Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD DIVISION
MANSUETA T. RUBIN, A.M. No. RTJ-11-2267
Complainant, (formerly
A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1788-RTJ)
Present:
CARPIO MORALES, J., Chairperson,
BRION,
BERSAMIN,
VILLARAMA, JR., and
- versus - SERENO, JJ.
Promulgated:
January 19, 2011
JUDGE JOSE Y. AGUIRRE, JR.,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 55,
Himamaylan,
Respondent.
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
BRION, J.:
In a verified
complaint, dated
II
That
Complainant is the widow of the late Feliciano Rubin who was appointed as the
Judicial Administrator of the Estate of the Spouses Dioscoro Rubin and
Emperatriz Rubin;
III
That
Complainant, during the lifetime of her husband, Feliciano Rubin, who is the
aforesaid Judicial Administrator, had witnessed and experienced that her husband
and their family were victims of Graft and Corruption, Grave Injustice
amounting to Violation of the Constitution, Betrayal of Public Trust, Grave
Misconduct, Grave Abuse of Authority, Gross Ignorance of Law, Conduct
Unbecoming of a Judge or Judicial Magistrate, Manifest Bias and Partiality, and
Violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, on the part of the respondent Judge
committed during the conduct of the proceedings in Special Proceeding No. 28,
Intestate Estate of the Spouses Dioscoro Rubin and Emperatriz Rubin, and in
Civil Case No. 184, an Annulment of Adoption pending before him, as follows:
A
The
respondent Judge, by way of devious schemes and clever machinations extorted
money from the aforesaid Estate by lending expertise in connivance with other
lawyer in pursuing an alleged claim against the Estate allegedly intended for
workers’ wages as money claims against the Estate, in a labor case entitled
“Constancia Amar, et.(sic) al. versus Hacienda Fanny and Dioscoro Rubin,” RAB
Case Nos. 1092-81 and A-593-81, both consolidated and numbered as 0104-82,
which was then pending and decided by Labor Arbiter Ricardo T. Octavio;
B
That
the aforesaid consolidated labor cases were decided and became final and
executory and the judgment was already satisfied and paid for personally by Dioscoro
Rubin when he was still alive in the amount of P44,000.00 in the form of check
which was given to Atty. Corral, counsel for the claimants, through Atty.
Rogelio Necessario, counsel for Hacienda Fanny and Dioscoro Rubin x x x.
C
That
respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion and grave abuse of
authority by ordering the aforesaid Estate to pay P205,125.00 upon a Motion
based on a non-existing final or executory decision, which order was illegal
and improper and without any notice and/or hearing accorded to the Estate
through its then Judicial [Administrator] Feliciano Rubin. x x x x
D
The
labor case decided by Labor Arbiter Oscar Uy awarded the claimants in the
amount of P205,125.00, which decision was appealed by Judicial Administrator
Feliciano Rubin and was ordered rema[n]ded and decided by Labor Arbiter Octavio
in the consolidated cases with the reduction of the award in the amount of P62,437.50.
The judgment amount was further reduced after an audit in the amount
of P44,000.00. x x x x
E
That
respondent Judge had threatened the Judicial Administrator and threatened to be
cited for contempt if he will not pay the said labor claims, further threatened
to sell the properties if he will not pay the said labor claims, and likewise
threatened that he would order the x x x properties of the Estate to be sold at
public auction if the said claim will not be paid. x x x x The evident purpose
of the respondent Judge was to cause harassment and anxiety against the then
Judicial Administrator which made his health condition deteriorate so fast that
facilitated his death.
F
That
Complainant’s deceased husband who was the Administrator of the said Estate was
forced to pay the amount ordered by the respondent Judge which was deposited in
court but which was ordered released by the same respondent Judge
[b]ecause the money claim ordered to be
paid by respondent Judge had already been paid and satisfied by Administrator
Feliciano Rubin, naturally no recipient would claim the amount nor anybody can
be found from the records of the case or that no laborer came forward to claim
that he had not been paid of his money claim;
G
The
respondent Judge was grossly ignorant of the law when he ordered the change of
Administrator after the then Judicial Administrator Feliciano Rubin refused to
follow the invalid and unlawful orders of the respondent Judge, as he ordered
his Clerk of Court, Atty. Gregorio A. Lanaria to act as Special Administrator
of the Estate with orders to sell the properties of the Estate to satisfy the
outstanding claim or obligations of the Estate, which was part of the clever
scheme of respondent Judge to extort money from the Estate x x x.
H
That
respondent Judge had extended unwarranted benefit, advantage and preference to
the newly appointed Judicial Administratrix of the Estate, Aileen Rubin,
through his manifest bias and partiality and evident bad faith towards the late
Administrator’s wife, complainant herein, and the surviving heirs, especially
in his conduct of the proceedings involving the Estate and the Annulment of
Adoption case. Respondent Judge even appointed Aileen Rubin as Administratrix
of the Estate whose legal personality is still the subject of the Annulment of
Adoption case, and even pronounced that under the eyes of the law Aileen Rubin
is the sole and legal heir of the aforesaid Estate – thus prejudging the cases
before him even if the proceedings are still pending;
I
That
respondent Judge ordered his appointed Administratrix, Aileen Rubin, to enter
into the Estate, and having entered therein, she and her cohorts ransacked the
premises, took out records, personal belongings of the deceased Feliciano
Rubin, then Administrator of the Estate,
and his wife, the complainant herein x x x.[3]
The complainant submitted
documentary evidence to support the above allegations.[4]
In his
Comment, Judge Aguirre claimed that the complaint contained malicious and
scurrilous allegations that smacked of harassment. The complaint was filed by
the disgruntled complainant who mistakenly believed that she should be
appointed as the Judicial Administratrix of the Estate of the late Spouses
Dioscoro and Emperatriz Rubin, instead of Aileen Rubin, the adopted child of
the deceased spouses. Judge Aguirre asserted that his appointment of Aileen
Rubin as Special Administratrix was affirmed by the Court of Appeals[5]
(CA) and by the Supreme Court.[6]
He also
asserted that the complainant had confused two labor cases.[7]
Only the amount of P44,000.00 was paid as separation pay in RAB Case No.
VI-0104-82. In RAB Case No. A-593-81, Judge Aguirre issued orders to compel Mr.
Feliciano Rubin, the former Administrator of the Estate of the late Spouses Dioscoro
and Emperatriz Rubin, to pay lawful and valid claims against the estate. Judge
Aguirre emphasized that he had already been penalized by the Supreme Court for
delaying the enforcement of the final and executory decision of the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
against the estate of the late spouses Dioscoro and Emperatriz Rubin.
Judge
Aguirre submitted his own documentary evidence to corroborate his allegations.[8]
In its
report, the OCA recommended that the case be docketed as a regular administrative
case considering the varying positions taken by the parties, and considering, too, the failure of Judge
Aguirre to explain in his Comment why he invited Mr. Feliciano Rubin to see him
personally in court.
In the Resolution dated
The Investigating Justice found
that except for the charge of Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge and Violation of
Judicial Conduct, the other charges against Judge Aguirre were “bereft of
factual and legal basis.”[10]
The Investigating Justice found that Judge
Aguirre committed an impropriety when he sent a letter to Mr. Feliciano Rubin
“to discuss and to expedite a possible extra-judicial settlement of the estate
of the deceased Spouses Rubin.”[11]
The Investigating Justice explained:
[H]is act of sending a letter to a party litigant for
a personal conference, however motivated, does not validate his action and the
damning implications it may generate to the [J]udiciary this is especially so
since the content of said letter can constitute as an act of fraternizing with
party-litigants. It must be emphasized that in-chambers sessions without the
presence of the other party and his counsel must be avoided. The prohibition is
to maintain impartiality. Being a judicial front-liner who has a direct contact
with the litigating parties, the respondent judge should conduct himself beyond
reproach.[12]
The
Investigating Justice ruled that Judge Aguirre violated Canon 2 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct which states that a judge should avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all activities. The Investigating Justice
recommended that Judge Aguirre be reprimanded with a stern warning that a
repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt more severely.
The Court’s
Ruling
We find
the findings of the Investigating Justice to be well-taken.
First, the complainant’s claims of alleged devious schemes, clever
machinations, and connivance employed by Judge Aguirre to extort money from the
Estate of the Spouses Dioscoro and Emperatriz Rubin are unsupported by
evidence. A perusal of the documents submitted by both parties shows that the orders
issued by Judge Aguirre to compel Mr. Feliciano Rubin to settle the money
claims filed against the Estate of the Spouses Dioscoro and Emperatriz Rubin in
RAB Case No. A-593-81 were lawful. The orders were issued to enforce a final
and executory decision of the NLRC in the case; we even previously penalized
Judge Aguirre for his failure to promptly act on the motions filed by the
laborers in RAB Case No. A-593-81, for the enforcement of the final NLRC
decision.[13]
In
addition, the evidence on record also refutes the complainant’s claim that the
money claims in RAB Case No. A-593-81 had been previously settled. The records show that what Mr. Feliciano Rubin
actually paid was a claim for separation pay in RAB Case No. VI-0104-82 – an
illegal dismissal case; the money
claims in RAB Case No. A-593-81 pertained to the payment of wage differentials.
Second, we find no evidence supporting
the allegation of bias and partiality when Judge Aguirre appointed Ms. Aileen
Rubin as Judicial Administratrix of the estate of her adopting parents. Notably,
the propriety of the order of her appointment by Judge Aguirre was upheld, on
appeal, by the CA in its Decision dated
Third, in Guerrero v. Villamor,[17]
we held that a judge cannot be held liable for an erroneous decision in the
absence of malice or wrongful conduct in rendering it. We also held that for liability to attach for
ignorance of the law, the assailed order, decision or actuation of the judge in
the performance of official duties must not only be erroneous but must be
established to have been motivated by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred, or some
other like motive.[18]
The complainant failed to prove any of these circumstances in this case. We
find no evidence of corruption or unlawful motive on the part of Judge Aguirre
when he made the said appointment.
Although the appointment by Judge
Aguirre of his branch clerk of court as Special Administrator for the Estate of
the Spouses Dioscoro and Emperatriz Rubin was erroneous for having violated a
standing Court circular and for being contrary to existing jurisprudence,[19]
we find that the appointment was made in good
faith. Good faith connotes an honest intention to abstain from taking unconscientious
advantage of another.[20]
In this regard, Judge Aguirre’s good faith is strengthened by evidence showing
that the appointment of his branch clerk of court was prompted by the continued refusal of Mr.
Feliciano Rubin to settle the money claims filed against the estate in RAB Case
No. A-593-81. The records show that Mr. Feliciano Rubin did not obey the several
orders issued by Judge Aguirre to settle the money claims, and that an administrative
case was even filed against Judge Aguirre for his failure to rule on the
laborers’ motion in RAB Case No. A-593-81.
Despite
these findings, we find that Judge Aguirre committed an impropriety when he
sent a letter, in his official letterhead, to Mr. Feliciano Rubin to discuss a
matter pending before his own court.
In Agustin v. Mercado,[21] we declared that
employees
of the court have no business meeting with litigants
or their representatives
under any circumstance. This prohibition is more
compelling when it
involves a judge who, because
of his position,
must strictly adhere to
the highest tenets of judicial conduct;[22] a judge must be the
embodiment of competence, integrity and independence.[23] As we
explained in Yu-Asensi v. Villanueva:[24]
...[W]ithin
the hierarchy of courts, trial courts stand as an important and visible symbol
of government especially considering that as opposed to appellate courts, trial
judges are those directly in contact with the parties, their counsel and the
communities which the Judiciary is bound to serve. Occupying as he does an
exalted position in the administration of justice, a judge must
pay a high price for the honor bestowed upon him. Thus, a judge must comport
himself at all times in such manner that his conduct, official or otherwise,
can bear the most searching scrutiny of the public that looks up to him as the
epitome of integrity and justice. x x x it is essential that judges, like Caesar's
wife, should be above suspicion.
Under the circumstances,
Judge Aguirre’s act was improper considering that he opened himself to
suspicions in handling the case. His action also raised doubts about his
impartiality and about his integrity in performing his judicial function.
We take note
that the complained
act was committed
before the New Code of Judicial Conduct took effect on
In Rosauro v. Kallos,[26] we
ruled that impropriety constitutes a light charge. Section 11(C) of Rule 140 of
the Rules of Court[27] provides
the following sanctions if the respondent is found guilty of a light charge:
C.
If the respondent is guilty of a light charge, any of the following sanctions
shall be imposed:
1.
A fine of not less than P1,000.00 but not exceeding P10,000.00
and/or;
2.
Censure;
3.
Reprimand;
4.
Admonition with warning.
The Investigating Justice
recommended the penalty of reprimand with stern warning. In light of Judge
Aguirre’s death, however, we resolve to impose a fine of P5,000.00
instead. Jurisprudence holds that the death of the respondent in an
administrative case, as a rule, does not preclude a finding of administrative
liability, save for recognized exceptions.[28]
None of the exceptions applies to the present case.[29]
The P5,000.00 fine
shall be taken from the amount of P50,000.00 which we previously
retained/withheld from Judge Aguirre’s retirement benefits due to the
administrative cases filed against him.[30]
WHEREFORE, we find Judge Jose Y.
Aguirre, Jr. guilty of impropriety, in violation of Canon 2 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct and Canon 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. We hereby impose
a fine of P5,000.00 which shall be deducted from the P50,000.00 withheld
from his retirement benefits.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO
D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
Chairperson
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MARIA
Associate Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-9.
[2] Now deceased.
[3] Supra note 1, at 2.
[4]
They are: (1) Satisfaction of Judgment in the amount of P44,000.00 in
RAB Case No. V-0104-2, Receipt dated
[5]Decision
dated
[6] Resolution dated
[7] Orders dated September 7, 1998, March 17, 1999, May 24, 1999 and August 23, 1999 in Spec. Proc. No. 28, Motion for Execution of the Order and Motion to Cite the Judicial Administrator for Contempt filed by Atty. Napoleon Corral in Spec. Proc. No. 28; Order dated November 13, 1998 in Spec. Proc. No. 28; Entry of Appearance by Atty. Nilo G. Sorbito in Spec. Proc. No. 28; Manifestation filed by Atty. Nilo G. Sorbito in Spec. Proc. No. 28; Opposition to the Manifestation filed by Atty. Napoleon Corral in Spec. Proc. No. 28; Letter dated August 21, 1999 to Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. by Atty. Napoleon Corral; and letter dated August 23, 1999. Rollo, pp. 51-70.
[8] See Notes 4, 5 and 6; and rollo, pp. 71-112.
[9] Rollo, p. 117.
[10]
Report dated
[11] Ibid.
[12]
[13]
Request for Assistance Relative to Special Proceedings No. 28 Pending at [the] Regional
Trial Court of Himamaylan, Negros Occidental, Branch 55, Presided by Judge Jose
Y. Aguirre, Jr., Adm. Case No. RTJ-01-1624,
[14] Rollo, pp. 43-50; penned by CA Associate Justice (now Supreme Court Associate Justice) Martin S. Villarama, Jr., with the concurrence of CA Associate Justices (now Supreme Court Associate Justices) Conchita Carpio Morales and Mariano C. del Castillo.
[15]
[16] Supra note 10, at 7.
[17] A.M. No. RTJ-90-483, September 25, 1998, 296 SCRA 88, 97, citing Hon. Judge Adriano Villamor v. Hon. Judge Bernardo Ll. Salas & George Carlos, 203 SCRA 540 (1991).
[18]
[19]
Balanay
Jr. v.
[20] Que v. Atty. Revilla, Jr., A.C. No.
7054,
[21]
A.M. No. P-07-2340,
[22]
Avancena v. Liwanag, A.M. No.
MTJ-01-1383,
[23] Ibid.
[24]
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1245,
[25] Chuan & Sons, Inc. v. Peralta, A.M.
No. RTJ-05-1917 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 04-2006-RTJ],
[26] A.M. No. RTJ-03-1796,
[27] A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC which took
effect on
[28]
Mercado v. Salcedo, A.M. No.
RTJ-03-1781,
[29] Ibid.
[30] Pancho v.
Aguirre, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-09-2196,