Concerned Boholanos for Law and Order vs. Calibo, Jr.

A judge who publicly airs his views on a matter of public concern as an affected consumer and citizen does not violate the Code of Judicial Conduct, as such speech falls within the protection of the constitutional right to free speech and the right to petition for redress of grievances; however, a judge commits serious misconduct when he attempts to influence the outcome of litigation pending before another court, such as by making telephone calls to the presiding judge, in violation of Canon 1, Section 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

The provincial governor of Bohol pursued a highly controversial project to sell the two major profitable assets of the province — the Provincial Electrical System (PES) and the Provincial Waterworks System (PWS) — without consulting the customers in Tagbilaran and Dauis. Residents vigorously protested over radio stations. Respondent Judge Calibo, a consumer affected by the sale and a resident of one of the towns served, initially remained silent but later studied the documents, concluded the contract was disadvantageous to the province, and joined the public opposition by speaking on air. A group of consumers filed a petition to stop the sale, which was raffled to Judge Achilles L. Melicor. Respondent subsequently made two telephone calls to Judge Melicor regarding the case. An anonymous complaint was filed against respondent, charging him with conduct unbecoming a judge for his public statements.

• The Controversial Provincial Asset Sale: The Provincial Governor of Bohol was pursuing a sale of the Provincial Electrical System (PES) and the Provincial Waterworks System (PWS), which were the major profitable ventures of the province. The sale was done without consulting the customers in Tagbilaran and Dauis. The residents of those towns vigorously protested on radio stations.
• Respondent’s Public Opposition: Respondent Judge Calibo, a consumer affected by the proposed sale and a resident of one of the towns served, initially kept silent. He had distanced himself from media since his judicial appointment. When the Governor appeared to ignore the legitimate issues raised, respondent studied the documents and concluded the contract would be very disadvantageous to the province. He joined the oppositors and went on the air over three radio stations to express his views. The concerned consumers later filed a petition to stop the sale, and respondent took the stand for the petitioners.
• The Telephone Calls to Judge Melicor: The petition for injunction was raffled to Judge Achilles L. Melicor. Respondent Judge Calibo made two telephone calls to Judge Melicor. Judge Melicor issued an order describing the acts of respondent as attempting to influence another judge who was presiding over the injunction petition. In his Comment, respondent made no mention of that order.
• Anonymous Complaint: An unsigned complaint dated August 28, 2000 was filed by “Concerned Boholanos for Law and Order,” charging respondent with conduct unbecoming a judge and a highly unethical act for publicly speaking on radio and in public fora regarding his bias and parochial views on controversial issues against public personalities and public officials. Respondent claimed the complaint was instigated by the “alter ego” of the governor because of his objection to the sale.

• Political Motivation: Respondent maintained that the complaint was initiated by the “alter ego” of the provincial governor as retaliation for his opposition to the asset sale.
• Exercise of Constitutional Rights: Respondent argued that his participation in the public debate was an exercise of his constitutional right to be heard in a petition for the redress of grievances. As a consumer and member of the body politic, it was his right, and even his duty, to air what he honestly believed to be an incipient irregularity in a public transaction.
• Good Faith and Restraint: He claimed that he had distanced himself from the media upon his appointment and only spoke out after the Governor ignored the people’s legitimate concerns, and after personally studying the documents and concluding the contract was disadvantageous to the province.

• Public Expression of Views: Whether respondent judge’s act of publicly speaking on radio and in public fora to oppose a government project, as an affected consumer and citizen, constitutes conduct unbecoming a judge.
• Influencing Pending Litigation: Whether respondent’s two telephone calls to the judge presiding over an injunction petition related to the same project constitute serious misconduct in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

• Public Expression of Views: Respondent’s radio broadcasts did not give rise to administrative liability. As a consumer and as a member of the body politic, he was exercising his constitutional right to be heard in a petition for the redress of grievances when he aired his honest belief that an irregularity was about to occur. The expression of personal opinion on a matter of public concern, without evidence that it impaired the judge’s impartiality or the dignity of the judiciary, does not per se constitute conduct unbecoming a judge.
• Influencing Pending Litigation: The two telephone calls to Judge Achilles L. Melicor clearly constituted a violation. Section 3, Canon I of the Code of Judicial Conduct expressly mandates that “Judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another court or administrative agency.” Respondent’s calls, made to the judge who was then hearing the injunction case, were a direct attempt to affect the outcome. Such misconduct falls under serious offenses under Rule 140, Section 7 of the Rules of Court. Considering that this was respondent’s first administrative charge, a fine of ₱20,000.00 — reduced from the recommended ₱25,000.00 — was imposed.

• Prohibition Against Influencing Pending Litigation — Canon 1, Section 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct categorically forbids a judge from influencing, in any manner, the outcome of litigation or a dispute pending before another court or administrative agency. A violation is classified as serious misconduct under Rule 140, Section 7 of the Rules of Court. The respondent’s telephone calls to Judge Melicor, clearly intended to affect the injunction proceeding, fell squarely within this prohibition.
• Exercise of Constitutional Rights by a Judge — A judge does not lose the constitutional right to speak on matters of public concern, especially when acting as a consumer directly affected by a government transaction. Publicly airing one’s honest opinion on an issue of public interest, in a manner consistent with the dignity and impartiality required of the judiciary, does not warrant administrative sanction. The Court adopted the hearing officer’s finding that respondent was merely exercising his right to be heard in a petition for the redress of grievances.

• “As a consumer and as a member of the body politic, it was his right, nay his duty to air what he honestly believed to be an incipient irregularity.” — This passage captured why respondent’s public advocacy did not constitute misconduct.
• “Respondent Judge cannot be held to answer administratively simply because he was only exercising his constitutional right to be heard in a petition for the redress of grievances.” — The basis for exonerating respondent’s radio broadcasts.
• “[H]is two telephone calls to Judge Achilles L. Melicor … definitely violates the Code of Judicial Conduct, particularly Section 3 of Canon I, which states that ‘Judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another court or administrative agency.’” — The precise articulation of the violation and the crux of the administrative liability.

• No judicial precedents were cited; the ruling rested on the application of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.

• Canon 1, Section 3, Code of Judicial Conduct — “Judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another court or administrative agency.” Applied to respondent’s telephone calls to Judge Melicor while the injunction case was pending.
• Rule 140, Section 7, Rules of Court — Classifies gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct as a serious offense, punishable by dismissal, suspension, or fine. Served as the basis for the imposition of the fine.

Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno (Chairperson), Associate Justice Renato C. Corona, Associate Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna, Associate Justice Cancio C. Garcia.

None.