over a year.
• Sec. 3, pars. (b), (c), and (j), R.A. No. 3019; Sec. 7, pars. (a) and (d), R.A. No. 6713; Arts. 206 and 210, Revised Penal Code — These provisions were invoked in A.M. No. RTJ-93-959. The Court's dismissal rested on Sec. 7(d), R.A. No. 6713, and Canons 1 and 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
• Rules 20 and 118 — Cited in the ruling that a judge may conduct a pre-trial only under these rules; mediation outside that framework, especially without counsel, is improper.
• Canons of Judicial Ethics — Cited by the investigating justice for the principle that a judge's official conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety and that his personal behavior should be beyond reproach.

Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug and Kapunan, JJ., concur. Mendoza, J., took no part.