FIRST DIVISION
[A.M. No. MTJ-21-002. April 26, 2021.][Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-3034-MTJ]
LAILANI VELASCO, ET AL., 1complainants,vs. HON. FRANCISCO CORDERO, JR., respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated April 26, 2021 which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. MTJ-21-002 [formerly OCA IPI No. 19-3034-MTJ] (Lailani Velasco, et al. v. Hon. Francisco Cordero, Jr.). — For the Court's resolution is a Verified Complaint-Affidavit 2 (complaint) dated February 21, 2019 filed by complainants against respondent Hon. Francisco Cordero, Jr. (Judge Cordero, Jr.), presiding judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Lebak-Kalamansig, Sultan Kudarat. Complainants sought to have Judge Cordero, Jr. administratively sanctioned for gross misconduct, conduct unbecoming of a judicial officer, and violation of Sections 1, 2, and 8, Canon 4 of the New Code of Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (New Code of Conduct).
Facts of the Case
The complaint stemmed from the failure of Judge Cordero, Jr.'s son to qualify as a member of the Philippine Junior National Team for the 42nd South East Asia's Age Group Swimming Championships (SEA Age 18). 3
From May 5 to 6, 2018, a local swimming competition (PNAG-Tagum) was held at the Davao del Norte Sports and Tourism Complex in Tagum City, Davao del Norte. Philippine Swimming, Inc. (PSI) sanctioned PNAG-Tagum as an additional Selection Meet where the top two participants per age group and/or participants who achieve the qualifying time standards set during the competition may be nominated to be part of SEA Age 18's Philippine Junior National Team. Judge Cordero, Jr.'s son participated in PNAG-Tagum as part of the Sayap Pirates Club's swim team. 4
Judge Cordero, Jr.'s son won first place for the 50-meter breast stroke; 100-meter breast stroke; and 200-meter breast stroke, while he won third place for the 200-meter individual medley. However, PSI did not select him to be part of the Philippine Junior National Team because he was only nominated by Sayap Pirates Club's Team Manager on May 11, 2018 — or four days after the May 7, 2018 deadline. 5
Judge Cordero, Jr. filed a Complaint/Protest 6 (letter) dated May 15, 2018 with the officers and board members of PSI and accused them of acting in bad faith and deceiving some participants on the conduct of the selection process. Judge Cordero, Jr. threatened to use his position as MCTC judge against PSI and the latter's officers/employees. 7 The pertinent portions of the letter read:
I am a judge and I have worked in the judiciary for more than 20 years now, and I will make sure that justice will be served. Cumulatively, there are other things which I may do in order to make things straight because this matter had already become too personal to me. I will call the attention of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for the said office to take a second and closer look on your authority/license, because the way that you handle things clearly violates your corporate existence to promote the sports of swimming in the Philippines. Also, as the machinations that you employed in depriving the children of the privilege they deserve constitutes a criminal offense, I will make sure that criminal cases will be filed, not only by me, but also by the other parents who are victims of this scam. Worse, I will also use my fraternal influence, through Malacañang, to cut your budget from the Philippine Sports Commission.
xxx xxx xxx
Kindly seek legal advice so that your actions will be guided accordingly.
Thank you very much.
(Sgd.)8
Complainants also accused Judge Cordero, Jr. of filing a baseless criminal complaint, which resulted in the issuance of warrants of arrest against them. 9 Taken together, Judge Cordero, Jr.'s actions violate the requirements of propriety under Canon 4 of the New Code of Conduct and constitute gross misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a judicial officer. 10
In a Comment 11 dated May 3, 2019, Judge Cordero, Jr. claimed that complainants lodged the complaint as a leverage against Judge Cordero, Jr. in relation to the criminal case filed against them. 12 While Judge Cordero, Jr. admitted that his letter was strongly worded and overcome with emotion, he explained that the tenor of such letter was a result of his exasperation as a father whose son was the victim of inequity and injustice committed by complainants. He averred that the highlighted portions of the letter were taken out of context since the entirety of the letter merely showed his frustration and was not a malicious threat to complainants. He justified the words used in the letter by pointing out that he apologized in advance for whatever he had to say. 13
In an evaluation, report, and recommendation 14 dated September 18, 2020, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended the imposition of a fine of P20,000.00 against Judge Cordero, Jr. for violating Sections 1 and 8, Canon 4 of the New Code of Conduct and for gross misconduct under Section 8 (3), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. The OCA held that Judge Cordero, Jr.'s protest: (1) improperly demanded complainants to inform him of the results taken on his request; and (2) showed the use of his judicial position to advance his private interest by indicating his title as a judge. The fact that Judge Cordero, Jr. disclosed his more than 20 years of service in the judiciary created the impression that he wields considerable authority and influence that can prejudice complainants. Because of the letter, Judge Cordero, Jr. acted with gross misconduct and tarnished the integrity and impartiality of his court. The OCA recommended that Judge Cordero, Jr. be meted the lowest imposable penalty for gross misconduct, i.e., a P20,000.00 fine, since it is Judge Cordero, Jr.'s first offense. 15
Ruling of the Court
By using intemperate language, insinuating his clout with the executive department, and conveying the idea that his position renders him "invincible," Judge Cordero, Jr. violated the New Code of Conduct and is guilty of unbecoming conduct under Section 10, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.
Judge Cordero, Jr.'s "apology" does not exculpate him from administrative liability. If at all, his apology indicates that he was aware that the remarks he included in his letter were inappropriate. Judge Cordero, Jr. ought to know that an apology serves to express remorse for a past infraction and not an excuse for a planned (verbal) attack.
Judge Cordero, Jr. admitted that the harsh words used in the letter were a result of his frustrations towards PSI, its officers, and employees (including complainants). However, he should be mindful of the stricter standards to which judges are measured when it comes to their behavior within and outside of their judicial functions.
Judicial office demands the best possible men and women from the service. For this reason, the Court will not hesitate to discipline its members who taint its image in the eyes of the public. A judicial office circumscribes personal conduct, and imposes a number of inhibitions, whose faithful observance is the price one has to pay for holding an exalted position. 16 (Citations omitted.)
Setting aside the merits of Judge Cordero, Jr.'s claims against PSI, Judge Cordero, Jr. should have maintained the respect owed to his position by avoiding emotional outbursts — as seen in the tenor of his letter. As a judge, he knew the legal methods by which he can seek justice for whatever atrocities he felt PSI, its officers, and employees committed. In fact, he admittedly filed a criminal case against complainants. By sending a strongly worded letter containing threats of using his fraternal influence with members of the executive department, Judge Cordero, Jr. gave the impression that judges could resort to extra legal measures — thereby eroding the public's confidence in the judicial system. As a magistrate tasked to uphold the law, he should have been content with resorting to legal measures to orderly resolve whatever grievance he had with PSI, its officers, and employees.
His statement that he may do other things because his son's failure to qualify became "too personal to [him]" 17 exhibits his personal vendetta against complainants. He even dragged other people into the fray when he threatened to include other aggrieved parents as co-complainants in criminal cases he planned to file. He unabashedly brandished his fraternal ties with those in the executive department (i.e., Malacañang) and made it appear that he had the ability to cut PSI's budget from the Philippine Sports Commission. These smack of unbecoming conduct and violate Sections 1 and 2, Canon 2 and Sections 1, 2, 6, and 8, Canon 4 of the New Code of Conduct, to wit:
Canon 2
Integrity
Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office but also to the personal demeanor of judges.
Section 1
Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.
Section 2
The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the people's faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but must also be seen to be done.
Canon 4
Propriety
Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all the activities of a judge.
Section 1
Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.
Section 2
As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must accept personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. In particular, judges conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.
xxx xxx xxx
Section 6
Judges, like any other citizen, are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly, but in exercising such rights, they shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.
xxx xxx xxx
Section 8
Judges shall not use or lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance their private interests, or those of a member of their family or of anyone else, nor shall they convey or permit others to convey the impression that anyone is in a special position improperly to influence them in the performance of judicial duties.
However, Judge Cordero, Jr.'s disclosure that he is a judge and has been with the judiciary for the past 20 years, coupled with including his title as a judge at the end of his letter does not automatically render him administratively liable. The circumstances of the instant case do not show that he used his judicial position to advance his private interest.
What constitutes the use of one's title for personal gain or for advancing one's private interest would depend on the circumstances of each situation. In Tan-Yap v. Patricio, 18 this Court ruled that respondent judge's use of his title in a motion to intervene was improper as it could be misconstrued as an attempt to influence or put pressure on a fellow judge "by emphasizing that he himself is a judge and is thus in the right." 19 There is no such intent in this case.
We recognize the practice of using one's title for social and other identification purposes — as this is an honor that an incumbent has earned — for so long as such practice is not for the purpose of advancing a judge's or another person's private interests. A reading of the letter does not show Judge Cordero, Jr. had any such intent. Similar to Our pronouncement in Ladignon v. Judge Garong, 20 a judge's transgression is not per se in the use of his/her title as "Judge" but in the lack of care and discernment in considering the circumstances surrounding the use of his/her title. 21
Nevertheless, for failing to be more circumspect in his choice of words and for boasting of his alleged fraternal ties with the executive department, this Court finds Judge Cordero, Jr. guilty of unbecoming conduct. The sanctions for such a charge are enumerated under Section 11 (1) (c), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as follows:
Section 11. Sanctions. — x x x
xxx xxx xxx
C. If the respondent is guilty of a light charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed:
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.
In the absence of using his title for personal gain, We find the penalty of reprimand sufficient. We do not agree with the OCA in finding Judge Cordero, Jr. guilty of gross misconduct. To constitute misconduct, the act/s must have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of one's official duties. 22 Considering that Judge Cordero, Jr.'s letter was regarding a personal matter, his errant behavior constitutes vulgar and unbecoming conduct under Section 10 (1), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.
WHEREFORE, respondent Francisco J. Cordero, Jr. is GUILTY of violating Sections 1 and 2, Canon 2 and Sections 1, 2, 6, and 8, Canon 4, both of the New Code of Judicial Conduct and Section 10 (1), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court and is REPRIMANDED, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely by this Court.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. The other complainants are John Roma Buenaceda, Reina Rose Suarez, Sherwyn Santiago, Jefferson Lao, Vivian Gray, Vero Paloma, and Rodante Sacdalan.
2.Rollo, pp. 2-14.
3.Id. at 4-7.
4.Id. at 6-7.
5.Id. at 7.
6.Id. at 78-80.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 79-80.
9.Id. at 9-10.
10.Id. at 10-14.
11.Id. at 89-101.
12.Id. at 97-99.
13.Id. at 99-100.
14.Id. at 180-187.
15.Id. at 184-187.
16.Campilan v. Judge Campilan, Jr., 431 Phil. 223, 225-226 (2002).
17.Rollo, p. 79.
18. A.M. No. MTJ-19-1925, June 3, 2019.
19.Id.
20. 584 Phil. 352 (2008).
21.Id. at 356.
22.Tormis v. Judge Paredes, 753 Phil. 41, 52 (2015).