Fernandez v. Cruz, Jr.

SECOND DIVISION

[A.M. No. RTJ-17-2500. November 8, 2017.]

ATTY. MERLO P. FERNANDEZ, complainant,vs. PRESIDING JUDGE MANUEL B. STA. CRUZ, JR., REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 226, QUEZON CITY, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 08 November 2017 which reads as follows:

"A.M. No. RTJ-17-2500 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 16-4646-RTJ) — Atty. Merlo P. Fernandez versus Presiding Judge Manuel B. Sta. Cruz, Jr., Regional Trial Court, Branch 226, Quezon City

This is an administrative complaint 1 filed by Complainant Atty. Merlo P. Fernandez against Respondent Judge Manuel B. Sta. Cruz, Jr., Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 226, Quezon City, for: (1) conduct unbecoming of a judge; (2) gross ignorance of the law, (3) grave abuse of authority, (4) deliberate intent to cause an injustice, and (5) direct defiance of the Constitution, in relation to Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-06592-CR entitled "People of the Philippines v. Godfrey Monsod."

Background

Complainant's client, accused Godfrey Monsod, was charged 2 with the crime of estafa under Article 315 paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code. The case (Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-06592-CR) was then raffled to the RTC, Branch 226, Quezon City, before the sala of herein Respondent Judge. 3

On the scheduled date of the arraignment on September 5, 2016, 4 Respondent Judge called Complainant's attention regarding the latter's attire. It appears that when Complainant appeared in court for the arraignment, he was wearing denim jeans (maong) and a T-shirt. 5 As a result, Respondent Judge did not allow Complainant to enter his appearance for that day and instead appointed Atty. Romael G. Binarao from the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) to act as counsel de officio for the accused. 6

The Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) of September 5, 2016 7 demonstrate what transpired during the hearing, viz.:

Atty. [Fernandez]:

Respectfully appearing for the accused, Atty. Merlo P. Fernandez, your honor.

Court:

What are you wearing, counsel? Is that a proper attire?

You are wearing a maong and a t-shirt in the Court.

What is your name, sir? Atty. Fernandez?

Atty. Fernandez:

Yes, your honor.

Court:

Is that what you wear in Court?

Atty. Fernandez:

Next time, I will take note of that, your honor.

Court:

You do not deserve to be called a lawyer.

Atty. Fernandez:

I understand, your honor x x x

Court:

Ha? Pardon, sir.

Atty. Fernandez:

I was in a hurry. . .

Court:

Everybody is in a hurry in the morning. This Court is always in a hurry in the morning.

Atty. Fernandez:

It will not happen again, your honor.

xxx xxx xxx

Court:

I am fining you, I will fine you for improper attire.

Atty. Fernandez:

Yes, your honor.

Court:

You know what? You worked for eight years to study law, to pass the bar and yet you act like this.

Atty. Fernandez:

Yes, your honor. I understand, your honor.

Court:

You should hold your position in a very high esteem.

You are an officer of this Court, sir. You are not an ordinary mortal being.

Atty. Fernandez:

I understand, your honor.

Court:

You should be ashamed of yourself, sir. This is the only, one thing that you will always hear from me because I myself, I worked hard for my title.

Atty. Fernandez:

Yes, your honor.

Court:

If you are going to a bar, that is a proper attire but not in this Court.

Okay, I will not allow your appearance. Atty. Binarao will represent the accused for purposes of arraignment only. You wear proper attire on the next hearing, counsel.

Atty. Fernandez:

Yes, your honor. 8

During the hearing, Atty. Binarao moved for the deferment of arraignment and further proceedings, citing as basis therefor a pending Motion for Reconsideration 9 of the Resolution of the Assistant City Prosecutor 10 which had recommended the filing of an Information against the accused. 11

Acting on the Motion to Defer Arraignment and Further Proceedings, 12(Motion to Defer Arraignment) Respondent Judge denied the motion considering that the ground cited by the accused to support the motion is not one of the grounds provided for under the Rules. 13 After the accused entered his plea, Respondent Judge ordered that the parties proceed to mediation and that the proceedings be suspended for thirty (30) days to give way to mediation. 14

Following these events, or on October 4, 2016, Complainant filed the present complaint against Respondent Judge before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), alleging:

First, that Respondent Judge is guilty of conduct unbecoming of a judge 15 for the latter's act of disallowing his entry of appearance and instead appointing Atty. Binarao as the accused's counsel de officio. To Complainant, this act of appointing Atty. Binarao deprived his client of the right to engage the services of a counsel of his own choice. 16 In addition, Complainant argues that Respondent Judge should never allow his passion and temperament to overcome his reason, particularly in matters involving criminal cases. 17

Second, that Respondent Judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority, intent to cause an injustice and defiance of the Constitution. 18 As basis, Complainant cites Respondent Judge's act of "refusing [Complainant from practicing] his profession and [from] defend[ing] his client." 19 Finally, Complainant claims that the denial of the Motion to Defer Arraignment was by reason of Respondent Judge's "disgust over his improper attire." 20

For his part, Respondent Judge, in his Comment21 dated January 16, 2017, avers that, as evidenced by the TSN of the hearing that day, he immediately called Complainant's attention regarding his attire as soon as the latter entered his appearance, appointed Atty. Binarao from PAO, and reminded Complainant to wear the proper attire for the next hearing. 22 Further, Respondent Judge maintains that the denial of the Motion to DeferArraignment is because the ground cited in support of the motion is not one of the grounds provided by law. Finally, Respondent Judge asserts that he was merely complying with the directive of the Court to judges to act promptly on their cases with due consideration of the rights of the parties. 23

The OCA Report dated April 10, 2017

In its Report and Recommendation 24 dated April 10, 2017, the OCA recommended that:

1) the instant administrative complaint against [Respondent Judge] be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter; and

2) [respondent Judge] be found GUILTY of Conduct Unbecoming [of] a Judge and be ADMONISHED with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of a similar offense shall be dealt with severely. 25

The OCA's report resolved two issues: first, Respondent Judge's act of admonishing Complainant in court for improper attire and second, Respondent Judge's denial of the Motion to Defer Arraignment. 26

Dispensing with the latter, the OCA noted that the denial of the Motion to Defer Arraignment is a matter that is judicial in nature, and is therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the OCA to determine. Relying on Ala v. Peras, 27 the OCA ruled that administrative proceedings against a judge are not alternatives to judicial remedies. Since the latter charge assails the propriety of the denial of the Motion to Defer Arraignment, then Complainant should have sought recourse from the proper court for the appropriate judicial action and not with the OCA by means of an administrative complaint. 28

As to the first issue of Respondent Judge's act of admonishing Complainant in court for improper attire, the OCA finds that, although it is proper for Respondent Judge to call the attention of Complainant for his improper attire in court which the latter admitted, the manner by which Respondent Judge admonished Complainant in Court was reprehensible. 29 Specifically, the act of using harsh and insulting words in open court directed at Complainant, shows lack of prudence and self-restraint. 30 In this regard, the OCA finds that Respondent Judge's use of intemperate language falls within the proscription provided by Section 1, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary 31 (New Code of Judicial Conduct), thus: " [j]udges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all the activities of a judge." 32

Discussion

The Court agrees with the findings of the OCA, with a modification on the penalty imposed upon Respondent Judge.

To begin with, the allegation that Respondent Judge abused his authority, was grossly ignorant of the law, deliberately intended to cause injustice, and acted in defiance of the Constitution, when he appointed a PAO lawyer to substitute Complainant in representing the accused for the day's hearing, has no merit. Quite the contrary, it is within Respondent Judge's prerogative not to recognize the lawyer appearing before his sala when there exists a valid and reasonable cause, which, in Complainant's case, was a violation of Rule 11.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requiring lawyers to appear in court properly attired. For this reason, Respondent Judge is not guilty of grave abuse of authority, gross ignorance of the law, and defiance of the Constitution.

Nevertheless, the New Code of Judicial Conduct mandates judges to exemplify propriety at all times in order to preserve public confidence in the judiciary. 33 Section 6, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct further requires that:

SEC. 6. Judges shall maintain order and decorum in all proceedings before the court and be patient, dignified and courteous in relation to litigants, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity. Judges shall require similar conduct of legal representatives, court staff and others subject to their influence, direction or control. (Emphasis supplied)

Together, these Canons entail that a judge comport himself irreproachably, exercise judicial temperament in all his dealings, and maintain composure and equanimity at all times. 34 Though on occasion, a judge may attribute his intemperate language to human frailty, his noble position in the bench nevertheless demands from him courteous speech in and out of court. 35 In Correa v. Belen, 36 for instance, the Court found respondent judge guilty of conduct unbecoming of a judge when the latter uttered, in the course of an estate proceeding, that it is regrettable (referring to how the complainant managed the affairs of the estate) "because Atty. Raul Correa is a U.P. Law Graduate and a Bar Topnotcher at that."37

It bears emphasis, therefore, that a judge should always conduct himself in a manner that would preserve the dignity, independence, and respect for himself, the Court, and the Judiciary as a whole. 38 He should choose his words and exercise more caution and control in expressing himself. 39

Here, pronouncing in court that Complainant "[does] not deserve to be called a lawyer" 40 and that he should be "ashamed of [himself]," 41 even after the Complainant had already apologized and had accepted the fine by the court, creates, to a reasonable observer, 42 the perception that the judge's personal opinion may influence his objectivity. As aptly observed by the OCA, even in the face of boorish behavior, the judge must conduct himself in a manner befitting a gentleman and a high officer of the court. 43 All told, a judge should possess the virtue of gravitas. 44

As a light offense under Section 10, 45 Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, conduct unbecoming of a judge is penalized under Section 11 (C) thereof by any of the following: (1) a fine of not less than P1,000.00 but not exceeding P10,000.00; and/or (2) censure; (3) reprimand; (4) admonition with warning. The Court finds that the penalty of reprimand is justified under the circumstances.

WHEREFORE, Judge Manuel B. Sta. Cruz, Jr., Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 226, Quezon City, is found GUILTY of Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge and is hereby REPRIMANDED with a stern warning that repetition of a similar offense shall be dealt with severely. Respondent Judge is reminded to be more circumspect in his words in and out of court and to exercise judicial temperament in all his dealings at all times.

SO ORDERED. PERLAS-BERNABE, J., on official leave."

Very truly yours,

MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 1-7.

2. Information dated May 11, 2016; see id. at 12-13.

3.Rollo, pp. 12, 44.

4.Id. at 1s, 28.

5.Id. at 30; TSN taken during the September 5, 2016 hearing with respect to Criminal Case No. R-QZN-16-06592-CR; id. at 38.

6.Id. at 1, 45.

7.Id. at 37-41.

8.Id. at 38-39; 46-47.

9.Id. at 15-18.

10. Maribel B. Mariano-Arriola, see id. at 9, 13.

11. See rollo, p. 39.

12.Id. at 9-11.

13.Id. at 24. Pursuant to Rule 116, Section 11 of the Rules of Court, arraignment shall only be suspended in the following cases: (1) when the accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition x x x; (2) there exists a prejudicial question; or (3) a petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is pending at either the Department of Justice, or the Office of the President x x x.

14.Id. at 24-25.

15.Id. at 2.

16.Id. at 3.

17.Id. at 5.

18.Id. at 4.

19.Id.

20.Id. at 44.

21.Id. at 28-36.

22.Id. at 44-45.

23.Id. at 45.

24.Id. at 44-50.

25.Id. at 49-50.

26.Id. at 45.

27. 676 Phil. 192 (2011).

28.Rollo, pp. 45-46.

29.Id. at 48.

30. See id.

31. A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC, April 27, 2004.

32.Rollo, p. 48, citing Jorda v. Bitas, 728 Phil. 342, 357 (2014).

33. NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT FOR THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY, Canon 4, Sec. 1 provides:

SECTION 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.

34. See Office of the Court Administrator v. Buyucan, A.M. No. MTJ-15-1854, July 11, 2017, p. 18.

35.Lorenzana v. Austria, 731 Phil. 82, 102 (2014), citing Guanzon and Montesino v. Rufon, 562 Phil. 633, 638 (2007).

36. 641 Phil. 131 (2010).

37.Id. at 133.

38.Tormis v. Paredes, 753 Phil. 41, 54 (2015).

39.Id.

40.Rollo, p. 38.

41.Id. at 39.

42. See Lorenzana v. Austria, supra note 35, at 102-103.

43.Rollo, p. 48.

44.Tormis v. Paredes, supra note 38, at 54.

45. SEC. 10.Light Charges. — Light charges include:

1. Vulgar and unbecoming conduct[.]