CONTACT: |
Supreme Court of the Philippines Library Services, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000 |
(632) 8524-2706 |
libraryservices.sc@judiciary.gov.ph |
351 Phil. 599
THIRD DIVISION
[ A.M. No. MTJ-98-1149, March 31, 1998 ]
SOCORRO YULO-TUVILLA, COMPLAINANT,
VS. JUDGE ROLANDO V. BALGOS, RESPONDENT.
R E S O L U T I O N
ROMERO, J.:
In a letter
addressed to Chief Justice Narvasa dated January 29, 1996, Negros Occidental
Sangguniang Panlalawigan Board Member Socorro Yulo-Tuvilla charged Judge
Rolando V. Balgos, MTC, Hinigaran, Negros Occidental with Grave Abuse of
Discretion and Improper Conduct. The
complaint stemmed from a case brought before respondent for preliminary
examination. Complainant Tuvilla
alleged that Myra Gumban, then 14 years old, was kidnapped and brought to the
house of one Norman Mapagay where she was detained and raped by several men. Gumban was able to escape and reported to
the authorities that there were more than 10 other young girls still in
captivity in the house of Mapagay.
A complaint was
thereafter filed before respondent Judge who conducted a preliminary
examination leading to the issuance of warrants of arrest on December 8, 1995
against Mapagay and his companions. Mapagay, through counsel, filed a motion to recall the warrant of arrest
issued against him. This incident was
immediately heard and granted by Judge Balgos without the presence of private
complainant for the purpose of identifying Mapagay.
Complainant
Tuvilla argued that respondent judge should not have acted on the motion filed
by Mapagay and should instead have inhibited himself from hearing the same
since Mapagay’s counsel, Atty. Manlapao, is the lawyer of the family of Judge
Balgos in a civil case pending before the RTC of Himamaylan, Negros
Occidental. Tuvilla stated that
respondent judge eventually inhibited himself from further hearing the case
only when the community protested against him. However, the inhibition was useless since damage had already been done.
In his comment
dated July 29, 1996, respondent judge claimed that the charges against him are
unreasonable. He averred that the
present complaint stemmed from a case for Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
filed for preliminary investigation in his sala. The complaining witness, Myra Gumban, also filed a separate
complaint for Rape against Mapagay and several others. Respondent Judge issued corresponding
warrants of arrest after conducting a joint preliminary examination of the
complaining witness and her mother. He
admitted to recalling the warrant of arrest against Mapagay claiming that he
did so only because he believed that it was within his discretion to do
so. Respondent stated that he found
that the evidence adduced at the hearing “overwhelming countervailed his
finding of probable cause after preliminary examination.” Respondent further cited the illness of
Mapagay of cancer and the fact he was due for an operation at St. Luke’s
hospital (which the records show he did undergo).
Regarding the
charge that the lawyer of Mapagay (Atty. Manlapao) was his family’s lawyer in
Civil Case No. 277 entitled “Jose Gran, et al. v. Maximo Villavera,” he
argued that the said case had been submitted for decision long before the
complaint against Mapagay was filed. He
noted that Atty. Manlapao was counsel for many cases filed before him but no
one had ever questioned his impartiality.
The Court
referred the case to Judge Rodolfo Layumas, RTC, Branch 61, Kabangkalan, Negros
Occidental for investigation, report and recommendation.
Judge Layumas
reported to the Court on April 15, 1997 that when he set the administrative
case for hearing, the complaint failed to appear, although she sent a
handwritten manifestation stating that she was no longer interested in pursuing
the case against respondent judge.
Judge Layumas
rescheduled the case for hearing on March 20, 1997, but complainant again
failed to appear. He considered the
case submitted for resolution, further directing complainant to appear before
him on April 7, 1997 to show cause why she should not be punished for contempt.
On the
allegation that respondent judge acted with undue haste in recalling the
warrant of arrest, Judge Layumas found:
“An inquiry (into) the pleading attached to the records of the present Administrative Case reveals that the Motion to recall warrant of arrest is dated January 13, 1996 and the order granting the said motion is dated January 16, 1996; that a hearing was conducted by the respondent, and according to the said respondent in his comment to the letter-complaint, the prosecution cross-examined the movants’ witnesses.
If these were so, considering that there is no evidence to the contrary, then the respondent did not act on the motion with undue haste for the prosecution was given the opportunity to cross-examine the defense witnesses and in fact did so.”
However, Judge
Layumas concluded that as far as the issue of whether it was proper or not for
respondent to act on the motion filed by Mapagay’s counsel (who was his
family’s counsel as well), there was indeed a violation by respondent of Rule
2.03 of Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which states that:
“A judge shall not allow family, social or other relationship to influence judicial conduct or judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall not be based or lent to advance the private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in special position to influence the judge.” (Underscoring supplied)
By not
immediately inhibiting himself from hearing the complaint filed by Gumban,
respondent created the impression upon the complainant and the public in
general that Atty. Manlapao’s client was in a special position to influence
him.
The
investigating judge, however, pointed out that respondent has a mitigating
circumstance in his favor, i.e., his having inhibited himself from further
trying the case after he was made aware of his questionable action by others.
After a careful
examination of the records of this case, the Court concurs with the findings of
the investigating judge that while the motion to recall the warrant of arrest
was not acted upon with undue haste, there was a definite violation of the Code
of Judicial Conduct because Mapagay’s counsel was respondent’s family’s
counsel.
Time and again,
the Court has warned judges that they should endeavor to maintain at all times
the confidence and high respect accorded to those who wield the gavel.[1] It is imperative that a judge’s
official conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety, and that
his personal behavior in everyday life shown to be beyond reproach.[2]
The fact that
the original complaint displayed no further interest in pursuing the
administrative case against respondent and that respondent inhibited himself
from hearing the case are not sufficient reasons for the Court to set the
matter at rest. It is in lapses such as
these that the image of the judiciary is tarnished, and they cannot be allowed
to pass without censure.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Rolando V. Balgos
is hereby REPRIMANDED and REMINDED that the foremost duty of a magistrate is to
uphold the people’s trust and confidence in the judiciary.
SO ORDERED.