. March 20, 1922

Charges against the Honorable Antonio Horrilleno, judge of
first instance of the Twenty-sixth Judicial District have been aired by
Abundio Enrile before the Wood-Forbes Mission, the Governor-General,
and the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands. Judge Horrilleno has
joined with his accuser in asking for an official investigation and
this has now been concluded by the Attorney-General. The law officer of
the Government, in his report to this court, submits the evidence
presented, with the recommendation that the charges laid against Judge
Horrilleno be dismissed. It is, therefore, for the court to determine
from the record before it, including the petition of the complainant
Enrile, the answer to the same made to the Secretary of Justice by
Judge Horrilleno, and the record of the official investigation, if
sufficient cause exists under the law for the court to recommend the
removal of Judge Antonio Horrilleno to the Governor-General.

The charges made by Abundio Enrile against Judge Antonio
Horrilleno, as understood by the latter, were (1) In negligently and
carelessly delaying the case No. 21 of the Court of First Instance of
Zamboanga, entitled, Abintestato del finado Nicolas Nunez y
Enrile (Intestate Estate of Nicolas Nunez y Enrile,
deceased), and (2) in that Judge Horrilleno was a political judge. The
specification of misconduct last mentioned has not been
pressed.

The allegations of negligence and carelessness
(negligencia y descuido) have to do with the civil
case, Abintestato del
finado Nicolas Nunez y Enrile, begun on April 23, 1912, and
still in litigation. The complainant charges that the respondent judge
has wilfully delayed the hearing- of this case and has taken no action,
although his attention has repeatedly been called to the numerous
irregularities committed by the administrator in the performance of his
duties. It is said that six cases, which were submitted for
adjudication to the respondent much later than that in which the
complainant is interested, have already been decided. Insinuations-are
also made that the judge has lived on a parcel of land constituting a
portion of the property involved in the action.

Among the conceded facts, which tend to dissipate completely
the allegations of the complainant, there can be mentioned the
following: Judge Horrilleno was appointed auxiliary judge of the
seventh group which includes the Twenty-sixth Judicial District in
March, 1919; case No. 21 of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga
entitled, “Abintestato del finado Nicolas Nunez y
Enrile,” was first submitted to him on July 1, 1919; and the
various continuances granted by the judge have been either on account
of the petition of the parties themselves or on account of the court
being able to hold sessions in Zamboanga for short periods at a time.
While it is admitted that respondent lived on lot 3, of block No. 26,
cadastral case No. 7888 of the municipality of Zamboanga, he had no
means of knowing that the land would become involved in a suit about to
be heard by him and he has paid the customary rental therefor.

With the foregoing the outstanding facts of record, we should
next turn to the Philippine law on the subject of removal and
suspension of judges of first instance (sec. 173, Administrative Code),
in order to determine therefrom whether or not it is our duty to ask
the Chief Executive to remove the respondent judge from
office.

The grounds for removal of a judge of first instance under
Philippine law are two: (1) Serious misconduct and (2) inefficiency.
The latter ground is not involved in these proceedings. As to the
first, the law provides that “sufficient cause” must
exist in the judgment of the Supreme Court involving “serious
misconduct.” The adjective is “serious;”
that is, important, weighty, momentous, and not trifling. The noun is
“misconduct;” that is, a transgression of some
established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful
behavior or gross negligence by the public officer. The word
“misconduct” implies a wrongful intention and not
a-mere error of judgment. For serious misconduct to exist, there must
be reliable evidence showing that the judicial acts complained’ of were
corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law, or were in
persistent disregard of well-known legal rules. People [1874], 74 111.,
228; Citizens’ Insurance Co. vs. Marsh [1861], 41 Pa., 386; Miller vs.
Roby [1880], 9 Neb., 471; Smith vs. Cutler [1833], 10 Wend. [N. Y.],
590; U. S. vs. Warner [1848], 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16643; In
re Tighe [1904], 89 N. Y. Supp., 719.)

The procedure for the impeachment of judges of first instance
has heretofore not been well defined. The Supreme Court has not as yet
adopted rules of procedure, as it is authorized to do by law. In
practice, it is usual for the court to require that charges made
against a judge of first instance shall be presented in due form and
sworn to; thereafter, to give the respondent judge an opportunity to
answer; thereafter, if the explanation of the respondent be deemed
satisfactory, to file the charges without further annoyance for the
judge; while if the charges establish a prima facie
case, they are referred to the Attorney-General who acts for
the court in conducting an inquiry into the conduct of the respondent
judge. On the conclusion of the Attorney-General’s investigation, a
hearing is had before the court en banc and it sits
in judgment to determine if sufficient cause exists involving the
serious misconduct or inefficiency of the respondent judge as warrants
the court in recommending his removal to the Governor-General.
Impeachment proceedings before courts have been said, in other
jurisdictions, to be in their nature highly penal in character and to
be governed by the rules of law applicable to criminal cases. The
charges must, therefore, be proved beyond reasonable doubt. (State
ex rel. Attorney-General vs. Hasty [1913], 184 Ala.,
121; State vs. Hastings [1893], 37 Neb., 96.)

Serious misconduct on the part of Judge Horrilleno has not
here been proved by a preponderance of the evidence, much less beyond a
reasonable doubt. The most that can be said for the charges made by
complainant, would be that the judge may have been careless in the
performance of his judicial duties. There is extant absolutely no proof
that the respondent judge has acted partially, or maliciously, or
corruptly, or arbitrarily, or oppressively. On the contrary, the
testimony of the most prominent citizens of Mindanao and Sulu including
the Sultan of Sulu, Senator Hadji Butu, Datu Ussman, Governor Charles
M. Moore, and practically the entire bar of Zamboanga, Jolo, and Davao
is unanimously in favor of the excellent reputation of Judge
Horrilleno. Sufficient of the cases tried by Judge Horrilleno have been
elevated to this court for all of us to have become conscious of the
careful performance of his onerous and responsible duties, and familiar
with the excellent quality of his judicial output. We would be remiss
ourselves if, knowing of the publicity which has been given to the
attacks on the good name of Judge Horrilleno, we should not as publicly
announce our faith in his judicial character. Judge Horrilleno justly
merits and is granted complete exoneration.

It results that in the judgment of the Supreme Court of the
Philippine Islands, sufficient cause does not exist involving serious
misconduct or inefficiency on the part of Honorable Antonio Horrilleno,
judge of first instance of the Twenty-sixth Judicial District, as
justifies the court in recommending his removal to the
Governor-General. Without further action, therefore, the papers in
these proceedings against Judge Horrilleno shall be filed, and a copy
of this decision shall be forwarded to him through official channels.
So ordered.

Araullo, C. J., Avanceña, Villamor,
Ostrand, and Johns, JJ., concur.

Romualdez, J., did not take part.