ATTY. ARTURO A. ROMERO, COMPLAINANT, VS. HON. JUDGE GABRIEL O. VALLE, JR., RESPONDENT.

In a verified complaint dated November 28, 1984, Atty. Arturo A. Romero charged Judge
Gabriel O. Valle, Jr., of the Regional
Trial Court
of Laoag
City, Branch XII with grave
misconduct and oppression.  In the words of complainant himself,
the acts complained of consisted in:

“5. That instead of directing complainant to proceed
with the marking of exhibits and to continue the direct examination,
respondent continued to utter embarrasing
remarks which hurt complainant and, therefore, the latter tried to make
further explanations on said
exhibits and to
defend his integrity in
a controlled
and respectful manner, but his
honor, the respondent judge suddenly
banged his gavel producing such a
deafening noise that
several persons from the
adjoining branches of the Court came; that
without declaring a recess, said respondent judge  unceremoniously
REMOVED his coat and told, angrily, herein complainant: ‘You step out and
we will finish the matter’; immediately thereafter, respondent
judge stepped down from the rostrum and
left;

“6.  That, shaken and stunned by such sudden
aggressive behaviour of respondent, complainant
then stood by his seat, and as some people in the Courtroom rushed out of the
Courtroom, complainant looked around and then saw respondent judge outside the
courtroom holding a gun with his right hand, in front of him, facing towards
complainant, in an angry and menacing manner, and
waited for complainant      to go outside; confronted by
such alarming and threatening stance of respondent,
complainant could not move for a moment, as complainant was totally
unarmed, surprised and shocked; and when complainant saw respondent Judge
briskly walked to and fro, still holding a gun, complainant then asked the Court
stenographer:  ‘Please put in the record that the
Judge is holding a gun’; that luckily
thereafter, Atty. Isidro Madamba,
member the Sangunian Panlalawigan, succeeded
in pacifying respondent judge and shortly, said
respondent returned to the Court; that after
some remarks by respondent judge,
complainant moved that the Honorable
respondent voluntarily inhibit himself from further
trying the case in the light of the
antecedents, but denied it and ordered the resetting
ofthe case;^[1]

Required to comment on the complaint, respondent judge denied the
charges and branded the same as “exaggerated, sensationalized, fabricated and
inherently improbable and contrary to human experience and one-sided”.^[2] Respondent judge likewise explained that
he has been issued by the provincial commander the necessary permit to carry his
licensed pistol outside his residence on account of a threat on his life from
the New People’s Army.  By way of prayer, he asked that complainant
be suspended from the practice of law for a certain period of time.^[3]

On January 31,
1985, the Court en banc resolved to refer the case to
Associate Justice of the then Intermediate Appellate Court, Abdulwahid Bidin, for
investigation, report and recommendation.  From the evidence
adduced at the hearings, Associate Justice Bidin made
the following findings of facts and conclusions:

“Complainant is one of the two counsels for
plaintiff in Civil Case No. 6821 entitled ‘Iglesia Filipina Independiente versus Rafael Albano, et. al.,’ for
‘Quieting of Title with Preliminary
Injunction’, pending before the
Regional
Trial
Court
of
Ilocos Norte – Laoag
City,
Branch XII, presided by
Respondent Judge.

“During the trial of said case on
November 19,
1984, complainant requested
that an inventory book of plaintiff
be marked as Exhibit F. 
Respondent Judge interrupted the complainant
with a remark that the said inventory book
should be marked Exh. G
since there is already an Exh. F of the plaintiff which was marked during
the last hearing of the case when complainant
was absent.  The fact
that there was already an Exh. F for
the plaintiff was confirmed by the manifestation of
Atty. Rafael Ruiz, counsel for
the defendant after verifying his notes as requested
by respondent judge.  Nevertheless, the
complainant in a loud voice insisted that his proposed marking of
the Exhibit is the correct one as
the Exhibit F referred to by respondent
judge and Atty. Ruiz was not initialed
by the Clerk of
Court.  This remark of
complainant irritated the respondent judge who
retorted that complainant is not prepared
for trial and
admonished the latter to be prepared with his trial
brief before coming to court so that he
will not bangle (sic) the marking of
his exhibit.  As the complainant
continued insisting in a loud voice that his proposed
marking of the inventory book as
Exhibit F is correct, despite
the fact that respondent judge had admonished
him [complainant] not to bring his
‘passion’ to the court and if complainant does
not respect the Judge, he should respect the court, the
respondent banged his gavel, left the rostrum and went to his chamber. 
According to the complainant and his witness, [Atty. Andres Tunac, co-counsel of complainant in the case], the
respondent, before leaving the rostrum made this remark to complainant ‘You step
out.  We finish the matter.’ Respondent denied having made the
challenge to complainant and alleged that what he said or declared before
leaving the rostrum was ‘five minutes recess’. 
This call for a recess by respondent is confirmed and/or corroborated by
Atty. Rafael Ruiz, defendant’s counsel in the case on trial and respondent’s
witness in this investigation.  From his chamber, respondent judge
went to the stairs passing the corridor holding his coat with his left hand
while on his right hand he was holding a hand gun [revolver] which was inside
its holster.  As respondent walked on the corridor
towards the stairs, he looked at the courtroom where the lawyers were. 
Upon reaching the stairs, respondent was informed
by his clerk that there are still cases in the calendar ready
for trial.  Respondent returned to his chamber and
placed his gun inside his table.  Later,
respondent came out to resume his court
session.

“At the resumption of the trial, the complainant
stood up and asked the respondent to inhibit himself from hearing
the case.  The respondent required the complainant to put his
request in writing and dictated an order resetting the case to another
date.  The case [Civil Case No. 6821], is now
transferred to another judge who presides over Branch
XIII.

“Respondent claims that he is
authorized to carry his licensed pistol
outside of his residence as evidenced by
the Certification issued by the Provincial Commander of llocos Norte [Exh. 7] and that he had been carrying
the said gun from his house to office and back
ever since he received a letter
threat dated March 22, 1984
[Exh. 1] from the
NPA.

“According to Atty. Leandro Rafales [complainant’s own
witness] and who appears with [sic] the most impartial among the
witnesses, the respondent
stood up, bang [sic] his gavel and
left the rostrum because the complainant
did not stop making remarks and insisted in a
loud voice in marking the inventory book as
Exhibit F despite the fact that it has
been established that there was already
an Exhibit F of the plaintiff and that
before banging the gavel, respondent judge told
the complainant not to bring his passion to court
and if complainant does not respect the
Judge, he should  respect the
court.  Atty. Rafales
also testified that respondent judge did not
remove his coat when he left the
rostrum; and while respondent was holding his gun which
was inside its holster with his
right hand when he came out of his
chamber on his way towards the stairs, the gun
was not pointed at anyone, although the
respondent turned his face towards the people inside the
courtroom as he walked towards the
stairs.

“As regards the charge that
respondent challenged the complainant to ‘step out
and we will settle the matter’ the
evidence is inconclusive.   While the
complainant and his co- counsel, Atty.
Tunac testified that the respondent Judge
uttered those statements, the latter and Atty. Rafael
Ruiz [dependant’s counsel and witness for respondent] denied that such statement
was made by respondent.  Both respondent and
Atty. Ruiz allege that what respondent
said or declared before leaving the rostrum was ‘five minute
recess.’ On the other hand, Atty. Rafales testified that what he heard
from respondent judge was ‘step out’
only.  The transcript of
the proceedings that took place before
respondent judge on that fateful
day had not been presented as evidenced [sic]
by the parties at
this investigation.  In view
of this conflicting testimony of the
witnesses, the undersigned cannot conclude that respondent judge
challenged the complainant as alleged in the
complaint.”^[4]

It is evident from the foregoing that complainant and respondent
judge are equally to blame for the incident under consideration. 
We have enunciated in the case of Lugue vs. Kayanan, 29 SCRA 165,
that:

“It is the duty of both counsel and judge to maintain, not to
destroy, the high esteem and regard for courts. 
Any act on the part of
one or the other that tends
to undermine the people’s respect for,
and confidence in, the administration of
justice is to be avoided.  And this,
even if both may have to restrain pride from
taking the better part of their
system.  To be expected then of
petitioner and respondent is a sense of shared
responsibility, a crucial factor in the administration of
justice.  xxx“

The relations between counsel and judge
should be based on mutual respect and on a deep appreciation by one of the
duties of the other.^[5] Thus, counsel is
expected to observe and maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and
judicial officers.^[6] Although allowed
some latitude of remarks or comment in the furtherance of causes he upholds,^[7] his arguments, written or oral, should be
gracious to both court and opposing counsel and be of such words as may be
properly addressed by one gentleman to another.^[8] Certainly, and most especially in our
culture, raising one’s voice is a sign of disrespect, improper to one whose
“investiture into the legal profession places upon his shoulders no burden more
basic, more exacting and more imperative than that of respectful behavior
towards the courts.”^[9]

Complainant is an active law practitioner in the
province of Ilocos Norte.  He
was director of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Ilocos Norte-Laoag City Chapter in
1982, Chairman of the Legal Aid Committee of said chapter, president of
PHILCONSA, Ilocos Norte-Laoag City Chapter from 1981-83 and president of the Ilocos Norte Lions Club in 1983.^[10] As a recognized community leader,
complainant should provide an example in proper court decorum to his brothers in
the profession, and not to foment discord in the courtroom. 
Considering complainant’s obvious high standing in the legal profession
and the community, he should have observed humility to accept mistakes
graciously and to treat the same as the proverbial learning experience.

On the other hand, respondent judge exhibited shortness of temper
and impatience, contrary to the duties and restrictions imposed upon him by
reason of his office.^[11] In Calalang vs. Fernandez, Adm. Case No.
175-J, June 10, 1971, We stated that a judge should show no shortness of temper for
it merely detracts from the equanimity and judiciousness that should be the
constant marks of a dispenser of justice.  In the case at bar,
respondent judge, in losing his temper and engaging complainant in a heated
discussion, not only failed to observe the proper decorum expected of judicial
officers, but as a consequence thereof likewise failed to preserve and enforce
order in his court.  Precisely, judicial officers are given
contempt powers in order that without being arbitrary, unreasonable or unjust,
they may endeavor to hold counsel to a proper appreciation of their duties to
the court.  Respondent judge could very well have cited complainant
in contempt of court instead of indulging in tantrums by banging his gavel in a
very forceful manner and unceremoniously walking out of the courtroom.

Respondent judge appears to have a valid explanation for carrying
a gun, but such explanation cannot be taken as satisfactory for his having
chosen to carry the same in plain view of the complainant and other lawyers
inside the courtroom when he came out of his chambers on his way to the
stairs.  Taken in the light of what had just transpired, the
actuation of respondent judge was not an innocent gesture, but one calculated to
instill fear in or intimidate complainant.  We cannot let this pass
unnoticed.  Respondent judge’s behavior constitutes grave
misconduct.  It is a serious violation of the Canons of Judicial
Ethics which require that a “judge’s official conduct should be free from the
appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only upon the bench
and in the performance of judicial duties, but also in his every day life,
should be beyond reproach.”^[12] Moreover,
it reveals an attitude diametrically opposed to our pronouncement in De la
Paz v. Inutan, 64 SCRA 540, that “the judge is the visible representation
of law, and more importantly, of justice.” Certainly, one who lives by the
uncivilized precept of “might is right”, is unworthy of an
office entrusted with the duty to uphold the rule of
law.

WHEREFORE, Judge Gabriel O. Valle, Jr. is found
guilty of grave misconduct and is hereby ordered DISMISSED from the
service, without forfeiture of retirement benefits but with prejudice to
reinstatement in any branch of the government or any of its agencies or
instrumentalities.  Complainant Atty. Arturo A. Romero is
required to show cause why no disciplinary action should
be taken against him for conduct unbecoming of an officer of the
court within fifteen (15) days from
notice.

This decision is immediately executory.

SO
ORDERED.

Teehankee, C.J., Feria, Fernan, Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Alampay,
Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, and Feliciano, JJ.,
concur.

Yap, J., on
leave.

^[2] p. 26, Rollo.

^[3] p. 49, Rollo.

^[4] pp. 118-120,
Rollo.

^[5] Agpalo, Legal Ethics,
U.P.
Law
Center , 1980, p. 458.

^[6] Sec. 20[a], Rule
138.

^[7] Deles vs.
Aragon, 27 SCRA 633.

^[8] National Security Co. vs.
Jarvis, 278 US
610 [1928], cited in Agpalo,
supra, pp. 68-69.

^[9] In re Almacen, 31 SCRA 562.

^[10] p. 1, Rollo.

^[11] Canon 4,
Canons of Judicial Ethics.

^[12] Canon
3.