Mane vs. Belen

A judge who engages in intemperate language, makes sarcastic and humiliating remarks about counsel's alma mater, and indulges in unnecessary lecturing and debating during court proceedings violates Canon 3, Rule 3.04 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and is guilty of conduct unbecoming of a judge.

The case arose from Civil Case No. 3514-2003-C entitled "Rural Bank of Cabuyao, Inc. v. Samuel Malabanan, et al." pending before the Regional Trial Court of Calamba City, Branch 36, where Atty. Melvin D.C. Mane appeared as counsel for the plaintiff. Prior to the incident complained of, Atty. Mane had filed an "Urgent Motion to Inhibit" on December 15, 2005, and a motion to direct the stenographer to furnish him with a copy of the tape recording of proceedings on April 24, 2006, which the respondent judge interpreted as indirect accusations of corruption and unethical conduct.

• On February 27, 2006, during the hearing of Civil Case No. 3514-2003-C, respondent Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen engaged in a humiliating exchange with complainant Atty. Melvin D.C. Mane, counsel for the plaintiff.
• When Atty. Mane appeared before the court, the judge asked if he was from the University of the Philippines College of Law; upon learning that Atty. Mane graduated from Manuel L. Quezon University (MLQU), the judge remarked, "Then you're not from UP. Then you cannot equate yourself to me because there is a saying and I know this, not all law students are created equal, not all law schools are created equal..."
• The judge engaged in extensive lecturing and debating with Atty. Mane regarding legal principles such as stare decisis, fair market value, and the three-day notice rule, displaying his knowledge and threatening to hale Atty. Mane to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for contempt.
• The judge boasted about his personal assets, his wife's position as CEO of a multi-national company, and his integrity, stating that his only treasure was his name and integrity, and challenged anyone to file a case against him for graft and corruption.
• The judge showed Atty. Mane his statement of assets and liabilities to prove he was not corrupt, stating he had stock holdings in the U.S. and that his wife's salary was triple or quadruple his own.
• The judge compared Atty. Mane unfavorably to older practitioners, stating "Kita po ninyo, iyan po ang matatandang abogado" (You see, those are the old lawyers), implying that younger lawyers like Atty. Mane lacked the decorum of senior counsel, and remarked that if you "act like a duck, walk like a duck, quack like a duck, you are a duck."
• Prior to the hearing, Atty. Mane had filed an "Urgent Motion to Inhibit" on December 15, 2005, which the judge interpreted as implying he was incompetent or corrupt, and a motion to direct the stenographer to furnish a copy of the tape recording, which the judge interpreted as implying the court was illegally editing transcripts.
• The judge ordered Atty. Mane to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt via orders dated June 5, 2006, based on these prior motions.

• Atty. Mane charged that respondent judge demeaned, humiliated, and berated him during the February 27, 2006 hearing through insulting remarks regarding his law school and competence.
• He argued that the judge's conduct constituted a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and was unbecoming of a judge.
• He noted that despite his motion for the stenographer to furnish a copy of the tape recording of the proceedings, the judge failed to act on it, suggesting an attempt to conceal the misconduct.

• Judge Belen claimed that Atty. Mane's "Urgent Motion to Inhibit" was malicious and constituted a direct assault on his integrity and dignity as it implied he issued orders for considerations other than the merits.
• He argued that the motion for the tape recording implied that the court was illegally, unethically, and unlawfully engaged in editing transcripts to favor a party litigant.
• He contended that he could not simply sit idly while his honor and integrity were being assaulted, and that his actions were justified responses to the offensive motions filed by complainant.
• He maintained that he was merely defending his integrity against unwarranted attacks by counsel.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the withdrawal of the administrative complaint by complainant bars the continuation of the administrative proceeding against the respondent judge.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the statements and actions made by the respondent judge during the February 27, 2006 hearing constitute conduct unbecoming of a judge and a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

• Procedural:
  • The Supreme Court held that the withdrawal or desistance of a complainant from pursuing an administrative complaint does not divest the Court of its disciplinary authority over court officials and personnel.
  • Administrative cases are not merely private matters between the complainant and the respondent judge, but concern the public interest and the proper administration of justice; thus, the complainant's withdrawal does not bar the continuity of the administrative proceeding.
• Substantive:
  • The Court found that respondent judge's insulting statements questioning complainant's capability and credibility based on the latter not graduating from UP Law were unwarranted and inexcusable.
  • The Court held that a judge must at all times be temperate in language, patient, and courteous both in conduct and language; engaging in intemperate language, unnecessary lecturing, debating, and sarcastic remarks violates Canon 3, Rule 3.04 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
  • The Court ruled that respect is not a one-way ticket where the judge should be respected but is free to insult lawyers; mutual concession of respect is required.
  • The Court found that respondent engaged in argumentum ad hominem by attacking counsel's person rather than addressing the merits of the case, and exhibited conceited arrogance falling below the standard of decorum expected of a judge.
  • Respondent was found guilty of conduct unbecoming of a judge, classified as a light charge under Section 10, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reprimand with a warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.

• Canon 3, Rule 3.04 of the Code of Judicial Conduct — Mandates that a judge should be patient, attentive, and courteous to lawyers, especially the inexperienced, and should avoid unconsciously falling into the attitude that litigants are made for the courts instead of the courts for the litigants. The Court applied this to condemn the judge's intemperate language and humiliating remarks.
• Argumentum ad hominem — A logical fallacy where an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. The Court held that the judge engaged in this fallacy by determining the fitness of counsel based on his alma mater rather than addressing the legal merits.
• Withdrawal of Administrative Complaints — The doctrine that administrative complaints against judges and court personnel are not subject to the complainant's caprice; the Court retains jurisdiction to discipline respondents for the protection of public interest and the integrity of the judiciary, regardless of the complainant's desistance.

• "Then you're not from UP. Then you cannot equate yourself to me because there is a saying and I know this, not all law students are created equal, not all law schools are created equal..." — The judge's remarks during the hearing that formed the basis of the complaint for humiliating counsel based on his law school.
• "Respect is not a one-way ticket where the judge should be respected but free to insult lawyers and others who appear in his court." — The Court's observation on the mutual nature of respect required between bench and bar.
• "If a judge desires not to be insulted, he should start using temperate language himself; he who sows the wind will reap a storm." — The Court's warning regarding the consequences of judicial intemperance.
• "An alumnus of a particular law school has no monopoly of knowledge of the law." — The Court's rejection of elitism in the legal profession and affirmation that competence is not determined by alma mater.

• Re: Anonymous Complaint dated Feb. 18, 2005 of a "Court Personnel" against Judge Francisco C. Gedorio, Jr., RTC, Br. 12, Ormoc City, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1955, May 25, 2007, 523 SCRA 175 — Cited for the principle that judges ought to conduct themselves in a manner befitting gentlemen and high officers of the court even when faced with boorish behavior from those they deal with.
• Bravo v. Morales, A.M. No. P-05-1950, August 30, 2006, 500 SCRA 154 — Cited in conjunction with the Gedorio case for the same principle regarding judicial decorum and proper conduct.

• Rule 3.04, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct — Requires judges to be patient, attentive, and courteous to lawyers and litigants, and to avoid the attitude that litigants are made for the courts rather than courts for the litigants.
• Section 10, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court — Classifies conduct unbecoming of a judge as a light charge.
• Section 11(c), Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court — Prescribes the penalties for light charges including fine, censure, reprimand, and admonition with warning.