City Government of Tagbilaran vs. Hontanosas

A judge may not be compelled by a superior court to inhibit from a case where the grounds for mandatory inhibition under Rule 137 of the Rules of Court are absent, as inhibition in such instances is discretionary and not subject to external compulsion; however, judges are strictly prohibited from gambling or being present in casinos under Circular No. 4 and Section 5(3-b) of PD 1067-B, and from engaging in any conduct that creates the appearance of impropriety under the Canons of Judicial Ethics, regardless of whether the gambling activity is licensed or legal.

The City Government of Tagbilaran filed two criminal cases against Barbara Ong for alleged habitual refusal to pay the correct amount of amusement taxes. When Judge Hontanosas refused the City's request to voluntarily inhibit himself from these cases, the City filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court to compel his inhibition, resulting in an order advising the judge to remand the cases to another branch.

• The City Government of Tagbilaran filed two criminal cases (Nos. 7142 and 7143) against Barbara Ong, wife of a prominent businessman, for habitual refusal to pay the correct amount of amusement taxes.
• When Judge Hontanosas refused to inhibit himself from these cases, the City filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagbilaran to compel his inhibition.
• RTC Branch I issued an Order advising Judge Hontanosas to remand the cases to the Clerk of Court for assignment to Branch 2, MTCC, but did not categorically direct him to relinquish the cases, using the language "it is the opinion of this court" and "respondent judge is advised."
• Instead of complying with the advisory order, Judge Hontanosas allegedly forced the Fiscal to rest the case before the prosecution could cross-examine defense witnesses, then rendered a judgment of acquittal in favor of Barbara Ong and her co-accused.
• Complainant alleged that Judge Hontanosas habitually traveled to Cebu 3 to 4 times a week via afternoon fast boat, spent whole nights in casinos, and returned on early morning trips to Tagbilaran arriving at 6:00 or 7:00 a.m.
• Complainant also alleged that every Sunday and during Derby cockfights, Judge Hontanosas was seen in cockpits in Tagbilaran and nearby towns placing bets.
• Respondent admitted going to cockpits during Sundays and holidays and gambling "a little" on these occasions.
• Respondent denied gambling in casinos but admitted going to Nivel Hills Casino in Cebu to accompany his wife who wanted recreation playing slot machines.
• Atty. Victor De la Serna signed the complaint as Special Counsel and verified it with City Administrator Arcadio Sarmiento, but no Sangguniang Panglungsod resolution existed creating the office of Special Counsel, and the Tagbilaran City Charter designates the City Prosecutor as the City's representative in court cases.
• After filing the complaint, Atty. De la Serna and Mr. Sarmiento manifested they were no longer interested in pursuing the case, effectively withdrawing the complaint without formal authorization from the City Government.

• Complainant charged that Judge Hontanosas committed open, premeditated, and willful defiance of a lawful order by refusing to inhibit himself from the criminal cases against Barbara Ong despite the RTC order directing him to do so.
• Complainant alleged that the judge's conduct in forcing the fiscal to rest the case and rendering acquittal demonstrated corruption, implying that "millions of reasons" motivated his conduct and suggesting that lifting the Bank Secrecy Law would reveal the exact number of reasons.
• Complainant asserted that the judge engaged in open, notorious, and habitual gambling in Cebu casinos and Bohol cockpits, damaging public perception of the judiciary and suggesting that decisions could be bought for as little as P500 to P5,000.
• Complainant prayed for respondent's suspension pending investigation, and ultimately for his removal from office and striking from the roll of attorneys.

• Respondent argued that the RTC order was unlawful for lack of due notice and hearing and failure to implead real parties-in-interest.
• Respondent contended that the order merely advised inhibition and did not categorically impose a duty to comply, describing it as an obiter dictum rather than a lawful order requiring obedience.
• Respondent maintained that the petition for certiorari filed with the RTC was a prohibited pleading under Section 19(g) of the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, rendering the RTC without jurisdiction to issue the order.
• Respondent denied gambling in casinos, claiming he only accompanied his wife to Nivel Hills Casino for recreation and to watch her play slot machines without gambling himself.
• Respondent admitted going to cockpits during Sundays and holidays but claimed he only gambled "a little."
• Respondent raised affirmative defenses that the complaint was filed out of vengeance by Atty. De la Serna due to an unfavorable verdict in the criminal cases, and that De la Serna lacked legal authority to represent the City as Special Counsel since no ordinance created such office and the City Charter designates the City Prosecutor as the City's legal representative.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the Supreme Court should dismiss the administrative complaint due to the complainant's withdrawal or desistance from pursuing the case.
  • Whether Atty. De la Serna had legal authority to file the complaint as Special Counsel for the City Government and whether he could properly withdraw the complaint without the complainant's consent.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether Judge Hontanosas committed open defiance of a lawful order by refusing to inhibit himself from the criminal cases against Barbara Ong.
  • Whether Judge Hontanosas violated Circular No. 4, PD 1067-B, and the Canons of Judicial Ethics by gambling in or being present in casinos and cockpits.

• Procedural:
  • The Court held that administrative complaints against members of the Bench are not dismissed merely because of the withdrawal of charges or desistance of the complainant, as the Court's disciplinary power is exercised to protect the integrity of the judiciary and public interest, not merely to gratify the complainant.
  • The Court found that Atty. De la Serna lacked legal authority to represent the City Government as Special Counsel because no Sangguniang Panglungsod resolution created such office, and the City Charter designates the City Prosecutor as the City's representative in all civil and criminal actions.
  • The Court noted that Atty. De la Serna and the City Administrator effectively withdrew the complaint without the consent of the complainant City Government, and required Atty. De la Serna to show cause why he should not be disciplined for misconduct or violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Substantive:
  • Defiance Charge: The Court dismissed the charge of open defiance, agreeing with the Court Administrator that the RTC order was not a "lawful order" that the judge was duty-bound to obey. The Court ruled that: (1) inhibition was not mandatory under Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court as none of the grounds for mandatory inhibition existed; (2) the RTC could not interfere with the judge's discretionary power to determine whether just or valid reasons existed for voluntary inhibition; (3) the motion for inhibition failed to cite any specific basis for questioning the judge's impartiality; (4) the RTC lacked jurisdiction over the petition for certiorari as it was a prohibited pleading under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure; and (5) the RTC order merely "advised" inhibition and did not categorically direct compliance, constituting at most an obiter dictum.
  • Gambling Charge: The Court found Judge Hontanosas guilty of violating Circular No. 4 dated 27 August 1980, Section 5(3-b) of PD No. 1067-B, and Paragraphs 3 and 22 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. The Court rejected his defense that he merely accompanied his wife to the casino, finding it incredible that he would travel to Cebu and spend time merely watching his wife play slot machines, which are gambling devices requiring bets to operate. The Court held that even if he did not gamble, his mere presence in the casino violated the prohibition. Regarding cockfighting, the Court held that even if licensed and conducted on authorized days, a judge's presence and betting in cockpits violates the Canon requiring avoidance of appearance of impropriety and demeans the judiciary. Under Amended Rule 140, the Court imposed a fine of P12,000 and issued a stern warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.

• Discretionary vs. Mandatory Inhibition — Under Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, judges must inhibit themselves in specific instances involving personal relations or previous connections to the case (mandatory), but may inhibit themselves for just or valid reasons not enumerated (discretionary). Superior courts cannot compel a judge to exercise this discretion in a particular way or interfere with this discretionary function.
• Prohibited Pleadings under Summary Procedure — Section 19(g) of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure prohibits petitions for certiorari against interlocutory orders in cases covered by summary procedure, rendering courts without jurisdiction to entertain such petitions and any orders issued therein void.
• Appearance of Impropriety — Paragraph 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics requires that a judge's official conduct and personal behavior be free from the appearance of impropriety, extending beyond the bench to everyday life. This doctrine prohibits judges from engaging in conduct that might undermine public confidence in the judiciary, even if technically legal or licensed.
• Nature of Administrative Disciplinary Proceedings — Administrative complaints against judges are not purely private matters that may be withdrawn at the complainant's pleasure; they are sui generis and involve the Court's disciplinary power to protect public interest and judicial integrity.

• "This is not IGNORANCE OF THE LAW. This is an open, premeditated and willful DEFIANCE OF THE LAW and all the accepted norms of judicial conduct." — Complainant's characterization of the judge's refusal to inhibit.
• "Slot machines are not placed in casinos for recreational purposes, but for gambling. A slot machine does not work unless a coin, which is the bet, is inserted into it." — The Court's rejection of the judge's defense regarding casino presence.
• "It is fair and reasonable to conclude that respondent also gambled in the casino." — Court's finding on the casino allegations.
• "Verily, it is plainly despicable to see a judge inside a cockpit and more so, to see him bet therein. Mixing with the crowd of cockfighting enthusiasts and bettors is unbecoming a judge and undoubtedly impairs the respect due him." — The Court on judicial gambling in cockpits.
• "Most often, the public mind does not separate the judge from the Judiciary. In short, any demeaning act of a judge or court personnel demeans the institution he represents." — Principle on judicial dignity and institutional integrity.
• "The Court does not, as a matter of course, dismiss administrative complaints against members of the Bench on account of the withdrawal of the charges or desistance of the complainant from prosecuting the complaint; otherwise its disciplinary power may be put to naught, thereby undermining the trust character of a public office and impairing the integrity and dignity of the Court as a disciplining authority." — On the nature of administrative disciplinary proceedings.

• Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court — Distinguishes between mandatory and discretionary grounds for judicial inhibition; cited to establish that the RTC could not compel the judge to inhibit where no mandatory grounds existed.
• Section 19(g) of the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure — Prohibits petitions for certiorari against interlocutory orders in cases covered by summary procedure; cited to establish RTC's lack of jurisdiction over the petition for inhibition.
• Circular No. 4 dated 27 August 1980 — Enjoins judges of inferior courts from playing in or being present in gambling casinos; issued pursuant to the Resolution in Administrative Matter No. 1544-0 dated 21 August 1980.
• Section 5(3-b) of Presidential Decree No. 1067-B — Prohibits government officials connected directly with government operation from playing in casinos; cited as statutory basis for Circular No. 4.
• Paragraph 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics — Requires judges to avoid the appearance of impropriety in both official conduct and personal behavior; cited as basis for prohibiting presence in casinos and cockpits.
• Paragraph 22 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics — Requires judges to avoid the slightest infraction of law to prevent demoralizing example to others; cited regarding the judge's gambling activities.
• Amended Rule 140 of the Rules of Court — Classifies violations of circulars as less serious charges and gambling in public as light charges; cited to determine the appropriate penalty of P12,000 fine.