562 Phil. 620
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
SEC. 7. Evidence admissible when original document is a public record. – When the original of a document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof. (Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied);and respondent considered the uncertified photocopies-exhibits for Mancio in deciding the case. Hence, the charge of gross ignorance of the law.[9]
. . . Administrative matter involves the exercise of the Court’s power to discipline judges. It is undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare, that is, to maintain the faith and confidence of the people in the government. Thus, unlike in ordinary cases, there is no private offended party in administrative proceedings who may be entitled to judicial relief. The complainant need not be a real party in interest, as anyone may file an administrative complaint against a judge, the only requirement being that the complaint be verified and it “be in writing and shall state clearly and concisely the acts and omissions constituting violations of standards of conduct prescribed for Judges by law, the Rules of Court, or the Code of Judicial Conduct.”The OCA recommended that respondent be found guilty of (a) gross ignorance of the law and fined in the amount of P20,000, and (b) bias and dishonesty, amounting to grave misconduct and suspended for six months without pay.[26]
The admission of the uncertified or plain photocopies of the contested ballots by respondent Judge in favor of Mancio betrays his ignorance of Section 7, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. The Rule, otherwise known as the Best Evidence Rule, simply provides that as long as the original evidence can be had, the court should not receive in evidence that which is substitutionary in nature, such as photocopies, in the absence of any clear showing that the original writing has been lost or destroyed or cannot be produced in court. In this case, the original copies of the contested ballots have neither been lost nor destroyed. They are in the custody of the HRET, and had respondent judge wanted to examine them, he could have easily ordered the transfer of their custody to the court.
His invocation of Section 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court to justify his admission of the plain copies of the contested ballots is misplaced. The Rule allows the admission of secondary evidence when the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be found. However, the offeror is burdened to prove the predicates thereof: (a) the loss or destruction of the original was without bad faith on the part of the proponent/offeror which can be shown by circumstantial evidence of routine practices of destruction of documents; (b) the proponent must prove by a fair preponderance of evidence as to raise a reasonable inference of the loss or destruction of the original copy; and (c) it must be shown that a diligent and bona fide but unsuccessful search has been made for the document in the proper place or places.
Verily, as the original copies of the contested ballots are in the custody of the HRET, which fact was known to respondent judge, there was no occasion to apply Section 5, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. When the law is so elementary, not to know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.
Respondent judge took special interest in the presentation of Atty. Caayon as a witness for Mancio. The purpose of Atty. Caayon’s testimony was to show that the photocopies of the ballots were the same as the original ballots in the custody of the HRET. When the counsel for Salazar, Atty. Manuel S. Paradela, refused to stipulate on the faithful reproduction of the original ballots, the counsel for Mancio declared that they could request HRET to bring the original ballots to the court for comparison. Respondent judge, however, ignored the manifestation, and proceeded to ask Atty. Paradela if the latter was represented during the photocopying of the original ballots. Nonetheless, the counsel for Mancio, Atty. Nathaniel Clarus, requested for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum to bring the original ballots to the court. Despite that manifestation, respondent judge allowed Atty. Caayon to affirm the veracity of the photocopies in his possession, thus:
x x x x
[Judge Marigomen]: We will present the Clerk of Court (Atty. Caayon) to affirm the veracity of those ballots in his possession of the tribunal copy and now existence (sic) in the possession of the Clerk of Court. x x x
Clearly, respondent judge was more interested in presenting Atty. Caayon as a witness than the party (Mancio) who would have benefited from the testimony. His actuations did not speak well of the cold neutrality required of an impartial judge, as he showed his manifest bias for one party over the other.
The bias of respondent judge for Mancio was further demonstrated when Atty. Caayon was being qualified as a witness. After every objection raised by Atty. Paradela to the questions propounded by Atty. Clarus to Atty. Caayon, respondent judge would always propound questions himself to Atty. Caayon, instead of ruling on the objections . . .
x x x x
Respondent judge’s bias for Mancio was further shown by respondent judge when he allowed one of the counsels for Mancio, Atty. Reinerio Roiles, to testify despite the vigorous objection of Salazar through his counsel, as the testimony was in violation of Rule 12.08, Canon 12 of the Canons of Professional Responsibility. The Rule prohibits a lawyer from testifying in behalf of his client, except on formal matters such as the mailing, authentication or custody of an instrument, or on substantial matters, in cases where his testimony is essential to the ends of justice. In this case, Atty. Roeles was allowed to testify on matters not contemplated by the exceptions. As admitted by respondent judge, he allowed Atty. Roeles to testify “to prove that he is one of the legal panel (sic) of the protestee; that he was at the Municipality of Madridejos last May 12, 2001 to May [1]5, 2001; and that there was (sic) no goons, terrorism and other election activities as alleged by the protestant.” Surely, the matters testified to by Atty. Roeles are neither formal matters nor essential to the ends of justice; rather, they were self-serving declarations intended to strengthen Mancio’s cause.
In his attempt at justifying his act in allowing Atty. Roeles to testify, respondent judge committed falsehood when he declared in his comment that he allowed Atty. Roeles to testify over the objection of Salazar after the latter, through counsel, failed to submit a memorandum in support of her objection. However, the records of this case belie that claim. It appears that Salazar through Atty. Paradela filed a Manifestation dated February 24, 2003, calling attention to the unethical presentation of Atty. Roeles as a witness for his own client, Mancio. The manifestation was filed with, and received by, the court on the same day, as evidenced by the stamp “RECEIVED” appearing on the upper right hand corner of the first page of the Manifestation.
There is also merit in the complaint that respondent judge failed to abide by the express mandate of the COMELEC Rules and Procedure and the Constitution to state clearly and distinctly in every decision the facts and the law on which it is based.
The questioned decision dismissing for lack of merit the election protest filed by Salazar against Mancio, and declaring the latter to be the duly elected municipal mayor of Madridejos, Cebu, with a total votes of 5,214 as against the 5,144 votes garnered by Salazar, or a difference of 70 votes. The final tabulation of votes came about after the respondent judge declared on the penultimate page of the 22-page decision, thus:After reviewing or re-appreciating the ballots of the contested precincts, the Court invalidated ninety (90) votes of the protestant and has not validated stray votes in her favor as she has not formally offered the claimed stray votes or ballots. The court shall only consider ballots which are presented and formally offered.After a thorough examination of the questioned decision, it became obvious that the invalidation of the 90 votes against Salazar was made without indicating in the decision the factual and legal bases therefor. Expectedly, the COMELEC First Division, in its Resolution promulgated on March 25, 2004, reversed and set aside the August 8, 2003 Decision of respondent judge, and declared Salazar as the duly elected mayor of Madridejos, Cebu.
Time and again, the Court had instructed judges to exert effort to ensure the decisions would present a comprehensive analysis or account of the factual and legal findings that would substantially address the issues raised by the parties. Respondent failed in this respect.
x x x x
In fine, respondent judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law, manifest bias and deliberate falsehood or dishonesty. Under Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, gross ignorance of the law is considered a serious charge. Similarly, bias and deliberate falsehood, which are tantamount to grave misconduct, are considered serious charges under the same Rule. The penalty imposable for serious charges ranges from fine to dismissal.[25] (Italics in the original, emphasis supplied; and underscoring partly in the original and partly supplied)
And respondent indeed committed falsehood, as found by the OCA. Respondent’s claim that he allowed the protestee’s counsel, Atty. Roeles, to testify over the objection of the protestant’s counsel because the latter failed to submit a memorandum in support of the objection, is belied by the records of the case. Thus, in a pleading captioned “Manifestation,” the protestant’s counsel submitted a memorandum of authorities on the matter.CANON 3
IMPARTIALITY
Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made.
SECTION 1. Judges shall perform their judicial duties without favor, bias or prejudice.
SEC. 2. Judges shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the judiciary.
x x x xCANON 5
EQUALITY
x x x x
SEC. 2. Judges shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice towards any person or group on irrelevant grounds.
x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
. . . [T]he lack of candor he has shown by the misrepresentation which he made before the Court is incongruent with the primordial character which a magistrate must possess, especially so in this case where the act of dishonesty was committed against the Court. A member of the bar owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the Court. He must not do any falsehood or consent to the doing of any in court; neither shall he mislead or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. The moral standard of honesty is equally, if not much more, expected from members of the Judiciary, as they are the agents through which the Court ensures that the end of justice is served. Dishonesty is anathema to the very nature of functions which a magistrate performs.[29] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)Respondent also indeed failed to state in his decision why he invalidated 90 ballots in favor of the protestant and to specify the ballots being set aside, thereby violating the Constitution.[30]