ATTY.
ANTONIO G. CAÑEDA,
Complainant, -
versus - JUDGE ERIC F. MENCHAVEZ,
Respondent. |
A.M. No. RTJ-06-2026
(Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2496-RTJ) Present:
QUISUMBING, J.,
Chairperson,
carpio MORALES, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA,* and BRION, JJ. Promulgated: March 4, 2009 |
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
|
|
|
|
|
D E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
BRION, J.: |
|
|
|
|
Before
us is the Complaint filed on April 12, 2006 by Atty. Antonio G. Cañeda (complainant)
against Presiding Judge Eric F. Menchavez (respondent) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 21, Cebu City, for violation of Section 6(3), Rule 140 of the Rules of
Court in relation with Canons 2.01, 3.01 and 3.03 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.[1]
The
Antecedents
The complainant is the counsel of one of the defendants,
Virginia Borromeo Guzman, in Civil Case No. CEB-30956, entitled Roberto
Borromeo, et al. v. Heirs of Juan Borromeo, for judicial partition, pending
with the respondent’s RTC Branch 21. Lawyer Pepito C. Suello is complainant's
collaborating counsel in the case. Both
Ms. Guzman and Atty. Suello executed affidavits in connection with the
complaint.[2]
It appears from the complaint and the supporting affidavits
that the respondent called the partition case for hearing on
The respondent asked the complainant at the start of the
hearing if the defendants he was representing were amenable to a
partition. The complainant answered in
the affirmative, subject to the conditions that the counsel for the plaintiffs would
withdraw a pending motion for reconsideration before the Supreme Court to clear
one of the areas subject to partition of squatters, and would secure a writ of
execution.
Atty. Delfin V. Nacua (Atty. Nacua), counsel for the
plaintiffs, replied that he could not withdraw the motion before the Supreme
Court. At this point, the respondent
asked the complainant if he was amenable to segregate only the share of Roberto
Borromeo. The complainant expressed
reservations about it. Instead he advanced
the idea that the parties talk to each other through mediation. The respondent
thereupon blurted out “never mind mediation, walay hinundan na (it's useless).”
When the respondent checked on the progress of the case,
the complainant remarked that it was being delayed because no proper summons (by
publication) had been served on the defendants who were residing outside
the country. The respondent reacted by
angrily banging his gavel and shouting, “I said no publication period.” He banged the gavel so hard that it broke,
its head flying into the air and almost hitting complainant. The respondent then slammed the table with
his hand and then went inside his chambers.
After a while, he came back with a holstered handgun and smashed it on
the table, as he angrily shouted at complainant, “Unsay gusto nimo? Yawa!
Gahig ulo!” (What do you want? Devil! Hardheaded!)
A lawyer, also attending the hearing and who was near the
respondent's table, moved for a recess. A member of the respondent's staff then
gave him a glass of water. The
complainant apologized for causing the temper of the respondent to rise, but
the respondent ignored him and called for the next case. At that point, the complainant asked for
permission to leave.
The complainant regarded the respondent's act of
challenging him inside the courtroom in the presence of many people as an act
of impropriety under Section 6(3), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, in relation
with the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canons 2.01, 3.01 and 3.03. The complainant maintained that the conduct
of the respondent inside the court not only tarnished the name of the judiciary
he represents but constituted an insult to the law profession; that the
respondent is not above the law; and that the gun is not an emblem of
authority.
Additionally, complainant perceived the respondent to be
biased in favor of the plaintiffs inasmuch as the respondent had been
convincing him to agree to the plaintiffs’ position.
In a 1st Indorsement dated
The respondent duly submitted his Comment dated
The respondent explained that the complainant, while
arguing at the hearing for his client, refused to stop talking even when
signaled by the Court to stop. He told
complainant that summons by publication was no longer proper because summons by
personal service had already been effected on defendants. The complainant simply continued to argue and
even became aggressive, belligerent and disrespectful, causing the respondent
to flare up and bang his gavel.
The respondent denied that the gavel broke with its head
almost hitting the complainant; the gavel is being used up to the present time
and the complainant was never in danger
of being hit. He simply refused to stop arguing until the atmosphere became so
heated that one of the lawyers, Atty.
Elias Espinosa, had to move for a recess.
Thereupon, the respondent went inside his chambers, drank a glass of
water to cool himself off, and reflected on what had just transpired. He sensed he had reason to fear for his life
so he decided to equip himself with his licensed firearm and to place it on the
table, preparing for the worst. He never
pointed nor brandished the firearm at anyone, as it remained in its holster at
all times.
The respondent likewise denied that he had smashed the gun
on the table as it could fire or otherwise could have been damaged. After he asked complainant “what do you want?”
the lawyer apologized for causing him to raise his voice and to blow his
top. He ignored the complainant despite
the apology and considered the incidents submitted for resolution.
The respondent also denied the allegation of bias, as
allegedly shown by the offer of his chambers to the parties for possible
amicable settlement talks. He did so because the parties are members of the
same family and a settlement would have been the most beneficial solution. If
he blew his top at all, he was led to it by the complainant's disrespect and
discourtesy to the court. It was only upon seeing the gun that the complainant
calmed down, behaved, and apologized to the court. He sincerely believed that under the
circumstances, he employed the means necessary to maintain order in the
court.
Complainant filed a reply dated
The
OCA Report/Recommendation
In its submission dated
1.
The aggressive,
belligerent and disrespectful conduct of the complainant caused him to flare up
or to blow his top and bang his gavel on
the table; and
2.
He equipped himself with
his gun by bringing it outside and placing it on the table, as he asked
complainant, “ what do you want?”
With the foregoing admissions, the OCA found credible the
complainant's allegations that the respondent uttered such statements as “never
mind mediation, walay hinundan na” (it's useless), 'I said no publication
period.” “Yawa! Gahig ulo.” (Devil, Hardheaded!) in the course of his
altercation with the complainant. It
faulted the respondent for overstepping the norms of propriety demanded of a
member of the bench by losing his cool and uttering intemperate language during
the hearing. It opined that the
belligerent, aggressive and disrespectful language of complainant was no excuse
for what he said to the complainant.
The OCA also characterized as highly irresponsible and
improper the respondent’s acts of bringing his handgun into the courtroom,
placing it on his table, and threateningly asking the complainant, “what do
you want?” This reaction was
uncalled for as the respondent has ample powers to address any hostile or
unfriendly situation in his court.
The OCA recommended that the respondent be made liable for
conduct unbecoming a judge and fined in the amount of P5,000.00, with a
warning against the commission of the same or a similar infraction in the
future.
The
Court's Ruling
This case highlights the limits that a judge must observe
in responding to situations he perceives to be abusive in his court.
What
appears certain to us is that there were basic disagreements on approaches and
issues in the partition case. In the courtroom, a lawyer makes submissions
before a judge whose role is to hear and consider the submissions, and
subsequently rule on the matter. It is
not a situation where two equals, such as the opposing counsels, argue against each
other. The respondent apparently had a misplaced concept of what a courtroom
situation should ideally be, so that he was effectively arguing with counsel as
shown by his clearly contentious stance when he made his ruling. This was the
respondent’s first error; he should have coolly ruled and allowed counsel to
respond to his ruling, instead of proceeding in a manner that invited further
arguments. The complainant, however,
also erred since he continued to argue despite the respondent’s ruling. The respondent judge’s response, under this
situation, should have been to direct the complainant to wind up his arguments
under pain of direct contempt if this warning would be disregarded. Thereafter,
he could have declared the complainant in direct contempt if he persisted in
his arguments. A direct contempt, of
course, is not enforced by a judge’s act of bringing out his weapon and asking
counsel the direct question “What do you want?”
This confrontational manner – shown usually in the western genre of movies
– has no place in our present justice system.
There are agents of the law, specifically, officers of the court and the
police who can be called upon to implement contempt orders and restore order as
needed.
Since
the alternative recourses available to the respondent did not take place, we share
the OCA's observation that the respondent overreacted in his handling of the
situation before his court. Bringing out a gun for everyone present in the
court to see, even for purposes of maintaining order and decorum in the court,
is inexcusable in the absence of overt acts of physical aggression by a party
before the court.
As the OCA aptly pointed out, the New Code of Judicial
Conduct[8]
requires “`(Judges) shall ensure that not only is their conduct above
reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable
observer,” and their “behavior and conduct x x x must reaffirm the
peoples' faith in the integrity of the judiciary,”[9] The respondent violated this rule when, after
a show of anger, he brought and openly displayed his gun on his courtroom table
while hurling a confrontational question at the offending counsel. While the
New Code of Judicial Conduct requires a magistrate to maintain order and
decorum in the court,[10] the
Code itself sets limits on how a judge should do this. Section 6, Canon 6 of
the Code provides:
Judges
shall maintain order and decorum in all proceedings before the court and be
patient, dignified and courteous in relation to litigants, witnesses, lawyers
and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity. Judges shall
require similar conduct of legal representatives, court staff and others
subject to their influence, direction or control.
To reiterate, the judge
himself must observe decorum by acting with dignity and courtesy to all those
present in the courtroom. This, the
respondent judge failed to do. The severity of his violation is not tampered by
his allegation that the complainant himself contributed to the events that led
to the respondent’s show of temper.
In Juan dela Cruz (Concerned citizen of
Similarly
in Rowena v. Guanzon, et al. v. Judge Anastacio C. Rufon,[12]
the Court declared - “although respondent judge may attribute his
intemperate language to human frailty, his noble position in the bench
nevertheless demands from him courteous speech in and out of court. Judges are demanded to be always
temperate, patient and courteous both in conduct and in language.”
In view of the foregoing, we find the respondent liable for vulgar and unbecoming conduct
defined under Section 10, Rule 140, as amended, of the Rules of Court as a
light charge punishable by a fine of not less than P1,000.00 but not
exceeding P10,000.00. In light of the severity of the respondent
judge’s transgression affecting as it does, not only the judge himself but his
court and the image and reputation of the whole judiciary, we find the maximum
fine of P10,000.00 to be merited.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Judge ERIC F.
MENCHAVEZ, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, P10,000.00
is imposed upon him with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or
similar infraction will be dealt with more severely. The complainant is given the ADMONITION that
in representing his clients, he should ever be mindful of the respect due to
the court and avoid actions bordering on disrespect.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate
Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
* Designated additional member of the Second
Division per Special Order No. 571 dated
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-4.
[2]
[3] Rollo, p. 9.
[4]
[5]
[6] Rollo, pp. 50-52.
[7] Administrative Matter for Agenda.
[8] Adopting the New Code of Judicial Conduct
for the Philippine Judiciary, A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC,
[9]
[10] Rule 3, Cannon 3.
[11] A.M. No.
RTJ-07-2043,
[12] A.M. No. RTJ-07-2038,