EN BANC
[A.M. No. RTJ-99-1517.
PURITA T. LIM, complainant, vs. JUDGE DEMETRIO D.
CALIMAG, JR., Regional Trial Court, Branch 35, Santiago City, respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
Per Curiam:
In a complaint dated 18 April 1999 supported by her affidavit, complainant Purita T. Lim charges respondent Judge Demetrio D. Calimag, Jr., Presiding Judge of Branch 35 of the Regional Trial Court of Santiago City, Isabela, with conduct unbecoming a judge, maltreatment and failure to pay his obligation.
Complainant, a businesswoman doing business under the name
Standard Lumber and Hardware, alleged in her affidavit that on or about 13
November 1996, Nieves Santiago, Civil Cases Docket Clerk in the office of the
respondent Judge, called her and told her that respondent would like to talk
with her. Over the telephone respondent asked her to see him in his office. The
next day, when she went to see respondent in his chambers, the latter told her
that he needed about P30,000 for his business. He then gave her a
receipt signed by him (Annex “A” of Affidavit) acknowledging receipt from her
of a check in the amount P30,000. The following day Noel Tomas,
Officer-in-Charge of the Office of the Clerk of Court, picked up from her
office the amount of P30,000. On the third week of January 1997, the
complainant called up respondent’s office to remind him of his obligation to
pay; however, she was informed by one of his staff members that respondent had
left for the
In compliance with the 1st Indorsement dated P30,000 for the repair of his old
house, for which he executed a promissory note for the payment of the materials
on P6,000 to complainant. On P6,028.72,
thereby leaving an unpaid balance in the amount of P19,768.28. He was
willing to pay such “little amount.” However, in December 1997, complainant’s
employee accidentally bumped the rear portion of his “Isuzu” pick-up vehicle.
He spent P20,000, more or less, for the repair of his vehicle.
Complainant assured him that she would shoulder the expenses for the repair of
his vehicle upon submission of the documents required by the insurer. Upon his
instruction, Noel Tomas submitted the required documents to complainant. Since
then complainant never made any personal demand for the payment of the unpaid portion
of his obligation to her. Nonetheless, he would have paid his obligation to her
had she been true to her promise to shoulder the expenses for the repair of his
vehicle. Hence, he presumed the offsetting of their mutual obligations.
As to Special Civil Action No. 0117, respondent alleged that the
same was filed on
Finally, respondent asserted that the administrative case is baseless in fact and in law. It was filed by a disgruntled litigant whose ill-motive is to harass and intimidate him.
This Court, in its resolution of
After weighing the evidence adduced by the parties, Justice
Ramirez found that respondent Judge indeed owed complainant two different
amounts in November 1996: one was for the construction materials he bought from
her hardware store on credit; and the other, which was covered by the
acknowledgement receipt dated 14 November 1996, was a cash loan in the amount
of P30,000. The first has almost been paid already, but the second has
not yet been paid at all. He considered respondent Judge’s excuse, “Namatayan daw sila; “kagagaling ko lang sa
States, wala akong pambayad”; kaya ako nakikiusap sa iyo namatayan
kami, wala pa akong pambayad,” as
indicative of his lack of intention to pay his just and valid obligation. He
also held that respondent Judge’s claim of compensation for his damaged vehicle
is unavailing; the amount he owed from complainant was due on
Anent respondent Judge’s failure to inhibit himself from Special Civil Action No. 35-0117, which had been elevated to the Court of Appeals where it is still pending, Justice Ramirez deemed it best to leave the matter to said court for its determination.
Justice Ramirez took into account respondent Judge’s past misconduct in office, to wit:
In A.M. No. RTJ-99-1441, Romulo F. Manuel, by Horacio M. Pascual, complainant -versus- Judge Demetrio D. Calimag, respondent, May 28, 1999, the Second Division of this Honorable Court admonished herein respondent Judge “to conduct himself accordingly in all his activities at all times as to avoid any impropriety or even the appearance of impropriety.”
In A.M. No. RTJ-99-1493, Jaime L. Co, petitioner, vs. Judge Demetrio D. Calimag, Jr.,
respondent, P1,000 “for inefficiency in office, with the warning that a
repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more
severely.”
In A.M. No. RTJ-00-1537, Evelyn Tranquilino,
complainant, vs. Judge Demetrio D. Calimag, Jr., respondent, March 26, 2001, the Second
Division of this Honorable Court, “for Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct and
Conduct Unbecoming... a Judge,” suspended respondent Judge “for six (6) months
without pay to commence immediately upon service to him of this Resolution plus
a fine of P20,000.00 which he is required to pay within thirty (30) days
from service hereof,” with warning” that a repetition of the same or similar
misconduct will be dealt with more severely.”
In view of his findings and conclusion, Justice Ramirez recommends that respondent Judge be held guilty of willful failure to pay his just debt to complainant Purita T. Lim; and that, considering his past misconduct in office he be dismissed from the service, with forfeiture of benefits (except accrued leaves) and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office including government-owned or -controlled corporations.
We agree on the finding of facts and conclusions of Mr. Justice Pedro Ramirez. Indeed, complainant’s version is more credible and convincing. Respondent’s contrariant account is not only flimsy but also incredulous. Undoubtedly, he took advantage of his position to extract a loan from the complainant by requiring her to come to his office and making it difficult for the latter to refuse. That he had no intention at all to pay the obligation became all the more evident when he tried to justify it by an unfounded claim of compensation arising out of the cost of repair for the damage to his vehicle caused by complainant’s employee. He unilaterally adjudged that complainant was civilly liable for either the civil aspect of a criminal case or for a quasi-delict.
Needless to state, if the damage to respondent’s vehicle constituted a violation of the Revised Penal Code, complainant’s civil liability would only be subsidiary pursuant to Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. If the act amounted to a quasi-delict (Article 2176 of the Civil Code), complainant would be liable for the damage caused only upon proof that the employee acted within the scope of his assigned task; besides, complainant may not be liable at all upon proof that she observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent damage (Article 2184, in relation to Article 2180, Civil Code). Significantly, there is no evidence at all that respondent initiated a complaint against complainant and her employee or either of them to enforce his claim for the damages caused to his vehicle.
We do not, therefore, hesitate to rule that respondent deliberately and willfully failed to pay a just and lawful debt in favor of complainant. In so doing, he diminished the honor and integrity of his office and stained the image of the Judiciary. He thus violated (1) Canon 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, which mandates that “[a] judge’s official conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only upon the bench and in the performance of official duties, but also in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach”; and (2) Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which provides that “[a] judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.” Indeed, it has been said that a magistrate of the law must comport himself at all times in such a manner that his conduct, official or otherwise, can bear the most searching scrutiny of the public that looks up to him as an epitome of integrity and justice. The ethical principles and sense of propriety of a judge are essential to the preservation of the faith of the people in the Judiciary. (Alfonso vs. Juanson, 228 SCRA 239, 254-255 [1993], citing Dia-Añonuevo vs. Bercacio, 68 SCRA 81 [1975]). Public confidence in the Judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct of judges (In re: Judge Benjamin H. Viray, 202 SCRA 628, 634 [1991]).
Respondent’s conduct eloquently manifests that he is beyond transformation despite the disciplinary sanctions previously taken against him in the cases mentioned in the report of Justice Pedro Ramirez. The totality of his attitude, conduct and sense of values renders him unfit to stay a minute longer in the Judiciary.
And now on the penalty to be imposed on respondent in this case.
Under Section 8, paragraph 6 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, “[w]illful failure to pay a just debt” is classified as a
serious charge. Section 11 thereof authorizes the imposition of the penalty of
dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as
this Court may determine except accrued leave credits, as well as
disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office,
including government-owned or -controlled corporations. Dismissal of respondent
from the service is therefore in order. He should likewise be ordered to pay
his indebtedness to the complainant. (Garciano
vs. Oyao, 102 SCRA 195 [1981]; Manalo
Demaala, 104 SCRA 330 [1981]; Fabrigas
vs. Nemeno, 146 SCRA 61 [1986]).*
WHEREFORE, for willful failure to pay a just and lawful debt, gross misconduct and violation of Canon 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics and Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, respondent Judge Demetrio D. Calimag, Jr., Presiding Judge of Branch 35, Regional Trial Court, Santiago City, is hereby ordered DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all his benefits, except accrued leave credits, as well as disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or -controlled corporations.
Respondent is further ordered to pay complainant the sum of P30,000,
representing his indebtedness, with interest at 6% per annum from the filing of
the complaint in this case and until the promulgation of this Resolution, and
12% per annum from the date of such promulgation until the indebtedness is
fully paid.
This Resolution is immediately executory. The Court Administrator and the Clerk of Court shall see to it that service of a copy thereof be immediately served on respondent.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Buena, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ., concur.
* Four Members of this Court maintain that this remedy is not available in this case because the penalty of dismissal would bring him beyond the jurisdiction of the Court.