Paga vs. Paderanga

A judge must at all times avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in both official and personal activities, and must not use or permit the use of the prestige of judicial office to advance private interests; engaging in, or condoning, physical violence against a private individual violates Canon 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and warrants administrative sanction.

Mark Anthony I. Paga, a quarantine personnel stationed at the port of Benoni, Camiguin Island, inspected mango seedlings brought by Judge Emmanuel W. Paderanga in December 2008 and asked for a permit. The judge demanded to see the law and told Paga to stand aside or he would slap his face. On 19 April 2009, Paga encountered Judge Paderanga and his two sons on a street in Mambajao, Camiguin; the sons grabbed and struck Paga while Judge Paderanga slapped him, allegedly because Paga had glared at them and failed to move aside for their motorcycle. Paga reported the incident to the police and sought medical examination, then filed an administrative complaint charging the judge with violation of Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and gross ignorance of the law.

• First Incident (December 2008): Upon arriving at the port of Benoni, Camiguin, Judge Paderanga brought ten mango seedlings. Complainant Paga, a quarantine officer at the port, approached and asked whether he had a permit. Judge Paderanga queried whether a permit was necessary, insisted on seeing the law, and, when Paga could not produce a copy, retorted, “since you cannot show me anything, then stand aside, otherwise, I will slap your face.” He then left with the seedlings.

• Second Incident (19 April 2009): At around 8:45 a.m. on Rizal Street, Poblacion, Mambajao, Camiguin, Paga was walking toward his boarding house when Judge Paderanga and his son Ethaniel Evagrio Paderanga passed on a motorcycle. Someone called “pssst”; Paga did not respond because he was new to the area. Suddenly, Judge Paderanga’s other son Mython Emmanuel Paderanga grabbed Paga from behind, took him to where the judge stood, and hit him on the right side of the neck, asking, “do you not know who my father is?” Ethaniel then beat Paga with his fists, striking him on the left side of the neck and torso, and warned, “don’t act fearless here, you are not from this place.” While his sons were assaulting Paga, Judge Paderanga slapped the left side of Paga’s face. Paga fled, called his supervisor, reported the incident to the Chief of Police of Mambajao, and was examined at Camiguin General Hospital. The Medical Certificate showed red lines on the left side of his neck.

• Physical Disparity: The Investigating Judge observed that complainant Paga was barely 5 feet 3 inches tall and of slight build, while the members of the Paderanga family were tall men ranging from 5 feet 8 inches to 5 feet 11 inches, with athletic builds.

• Judge Paderanga’s Version: Judge Paderanga denied bringing the mango seedlings; he claimed five seedlings belonged to a certain Antonino L. Cioco, and he had merely been seated in the front of the multicab. He honestly did not know about a permit requirement and only inquired whether confiscation was necessary. He insisted he never threatened to slap Paga. As to the second incident, he alleged that Paga, wearing dark sunglasses, walked toward their motorcycle and forced Ethaniel to swerve, nearly causing a fall. Mython, walking on foot, tapped Paga’s back to call him, but Paga parried the hand and assumed a fighting stance; Mython then embraced and restrained him, while Ethaniel approached and warned him against arrogance. Judge Paderanga denied slapping Paga.

• Prior Administrative Case: In A.M. No. 05-8-203 (Re: Reports on the Judicial Audit of the MCTC, Balingoan, Misamis Oriental), Judge Paderanga had been fined ₱20,000.00 on 24 August 2005 for failure to promptly resolve cases assigned to him.

• Impropriety: Paga contended that Judge Paderanga’s act of personally slapping him and of allowing his sons to maul him constituted a violation of Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and gross conduct unbecoming of a judge.

• Gross Ignorance of the Law: Paga argued that Judge Paderanga displayed gross ignorance when he questioned the performance of his functions as a quarantine officer and demanded to be shown a copy of the law before complying with port regulations.

• Denial of Threat and Role in First Incident: Judge Paderanga maintained that he did not bring the mango seedlings, that he merely inquired about the necessity of a permit, and that he never threatened to slap Paga.

• Alternative Version of Second Incident and Denial of Slapping: Judge Paderanga asserted that Paga’s negligent walking nearly caused the motorcycle to tip over, that his son Mython only tapped Paga on the back, that Paga was the initial aggressor, and that he did not slap the complainant at any point.

• Administrative Liability for Violation of Canon 4: Whether Judge Paderanga is administratively liable for violation of Sections 1, 2 and 8 of Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for his conduct during the two encounters with Paga.

• Administrative Liability for Violation of Canon 4: Judge Paderanga was found guilty of violating Sections 1, 2, and 8 of Canon 4. His threat to slap Paga during the first encounter and the actual slap he delivered during the second, as corroborated by a medical certificate and the credible testimony of the complainant, demonstrated a petty, quarrelsome, and violent demeanor irreconcilable with the dignity of a judicial officer. Even assuming the slap had not occurred, the judge’s passive acquiescence while his two sons physically assaulted Paga — grabbing his collar, hitting his neck, and boxing his torso — constituted impropriety and adversely reflected on the judiciary. Furthermore, by remaining silent while his sons flaunted his judicial status to intimidate Paga (“do you not know who my father is?”), Judge Paderanga lent the prestige of his office to advance the private interest of intimidating a private citizen, in direct contravention of Section 8, Canon 4. A judge’s official and personal lives are inseparable; the second encounter, though occurring on a Sunday, subjected the judiciary to public disrepute. Considering the respondent’s prior administrative infraction for undue delay in rendering decisions, an increased fine of ₱50,000.00 was imposed, in accordance with A.M. No. 21-03-17-SC.

• Standard of Propriety under Canon 4 — Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all their activities, both official and personal. A judge’s personal behavior must withstand the most searching public scrutiny and must be beyond reproach because the office is the visible representation of the law. In this case, the judge’s threats, physical violence, and deliberate indifference to his sons’ mauling of a private individual violated this standard, diminishing the dignity of the courts.

• Inseparability of Official and Personal Conduct — A judge’s official life cannot be separated from his or her personal existence. Misconduct outside the courtroom, especially physical violence or predatory behaviour, inevitably erodes public confidence in the judiciary. The Court accordingly rejected the argument that the altercation, having occurred on a Sunday and involving a personal quarrel, absolved the respondent from administrative liability.

• Prohibition Against Lending Judicial Prestige — Section 8 of Canon 4 explicitly forbids judges from using or lending the prestige of the judicial office to advance their private interests, or those of a family member, and from conveying or permitting the impression that anyone is in a special position to influence them. Where a judge’s sons invoked his position to instill fear in the complainant, and the judge took no corrective action, he effectively lent the prestige of his office to intimidate, dragging the judiciary into disrepute.

• “[A] judge is the visible representation of the law. In view of this sacred image, a judge’s conduct is subject to stricter and exacting standards. No position requires a greater call for moral uprightness than a seat in the Judiciary. Thus, a judge’s behavior, both official and personal, must withstand the most searching public scrutiny.”

• “A judge’s official life cannot be separated from his/her personal existence. Moreover, an exacting standard of behavior is expected since people look upon courts with a high degree of respect. A judge’s misconduct inevitably diminishes the judiciary’s dignity. Consequently, a judge is reminded to always keep his/her passion guarded. He/she must not allow it to run loose and overcome by reason.”

• “Undoubtedly, Judge Paderanga’s act of slapping a hapless man reveals his petty and quarrelsome demeanor that is unbecoming of a respectable member of the Judiciary.”

• “Section 8, Canon 4 strongly forbids judges from using or lending the prestige of their judicial office to advance their, or their family member’s interests. A judge’s position should never be used as an instrument to instill fear and terror on others.”

• Sison-Barias v. Judge Rubia, et al., 736 Phil. 81 (2014) — Cited to affirm that a judge is the visible representation of the law and that judicial conduct must withstand the most searching public scrutiny. Followed.

• Belen v. Judge Belen, 641 Phil. 120 (2010) — Relied on for the principle that no position demands greater moral uprightness than a seat in the Judiciary and that a judge’s personal behavior must be beyond reproach. Followed.

• Re: Anonymous Complaint against Judge Gedorio, Jr., 551 Phil. 174 (2007) — Used to underscore the inseparability of a judge’s official and personal existence. Followed.

• Dela Cruz (Concerned Citizen of Legazpi City) v. Judge Carretas, 559 Phil. 5 (2007) — Cited for the admonition that a judge must guard his passions and not allow them to overcome reason. Followed.

• Canon 4, Sections 1, 2, and 8, New Code of Judicial Conduct — Section 1 requires judges to avoid impropriety and its appearance in all activities. Section 2 obliges judges to accept personal restrictions and conduct themselves consistently with the dignity of the judicial office. Section 8 prohibits judges from using or lending the prestige of judicial office to advance private interests, and from permitting the impression that anyone is in a special position to influence them. These sections were directly applied to the judge’s acts of violence, passive tolerance of his sons’ assault, and the sons’ invocation of his judicial status.

• A.M. No. 21-03-17-SC — This Supreme Court issuance, which increased the imposable penalty for less serious charges to a range of ₱35,000.00 to ₱100,000.00, provided the basis for the ₱50,000.00 fine imposed on Judge Paderanga.

Chief Justice Gesmundo (Chairperson), and Justices Caguioa, Carandang, and Zalameda concurred.

None.