|
ALFREDO
FAVOR, Complainant, - versus - JUDGE CESAR O. UNTALAN, Regional Trial Court, Branch 149, Respondent. |
A.M.
RTJ-08-2158 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 04-2018-RTJ] Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA,
BRION,* and PERALTA,
JJ. Promulgated: |
|
|
|
|
|
July 30, 2009 |
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
PERALTA, J.:
Before
this Court is a verified complaint[1]
dated May 10, 2004 filed by complainant Alfredo Favor with the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA), charging respondent Judge Cesar Untalan[2] of
the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Branch 39, of Quezon City with: (1) illegal
trespass to dwelling; (2) taking advantage of his office and position to act as
an agent to sell real property; (3) assisting a private individual to settle a
case; (4) harassment/coercion; and (5) violation of Rule 3.09 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct.
Consolacion Abando was the registered
owner of Lots 7, 8 and 9 at
Manolita
Sta. Maria and Rosalina Guillarte were real estate agents who responded to an
advertisement put up by Lozada for the sale of Lots 8 and 9. When Sta. Maria
and Guillarte learned that Abando hailed from Pangasinan, they thought of
asking respondent Judge, who was also from Pangasinan, to help them convince
Abando to exchange P100,000.00.
On
In
his Complaint, complainant alleged that respondent Judge pushed open the door
of the house and placed his right foot inside so complainant could not close
the door. Respondent Judge inquired if complainant was Alfredo Favor, to which
complainant replied yes. Respondent Judge then told him, “Mr. Favor,
Complainant
averred that respondent Judge asked him to sit beside him, then told him to
vacate the house because Sheriff Doblada and Lozada made a mistake in ejecting
complainant and his family from their former residence. Complainant told him
that it was no longer their fault, because they were made to transfer to their
present house after the enforcement of the writ in the ejectment case.
Respondent Judge said that he was only doing Lozada a favor, and asked
complainant to talk to his in-laws about leaving the house, even writing his
name and telephone number on a piece of paper.
Complainant
claimed that, on October 7, 2001,[3]
at around 7:40 a.m., he and respondent Judge talked on the telephone and
arranged to meet at the latter’s office at the Quezon City Hall at 1:00 p.m.
Complainant was accompanied by Sheriff Cesar Abacahin of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Pasig, Branch 69, and Sheriff Mario Pangilinan of the Office of
the Clerk of Court of RTC Pasig City. During their meeting, respondent Judge
told complainant that Lozada had rejected their demand and would not pay them.
Respondent Judge informed complainant that they would be ejected from their
house in two months’ time, and then asked complainant for his telephone number.
On
P100,000.00.
On
the other hand, respondent Judge denied the allegations of complainant. He alleged
that, while it was true that he, Sta. Maria and Guillarte went to the house at P100,000.00
from Lozada for them to vacate the lot in question.[6]
Respondent Judge pointed out that, if
the claim of trespassing and violation of domicile were true, complainant
should have reported it to the barangay
or to the police authorities. He reasoned that the complaint had been filed
only on
He
likewise refuted complainant’s claim that they talked on the telephone on
Respondent
Judge also maintained that he had only come to know of the case Lozada filed
against complainant through the Judge’s co-respondents in the complaint for
violation of domicile. He explained that he had gone to complainant’s house in
October 2001 only to reconcile people, as it was his nature to mediate
controversies of his neighbors. When the complaint against him was filed, he
stopped assisting them.[9]
On
After
a careful perusal of the contending allegations of the parties of the instant
case, we find the evidence for the respondents to be more credible and reliable
as against that of the complainant who waited for the lapsed (sic) of more than
two years after the incident to file a complaint, if indeed he was really
wronged by the respondents. This alone created a cloud of doubt as to his real
intentions and motive which appears to be a clear afterthought of the charge of
Estafa that was recently filed against him.
WHEREFORE,
for lack of probable cause, it is most respectfully recommended that the
instant case be DISMISSED.
RESPECTFULLY
SUBMITTED.
City of
In
its Report[11] dated
In
its Resolution[12] dated
In
an Order[13] dated
On
P100,000.00 he offered complainant was bribe
money.
Complainant,
on the other hand, filed his Reply[15]
on
In
an Order[16] dated
In
his Report and Recommendation dated
Against
this conflicting backdrop, we now come to evaluate the administrative charges
of Favor against Judge Untalan.
a)
Trespass
to dwelling as defined in the Revised Penal Code.
The
gravamen of the felony of trespass to dwelling under Article 280 of the Revised
Penal Code is entering the dwelling of another against the latter’s will. While
it is arguable that as the complainant charged, putting one’s foot inside the
door to prevent the complainant from closing it is entering against the will of
the owner of the dwelling, the respondent denies that he did this. He is supported
in his testimony by his companion Sta. Maria who was emphatic that they were
allowed to enter the house by the persons who met them at the gate. They
entered an open door and were already inside the house when the complainant
appeared. This incident has been the subject of a criminal complaint filed by
the complainant against them two years later before the Mandaluyong City
Prosecutor’s Office. The complaint was dismissed by the fiscal on this ground: We find the evidence for the respondents to
be more credible and reliable as against that of the complainant who waited for
the lapse of more than two years after the incident to file a complaint. This
alone created a closed (sic) of doubt
as to his real intentions and motive which appears to be a clear afterthought
of the charge of estafa that was recently filed against him.
We
believe that the charge of trespass to dwelling even if resurrected as an
administrative case cannot stand. The testimony of the complainant is
uncorroborated and devoid of support from any other evidence on the record. It
has also been rendered improbable by his own actuations. He did not make any
seasonable complaint to the barangay or police authorities. Instead, he took
the initiative of visiting the respondent at his office to pursue further
negotiations with him. This cannot be the reaction of one who has been
aggrieved by the unwanted and unwelcome visit of another. He then waited for
two years before filing the case against the respondent, and after he was
himself charged by a person whom he thought the respondent was acting for. His
reason for filing the trespass to dwelling case against the respondent is
suspect. It is likely that he concocted a charge against the respondent and the
two lady real estate agents as a leverage in the case filed against him by the
person whom he believed they represented. The truth would under this scenario
be compromised.
b)
harassment/coercion
We
entertain the same doubts with respect to this accusation. The complainant
makes it appear that once inside his house, the respondent harassed and coerced
him into accepting a settlement. The testimony is not confirmed by any witness
to the occasion, and there is nothing on the record from which we can draw,
circumstantially or otherwise, that this was in fact what happened. The
respondent and his companion have sworn to a totally difficult (sic) account of
the events that took place. The complainant tries to capitalize on the fact
that it was through his door and not the door of his mother-in-law that the
respondent entered. But as the respondent points out, whether they entered the
door of the complainant or that of his mother-in-law, they were allowed to
enter, and having been led into the house, they comported themselves in a
proper and civilized manner.
The complainant has failed to meet
the test of substantial evidence in proposing a version that is supported only
by his lone testimony, is refuted by the testimonies of the other persons
present on the occasion, and is not attended by any established fact or
circumstance that might lend credibility to it.
c)
Taking
advantage of his office to act as an agent to sell real property.
This
charge is totally negated by the evidence. The respondent was not acting as
Lozada’s agent to sell property. He accompanied his lady friends to the
complainants’ mother-in-law not to sell property to her but to convince her to
swap lots as a way of correcting the error in the sheriff’s execution. The
respondent denies knowing Lozada personally, and there is no evidence that he
was acting as a real estate agent to sell Lozada’s property.
d)
Violation
of Rule 3.09 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
This
charge is misplaced. As pointed out by the respondent, this provision has to do
only with the supervision of court personnel.
e)
Assisting
a private individual to settle a case.
This,
more or less, encapsulates the action of the respondent as he himself admits.
As a leftover from the days when he was an official of the Mandaluyong city
government entrusted with the duty of settling land disputes, he continued as a
judge to assist neighbors and friends in settling their land differences. He
admitted to the Investigating Justice that in view of the events that happened,
it was a mistake on his part to have gone to the house of the complainant’s
mother-in-law.
From
our review of the provisions of the Canons of Judicial Ethics and Code of Judicial
Conduct then applicable, we find that this behavior may fall under the most
general terms of provisions that regulate the activities of a judge out of
court. Thus:
Canon
3, Canons of Judicial Ethics: A judge’s…personal behavior, not only upon the
bench and in the performance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life
should be beyond reproach.
Rule
2.01, Code of Judicial Conduct: A judge shall so behave at all times as to
promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
Rule
2.03. Code of Judicial Conduct. The prestige of judicial office shall not be
used or lent to advance the private interests of others, nor convey or permit
others to carry the impression that they are in a special position to influence
the judge.
The
respondent must understand that he cannot divorce himself, whether in and out
of court, from his public persona as a judge. Thus, he must comport himself at
all times in accordance with the canons of judicial ethics. Like a religious
ministry, the judicial office imposes a demand on the lifestyle of the
occupant, and anyone who accepts a judicial appointment must be deemed to have
agreed to such imposition.
As we view this case in its
entirety, the action of the respondent, even unwittingly, in helping private
persons settle a legal dispute may result in allowing the prestige of judicial
office to be used to advance the private interests of others. This is a
situation that judges must seek to avoid. The present Section 4, Canon 1 of the
new Code of Judicial Conduct continues to caution against it.
Since it appears that the respondent
did not act with malice but with the best of intentions, failing only to
foresee the consequences of his action, we believe that justice is served by
admonishing the respondent, with a warning that a repetition of the act may
warrant a more severe penalty.[17]
The
Court finds the recommendation of the Investigating Justice to be amply
justified.
Complainant
alleged that respondent Judge committed trespass to dwelling when the latter
and his companions entered the house of complainant’s mother-in-law. He claimed
that respondent Judge put his foot inside the door to prevent complainant from
closing it, and once inside the house, harassed and coerced complainant into
accepting a settlement.
Trespass to dwelling is penalized
under Article 280 of the Revised Penal Code, the elements of which are: (1) the offender is a private person; (2) he
enters the dwelling of another; and (3) such entrance is against the latter's
will.[18]
While
it is true that the act of putting one’s foot inside the door constitutes entry
against the implied prohibition of the occupant, complainant’s allegation
unfortunately remains uncorroborated. It is a settled rule in administrative
proceedings that the complainant has the burden of proving by substantial
evidence the allegations of his complaint.[19]
As complainant has failed to submit proof of his statement, his testimony
deserves scant consideration as compared with that of respondent Judge, which
was supported by the affidavits of Sta. Maria and Guillarte categorically
stating that the respondent Judge did not need to push open the door, because
they were ushered inside by a young woman. Moreover, complainant failed to
immediately report the incident to the authorities, which creates doubt as to
what really occurred at his mother-in-law’s house. Had he been the “disturbed
person” he described himself to be in his complaint, the reasonable thing to do
would have been to call the attention of the barangay tanod or at least have the incident recorded in the police
blotter.
Likewise,
there is nothing from the records to show that respondent Judge committed an
act of harassment or coercion toward complainant. During trial, complainant
himself recounted what happened when respondent Judge went to his
mother-in-law’s house on
JUSTICE GUARIÑA
III:
You said that your address is
COMPLAINANT:
Yes, your honor.
Q: That is actually part of
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Is this the same place where you said
Judge Untalan visited you in the afternoon of October 6?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Was that the first time you met Judge
Untalan?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Did you know him already to be Judge
Untalan?
A: No, Your Honor.
Q: Why did you say that when Judge Untalan
stepping to your house holding papers in his right hand on October 6, you said
that “Ikaw si Atty. Untalan” how did you come to presume that he was Atty.
Untalan?
A: I said you are the lawyer and he
replied, Untalan.
Q: So it was Judge Untalan who mentioned
his own name?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Was he with other persons at that time?
A: He was with the two lady companions,
Your Honor.
Q: Who were these two lady companions?
A: Mrs. Sta. Maria and Mrs. Guillarte, Your
Honor.
Q: Did you already know these two persons
at that time?
A: I only knew Mrs. Sta. Maria, Your Honor.
Q: Now you said that Judge Untalan told you
“Mr. Favor,
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: Did you understand what he was talking
about?
A: Iyon nga po he said “your (sic) are Mr.
Favor,” then I replied, “yes sir,” and he told me, “you are residing in the
wrong address.”
Q: Did you ask him why does he think that
way?
A: I asked him why and he told me that
“nagkamali sila ng ejectment sa iyo,” I said that the Sheriff placed me in
possession of the premises.
Q: Who
is the owner of that house where you were staying on October 6?
A: My mother-in-law.
Q: Was she there at that time?
A: She was at the other door.
Q: Do you know a certain Francisco Lozada,
can you tell the Court who is Francisco Lozada?
A: He was one of those who acquired title
from my mother-in-law, your honor.
Q: You are referring to the title of the
house where you were staying on October 6?
A: That is what we know, your honor,
because we were placed in possession of the premises by the Sheriff and Lozada.
Q: How long did Judge Untalan stay in your
house that afternoon?
A: Almost one hour.
Q: At that time you were inside your house?
A: I was there because I was about to go
out but Judge Untalan came in.
Q: And you really saw Judge Untalan, he was
with these two persons, Sta. Maria and Guillarte?
A: Yes, your honor.[20]
Harassment
has been defined as words, gestures and actions which tend to annoy, alarm and
abuse (verbally) another person,[21]
while coercion is synonymous to compulsion, constraint, a compelling by force
or arms or threat.[22]
In the present case, going over to one’s house and informing him that he is
living at the wrong address could hardly be construed as harassment or
coercion. It is hard to believe that respondent Judge forced his way into the
house, harassed and coerced complainant into accepting a settlement, and yet
respondent Judge and his companions were able to stay at the house for an hour.
The Court gives greater credence to the explanation of respondent Judge that he
had merely accompanied Sta. Maria and Guillarte to the house occupied by
complainant with the purpose of offering the occupant the sum of P100,000.00
from Lozada to vacate the lot.
Equally
implausible are the contentions of complainant that respondent Judge took
advantage of his office to act as an agent to sell real property, and that he
violated Rule 3.09 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Of the first, complainant
again failed to substantiate such claim to prove that respondent Judge had in
fact represented himself as acting on behalf of Lozada. Anent the second
charge, the Investigating Justice correctly concluded that the Code of Judicial
Conduct governs the supervision of court personnel, and is, therefore, inapplicable
to the present case.
What
therefore remains to be determined is whether respondent Judge assisted a
private individual to settle a case.
Respondent
Judge himself admitted that he went with Sta. Maria and Guillarte to help them convince
Abando to exchange P100,000.00. He
testified:
ATTY. PARAISO:
Q: Judge Untalan, who are these two ladies
that you are talking about?
RESPONDENT:
A: I am referring to Chit Guillarte and
Manolita Sta. Maria, sir.
Q: And why are you with them?
A: As I said earlier, they requested me to
accompany them to the house of Mrs. Abando so that the problem of their client,
I may be able to assist them.
JUSTICE GUARIÑA
III:
Q: At that time you were already a City
Judge?
A: MTC Judge of Quezon City, your honor.
Q: And you agreed to the request to
accompany them to the house of Mrs. Abando?
A: Yes your honor, because as I have said,
your honor, when there are emergencies in family life these two ladies help me.
Q: What did they really request you to do
when they asked you to accompany them to the house?
A: To help them convince Mrs. Abando to
agree to their proposal for an exchange of the lot with an offer of P100,000.00
and all the expenses of the exchange of the lot will be shouldered by Mr.
Lozada.
Q: Expenses for?
A: For exchange of lots, your honor.
Q: And you agreed to their request that is
why you accompanied them?
A: Yes, your honor.
Q: Did it not occur to you at that time
that your access might be misinterpreted since you are already a judge?
A: No your honor because when I was the
Chief of the State Management Development Office of Mandaluyong, basically that
was my job to patch up problems and to settle squatters and arrange for land
disputes, your honor. I usually arbitrate land dispute of Mandaluyong so maybe
because of that I was able to successfully mediate so many land disputes in
Mandaluyong and they were beneficiaries also of the land-owner that they have
been selling and because of this I stopped now that is why most of my neighbors
say I became difficult to reach now because of this problem presented by Mr.
Favor.
Q: Are you suggesting Judge that prior to
this incident even as a judge you are still engaged in disputes between people
there in your place?
A: I choose, your honor, if the one
requesting is close to me, then I call them to my house then I will try to
explain to them that its better to agree now on a settlement rather than you go
to Court because its difficult to go to Court and its too expensive so I call
the parties.
Q: And you were explaining to both parties?
A: Yes, your honor, I always see to it that
both parties are present.
Q: How did these conferences turn out?
A: Usually it turn (sic) out successful. I
will request now to go to the barangay and execute the necessary agreement that
we may have.
Q: It was with that intention that you
accompanied these two ladies on
A: Yes, your honor.[23]
Canon
2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct[24]
states that a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety
in all activities. The following are likewise pertinent to the present case:
Rule 2.01. – A
judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
Rule
2.03. – A judge shall not allow family, social, or other relationships to
influence judicial conduct or judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall
not be used or lent to advance the private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to
convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the
judge.
By
using his position to help private persons settle a legal dispute, respondent
Judge is administratively liable under Rule 2.03 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct. His intentions may have been noble as he sought to make complainant
realize that he had been occupying by mistake the property subject of the
dispute, but respondent Judge should be mindful to conduct himself in a manner
that gives no ground for reproach. The Court held in Miranda v. Judge Mangrobang[25] that a judge’s
private life cannot be dissociated from his public life and it is, thus,
important that his behavior both on and off the bench be free from any
appearance of impropriety.
The
Court has previously reprimanded judges who have used their office for private
interests. In the aforecited case of Miranda
v. Judge Mangrobang, Sr.,[26]
the respondent judge who engaged in business and in private practice of law was
reprimanded and warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the
future would be dealt with more severely.
In Marces, Sr. v. Arcangel,[27]
the respondent judge was also reprimanded for attending barangay conciliation proceedings at the request of one of the
parties, and for introducing himself as an Executive Judge of the RTC.
In the present case, the Investigating
Justice recommended that respondent Judge be admonished, with a warning that a
repetition of the same or similar act shall warrant a more severe penalty. While there was no categorical finding of bad
faith or malice on the part of respondent Judge, who was motivated by the noble
intention of settling the property dispute between Lozada and Abando, however,
he must bear in mind that his office demands an exacting standard of decorum to
promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary. Respondent Judge should be
more prudent in the observance of his dealings with the public to obviate the
mistaken impression of impropriety in that he is probably using his position as
a judge to impose improper pressure or exert undue influence so as to obtain the
desired result in a given situation.
Thus, considering that respondent Judge violated Rule 2.03 of the Code
of Judicial Conduct, the Court deems it appropriate to impose a stiffer penalty
of a fine of P5,000.00 with stern a warning so as to deter him from
committing the same or similar acts in the future.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Cesar
Untalan of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 149, P5,000.00 with a stern warning that a repetition of
the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
|
MINITA V.
CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
|
On official leave ARTURO
D. BRION
Associate Justice |
|
* Designated as an additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., per raffle dated July 13, 2009; On official leave.
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-4.
[2] Now Presiding Judge of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 149,
[3] In his testimony
dated
[4] Docketed as Invoice Slip No.
03-56286-G; rollo, p. 5.
[5] Docketed as Invoice Slip No.
03-55308-E.
[6] Counter-Affidavit
dated
[7] Letter to the OCA dated
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17] Report and Recommendation dated
[18] Marzalado,
Jr. v. People of the
[19]
[20] TSN,
[21] Black’s Law Dictionary Abridged Fifth Ed.,
p. 365.
[22]
[23] TSN,
[24] Promulgated
[25] A.M.
No. RTJ-01-1665,
[26] Supra.
[27] 328
Phil. 1 (1996).