386 Phil. 256
MENDOZA, J.:
In Criminal Case Nos. 17691 and 17692 for slight physical injuries and direct assault, respectively, respondent issued an order, dated June 3, 1998, in which, after noting that Prosecutor Augustus L. Calo called up to say that he could not attend the hearing because his foot was swollen, sarcastically commented: "At least, Prosecutor Calo is better than Prosecutor [Hector B.] Salise who did not inform yesterday his whereabouts, whether he is in hell or in purgatory."
PROSECUTOR RUIZ: Although the accused here is pleading guilty to the charge, but his plea is conditional which is tantamount to a plea of not guilty, Your Honor.ATTY. CHAVEZ: Anyway the amount is immaterial, Your Honor, so I believe that is unconditional. The penalty is prision correccional in its medium and minimum period and the maximum is TWO (2) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY, the minimum should be FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY, Your Honor.PROSECUTOR RUIZ: We would like to take for the record considering the plea of guilt of the accused here, we would like to request that we be given until Friday to submit our recommendation.COURT: This is very clear, you will prolong the agony of the accused. PROSECUTOR RUIZ: Or this afternoon, I will submit my recommendation, Your Honor. COURT: Does the prosecution admit that you do not know how to compute? PROSECUTOR RUIZ: Your Honor, we are only requesting until Friday the defense has no right to recommend, Your Honor. COURT: Do you think the Court will just accept that, it is this Court who will determine. You should have been ready when you come to Court.PROSECUTOR RUIZ: But today's incident is only for arraignment. ATTY. CHAVEZ: May I respectfully pray, Your Honor, that the maximum should be TWO (2) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY and the minimum should be FOUR (4) MONTHS which is within the range.PROSECUTOR RUIZ: This is the prerogative of the prosecution not the defense. Well, for the record, the prosecution will not recommend. I am praying that the prosecution be given until Friday to formally make a written recommendation.COURT: Why would you tell the Court what to do? PROSECUTOR RUIZ: No, that is not the import of my manifestation. COURT: Put it on record that Prosecutor Ruiz does not know how to compute. Put it on record also that Fiscal Ruiz took the Bar three times.PROSECUTOR RUIZ: Put it on record also that the Honorable presiding judge did not graduate from Ateneo. COURT: I will show you the record that I graduated from Ateneo, Class 1963, you want me to show you the certificate? PROSECUTOR RUIZ: We are going beyond, Your Honor. This is just the defense of the plight of the honor of the prosecution, I am just praying that the prosecution be given until Friday to submit my recommendation.Supposing the prosecution would recommend that the accused be made to pay the civil aspect of the case. We submit, Your Honor. COURT: That is not your problem, that is the problem of the Court. What is your problem Fiscal Ruiz? PROSECUTOR RUIZ: We stand pat [on] our manifestation. COURT: Good? What can you say about the request of the prosecution Atty. Chavez? ATTY. CHAVEZ: Well, Your Honor, it is just a matter of computation. COURT: Just give the prosecution until August 21, 1998, at 8:30 o'clock in the morning, so that he can confer properly in their office just to compute the proper penalty.PROSECUTOR RUIZ: This is unfair. COURT: Call it unfair or whatever. Call the next case.
In the matter at hand, although the complainant may have used less than polite language in the course of his argument during the hearing on 19 August 1998, respondent judge should not be too quick in "returning the favor" to the complainant. Moreover, the use of the phrase "whether he is in hell or in purgatory" in referring to Prosecutor Salise in Criminal Cases No. 17691 and 17692 is obviously uncalled for considering that it does not appear from the records that Pros. Salise is the one in-charge of the cases.On the basis of these findings, the OCA recommends that respondent judge be suspended from office without pay for one (1) month and directed to refrain from using "City Trial Court" in referring to his court.
In view of the foregoing, we conclude that Judge Bringas should be found guilty of serious misconduct. Had this been respondent judge's first and only offense, we would have been willing to recommend a reprimand but as we looked into the records of respondent judge, it is apparent that neither admonition nor fine could make him change his attitude towards litigants and lawyers. Thus, we feel compelled to recommend his suspension from office without pay for at least a month to see to it that Judge Bringas will receive the right message which the Court sent him in its resolution dated 3 July 1990 in MTJ-89-255 and in resolution dated 6 December 1995 in MTJ-95-1064.
Anent the charge of changing the designation of his court from Municipal Trial Court in Cities to "City Trial Court" [Rollo, p. 9], the same could lead to confusion among litigants and lawyers as such designation is really not within the provisions of Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. Hence, this practice must be stopped and respondent judge should be admonished to be more circumspect in his choice of words when referring to his court.
Regarding the charge that respondent had misrepresented himself as a graduate of Ateneo Law School, the same should be dismissed for being too trivial. Even assuming that Judge Bringas indeed misrepresented on this aspect, the misrepresentation is inconsequential as it will not in any way affect his qualification as a judge. He is still a graduate of law and a prosecutor before he became a judge.