Republic of the
Supreme Court
SECOND DIVISION
|
ATTY. RAUL L. CORREA, Complainant, - versus - JUDGE MEDEL ARNALDO B.
BELEN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 36, Respondent. |
A.M.
No. RTJ-10-2242
[Formerly OCA IPI No. 09-3149-RTJ]
Present: CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson, NACHURA, PERALTA, ABAD, and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: August 6,
2010 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.:
Before us is a
Verified-Complaint dated February 20, 2009 filed by complainant Atty. Raul L.
Correa charging respondent
Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 36,
Complainant
narrated that he was one of the Co-Administrators appointed by the court in
Special Proceedings No. 660-01C, entitled “Intestate
Estate of Hector Tan.” He revealed
that during the hearing of the case, respondent Judge Belen disagreed with
various items in the Administrator’s Report, including the audited Financial
Report covering the said estate, and immediately ruled that they should be
disallowed. Complainant added that
respondent Judge Belen scolded their accountant, branded her as an incompetent,
and threatened to sue her before the regulatory body overseeing all certified
public accountants.
Complainant
further claimed that, in the course of the proceedings, he was asked by respondent
Judge Belen to stand up while the latter dictated his order on their
Administrator’s Report. Respondent Judge
Belen even rebuked him for some mistakes in managing the affairs of the estate,
adding that it is regrettable “because
Atty. Raul Correa is a U.P. Law Graduate and a Bar Topnotcher at that.” Complainant regrets the actuations and
statements of respondent Judge Belen, especially because the remark was
uncalled for, a left-handed compliment, and a grave insult to his Alma Mater. Worse, respondent Judge Belen ousted
complainant as co-administrator of the estate of Hector Tan.
On
June 18, 2008, respondent Judge Belen issued an Order citing complainant for
indirect contempt, allegedly with administrator Rose Ang Tee, for
surreptitiously and unlawfully withdrawing from and emptying the account of the
estate of Hector Tan. The June 18, 2008
Order contained snide remarks, viz—
x
x x. The action of Rose Tee and Atty. Raul Correa is contumacious and direct
challenge to lawful orders, and judicial process of this [c]ourt and malicious
assault to the orderly administration of justice, more specifically abhorrent
the act and deed of Atty. Raul Correa, a
U.P. Law alumnus and Bar Topnotcher, who as a lawyer knows very well and
fully understands that such action violates his oath of office which the Court
cannot countenance. x x x
Lastly,
complainant insisted that he should not have been cited for indirect contempt
because he had fully explained to the court that he had done his part as
co-administrator in good faith, and that, through his efforts, the estate was
able to meet the deadline for the latest Tax Amnesty Program of the government,
consequently saving the estate the amount of no less than P35 Million.
In
his Comment dated August 18, 2009, respondent Judge Belen argued that a judge,
having the heavy burden to always conduct himself in accordance with the
ethical tenets of honesty, probity and integrity, is duty bound to remind
counsel of their duties to the court, to their clients, to the adverse party,
and to the opposing counsel.
Respondent
Judge Belen claimed that the conduct of complainant in handling the settlement
of the estate of Hector Tan violated and breached the tenets and standards of
the legal profession and of the Lawyer’s Oath.
He alleged that, despite the clear tenor of a lawyer-client
relationship, complainant associated himself as corresponding counsel and
member of the Ongkiko Law Office, the counsel of the opposing party in the settlement
proceedings.
Respondent
Judge Belen further alleged that complainant, in connivance with Rose Ang Tee,
surreptitiously released millions of pesos for the now deceased Purification
Tee Tan and to themselves, in clear violation of complainant’s legal and
fiduciary relationship and responsibilities as court-appointed
co-administrator.
Both
the Verified-Complaint and the Comment were referred to the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) for evaluation, report, and recommendation.
In
its Report dated March 10, 2010, the OCA found respondent Judge Belen guilty of
conduct unbecoming of a judge for his use of intemperate language and
inappropriate actions in dealing with counsels, such as complainant, appearing
in his sala. The OCA said that respondent
Judge Belen should have just ruled on the motion filed by complainant instead
of opting for a conceited display of arrogance.
The OCA also noted that the incidents subject of this administrative
matter were not the first time that respondent Judge Belen had uttered
intemperate remarks towards lawyers appearing before him. It noted that in Mane v. Belen,[1]
the Court found respondent Judge Belen guilty of conduct unbecoming of a judge
and was reprimanded for engaging in a supercilious legal and personal
discourse.
Based
on its evaluation, the OCA recommended that (a) the administrative case against
respondent Judge Belen be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter; and
(b) respondent Judge Belen be fined in the amount of P10,000.00 for
conduct unbecoming of a judge, with a stern warning that a repetition of the
same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
The
findings and the recommendations of the OCA are well taken and, thus, should be
upheld.
Indeed,
the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary exhorts members
of the judiciary, in the discharge of their duties, to be models of propriety
at all times. Canon 4 mandates –
CANON
4
PROPRIETY
Propriety
and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all the activities
of a judge.
SECTION
1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and
the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.
x
x x
SEC.
6. Judges, like any other citizen, are
entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly, but in
exercising such rights, they shall always conduct themselves in such a manner
as to preserve the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and
independence of the judiciary.
The
Code also calls upon judges to ensure
equality of treatment to all before the courts.
More specifically, Section 3, Canon 5 on Equality provides –
SEC.
3. Judges shall carry out judicial
duties with appropriate consideration for all persons, such as the parties,
witnesses, lawyers, court staff and judicial colleagues, without
differentiation on any irrelevant ground, immaterial to the proper performance
of such duties.
We
join the OCA in noting that the incidents narrated by complainant were never
denied by respondent Judge Belen, who merely offered his justification and
asserted counter accusations against complainant.
Verily,
we hold that respondent Judge Belen should be more circumspect in his language
in the discharge of his duties. A judge is the visible representation of the law. Thus, he
must behave, at all times, in such a manner that his conduct, official or
otherwise, can withstand the most searching public scrutiny. The ethical
principles and sense of propriety of a judge are essential to the preservation
of the people’s faith in the judicial system.[2]
A judge must consistently be temperate in words and in
actions. Respondent Judge Belen’s
insulting statements, tending to project complainant’s ignorance of the laws
and procedure, coming from his inconsiderate belief that the latter mishandled
the cause of his client is obviously and clearly insensitive, distasteful, and
inexcusable. Such abuse of power and
authority could only invite disrespect from counsels and from the public. Patience is one virtue that members of the
bench should practice at all times, and courtesy to everyone is always called
for.
Conduct unbecoming of a judge is classified as a light
offense under Section 10, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, penalized
under Section 11 (c) thereof by any of the following: (1) a Fine of not less
than P1,000.00 but not exceeding P10,000.00; (2) Censure; (3)
Reprimand; and (4) Admonition with warning.
Inasmuch as this is not respondent Judge Belen’s first offense, the
penalty of fine of P10,000.00 is deemed appropriate.
WHEREFORE, we find Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen, Presiding
Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba City, Branch 36, GUILTY of Conduct Unbecoming of a
Judge, and FINE him P10,000.00,
with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be
dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate
Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate
Justice |
JOSE CATRAL
Associate
Justice