DR. JULIO E. QUIZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE AMADO B. CASTAÑO, RESPONDENT.

Respondent Judge Amado B. Castaño of the Court of Agrarian Relations,
Branch V, Cagayan de Oro, was administratively charged in two administrative
cases (Adm. Case No. 2367-CAR and Adm. Case No. 2373-CAR) by complainant Dr.
Julio E. Quiz for dishonesty and serious misconduct in office.

The cases were referred to Associate Justice Jose A. K. Melo of
the Court of Appeals for investigation, who submitted the following report and
recommendation on June 23, 1981:

“The two administrative matters involved herein are
identical.  Administrative Matter No.
2367-CAR is with reference to the action on April 2, 1980 of then Acting Chief
Justice Claudio Teehankee requiring respondent CAR Judge Amado B. Castaño
(Branch V, Cagayan de Oro City) to explain why disciplinary action should not
be taken against him in view of the resolution dated March 26, 1980 of the
Tanodbayan in TBP 8001-22-02, Dr. Julio Quiz vs. Judge Amado B. Castaño,
dismissing the supposed bribery charge of Quiz against Judge Castaño
“without prejudice to whatever administrative disciplinary action”
that might be taken against respondent. 
Administrative Matter No. 2373-CAR, upon the other hand, concerns the
verified complaint dated April 7, 1980, filed with the Supreme Court by Dr.
Julio Quiz against respondent judge alleging the same acts investigated by the
Tanodbayan, and which as aforesaid were made the subject of Administrative
Matter 2367-CAR.

“Initially, it was the Honorable Onofre A. Villaluz, Associate
Justice of the Court of Appeals, who was designated investigator of the matters
which were later ordered consolidated. 
Justice Villaluz in his report dated November 19, 1980, recommended that the administrative
cases be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 
A Motion for Extension of Time to File Motion for Reconsideration was
subsequently filed by complainant.  This motion
was denied by Justice Villaluz.  In the
same reso­lution of the Supreme Court designating undersigned as investigator,
the Honorable Court set aside the above order of Justice Villaluz.

“Complainant Julio E. Quiz is a physician practising in the City
of Gingoog as well as a property
owner therein.  On August 1, 1978, one Antonio Desoy filed a
complaint against complainant and Diosdado Rosalim for violation of maintenance
of peaceful possession, reliquidation of shares, and damages, which case was later
to be denominated as CAR Case No. 388 Misamis Oriental 78, before the court presided
over by respondent, Judge Amado B. Castaño. 
Respondent issued on August 3, 1978, a temporary restraining order
commanding defendants therein to re­frain from molesting plaintiff Desoy in the
peaceful cultivation and harvest of the landholding in dispute, and further
authorizing Desoy to harvest therefrom, with Desoy retaining 1/3 of the
proceeds of copra sales and the remaining 2/3 to be deposited in court for delivery
to defendant Quiz (Exh. B and Exh. 10).

“During the pendency of the case and sometime in 1978,
complainant charged that Ligaya Bayhon, a clerk stenographer in the court of
respondent, went and saw complainant and told him to go to the house of a certain Amador Baul in Gingoog
City where respondent was waiting
for him.  At this place, respondent told
complainant to come up with P20,000.00 and he would
have CAR Case No. 388 settled amicably in favor of complain­ant.  Complainant could not agree to the proposal
as he could not raise the amount because he was not allowed to harvest.  Some incidents thereupon took place in regard
to CAR Case No. 388 including a motion filed by Quiz to inhibit respondent from
hearing the case, which incidents were even elevated to the Court of Appeals
which, however, sustained the respondent’s actions.  When the case was remanded to respondent, he
issued on October 3, 1979, an order (Exhibits 6 and 26) lifting or setting
aside the temporary restraining order issued on August 3, 1978 (Exhibits B and
10).

“Around a month after the restraining order was lifted,
complainant contends, Ligaya Bayhon
went to his house in Gingoog City
telling him that respondent needed money. 
This time, complainant agreed to give some money because of the lifting
of the restraining order.  Complainant
then got some advance from one Androclus Raniezes who is a copra buyer, and
delivered the money to Baul’s house where respondent was playing mahjong with
Bayhon, Alice Bacallo and one Abrodemian. 
Bayhon was the one who received the money.

“Bothered now, complainant sought the advice of the National
Bureau of Investigation in Cagayan de Oro and he was told that nothing much
could be done at that stage, but that in case some more demands are made, he
should go to the NBI office to report the same so that proper steps could be
taken.  Not long thereafter, on January 18, 1980, while complainant
was at his house situated in an interior of Jadol street in Gingoog
City, Bayhon came, telling him not
to leave as respondent judge was coming presently.  True enough, Judge Castaño, within minutes,
arrived together with a male companion. 
The male members of the party then began to drink liquor, the piano was
played, and Bayhon started singing.  The
entire stay of respondent at the house of complainant lasted from around 3 o’clock in the afternoon to approximately 9 o’clock in the evening.  In the course of the visit, a demand for P20,000.00 was made by respondent, but complainant, already
decided to report the matter to the NBI, bargained for P10,000.00 to be paid in installments.  Respondent then said that said amount would
be for him alone.  Arrangements were then
made for complainant Quiz to proceed to Cagayan de Oro City the following day
Monday (January 21, 1980),
and to bring with him P5,000.00, with the balance of
P5,000.00 to be paid a week thereafter. 
Respondent jotted down the telephone numbers of his house and that of
the court house and made a diagram or sketch of the location of his house.  (Said sketch is admittedly in the possession
of the Tanodbayan prosecutor, Fiscal Rola).

“On the agreed date, January
21, 1980, complain­ant Quiz went to Cagayan de Oro City, and as previously
agreed upon with the NBI authorities thereat, he proceeded to the NBI building
and saw Regional Director Arturo Figueras. 
The money bills were marked with fluorescent powder by a laboratory technician
and given to Director Figueras who then told Quiz to call by telephone
respondent judge.  Ligaya Bayhon answered, informing Quiz that respondent was not in court
but would be back at around noon
time.  Quiz thus proceeded to the
residence of his sister, Nena Pelaez, which was near the NBI office, to take
his lunch, and while thereat, Quiz received a telephone call from Bayhon to the
effect that respondent wanted to see Quiz at the Caprice Steak House between 3
and 4 o’clock that afternoon.  Quiz returned to the NBI office where he
stayed until around 3 o’clock, at
which time he was handed the marked money bills inside an envelope also dusted
with fluorescent powder.

“Upon arrival at the Caprice Steak House, com­plainant saw
Ligaya Bayhon waiting by the door.  They
went in and ordered ice cream.  Thirty
minutes afterwards, respondent, accompanied by his wife, arrived and joined
Quiz and Bayhon at the latter’s table. 
Mrs. Castaño was introduced to complainant by respondent, and orders
were placed for some food.  Bayhon then
excused herself, and shortly there­after, Mrs. Castaño also left, to prepare
her own tea (according to Quiz), but to go to the next door office of the
Mindanao Post, according to respondent and Mrs. Castaño herself.

“With just respondent and complainant left at the table,
respondent winked at complainant and pointed at the latter’s pocket.  Complainant in turn tapped the right pocket
of his pants, got the envelope with the money, and handed it to respondent
under the table.  Respondent laughed and
complainant joined in and at the same time stood up, pretending to cough.  He then took his handkerchief and wiped his
mouth and face with it.  This was the
signal for the 4 NBI agents, who had earlier stationed themselves at the
Caprice Steak House, to confront and apprehend respondent.  The peace officers, Esteban Libid, Amado
Dycoco, Francisco Sanchez, and Rogelio Manawil were agents from Manila Central
Office of the NBI, and were then in Cagayan de Oro in regard with another
matter, but their services were availed by Director Figueras because they were
not known as agents in the vicinity. 
Agent Dycoco, the ranking agent identified himself and his companions as
NBI agents and the money was confiscated from respondent who had placed the
envelope in his pocket, according to Agent Libid.

“At the NBI office, respondent’s hands were examined by
Lorimer L. Hembrador, Senior Forensic Chemist, who thereafter rendered his
Physics Report No. P-80-01 (Exhibit K and Exhibit 8) which was identified by him when he testified, showing that
the right palm of respondent was positive for fluorescent powder, thus:

‘(1) Proximal phalange of the index
finger;

‘(2)
Interphalangeal fold between the proximal and middle pha­langes of the index
finger;

‘(3) Proximal phalange of the middle
finger;

‘(4)
Interphalangeal fold between the proximal and middle pha­langes of the middle
finger;

‘(5) Proximal
phalange of the ring finger;

‘(6)
Interphalangeal fold between the proximal and middle pha­langes of the ring
finger; and

‘(7)
Middle phalange of the ring finger.

“Respondent’s explanation of these incidents is that he merely
wanted to have CAR Case No. 388 settled. 
In view, however, of the damning circumstances that he admittedly met
with complainant on at least three occasions in the absence of Antonio Desoy,
plaintiff in CAR Case No, 388, and with these meetings taking place at private
houses (including that of complainant’s) and a public eatery, respondent’s
explanation loses any measure of plausibility.

“Reliance is based on Section 2, Rule 12 of the Uniform Rules
of Procedure of the Courts of Agrarian Relations which reads:

‘Section 2.  – Court’s duty to effect amicable
settlement.  – On the date of hearing but
before actually receiving evidence on the case, the Court shall endeavor to
settle the case amicably:  Provided, that in no case shall any amicable settlement work
out to give the agricultural lessee or tenant less rights, benefits or
advantages than the law grants him.  If
an agreement as to the whole or any part of the case is arrived at, it shall be
reduced to writing, signed and acknowledged by the parties and counsel, if
present, before the Judge, and the same shall be the basis of the decision.’

“In point of fact, respondent did try to find out whether
settlement of CAR Case No. 388 was possible – and he did this most properly in
open court, but inasmuch as the top offer of Quiz was only P3,000.00,
while the minimum amount at which Desoy would settle was P15,000.00, nothing
came out of the attempt to settle the case. 
Respondent would have been well advised to leave matters at that stage
in view of later developments, including the appeal of Quiz of the issuance of
the temporary restraining order, the denial of a motion to lift the same, as
well as an order denying a motion for inhibition.  Antonio Desoy was also shot at and gravely wounded
on July 22, 1979, for which
incident he accused complainant Quiz. 
All of these would have probably given a prudent man
indications that settle­ment of the agrarian case would be
improbable.  But respondent was
undeterred, which should not perhaps be taken against him — had he taken the
proper steps.  But, precisely,
respondent’s acts in his supposed attempts to have the agrarian case settled
are simply unbelievable, giving undersigned invest­igator the definite
impression that such attempts, far from being legitimate tries at settlement,
were indeed acts of extortion.

“Thus, respondent admits he did meet with complainant in the
house of Amador Baul in Gingoog City,
the house where respondent stays whenever he was in the City.  Not only did he meet Quiz here–respondent
unilaterally asked Quiz to meet him there. 
This was the occasion when respondent al­legedly asked Quiz to settle
for P15,000.00. 
Res­pondent also admits visiting Quiz at the latter’s house on January
18, 1980 on which occasion he agreed to meet Quiz in Cagayan de Oro the
following Monday when Quiz would bring P5,000.00.  At this time, respondent even took the
trouble of giving Quiz the telephone numbers of his office and his house, and
made as well a sketch of the location of his residence.  And on January 2P, P980, respondent met
complainant in a public eatery in the absence of Desoy in whose behalf he was
allegedly acting.  The Caprice Steak
House, and not the court room, was chosen as the meeting place, because,
according to respondent, the court premises were very warm and not comfortable
and conducive to wholesome dis­cussion for an amicable settlement (Annex
D).  It strikes undersigned as strange
and inexplicable that granting that respondent had to meet with com­plainant at
the Caprice Steak House which was sup­posedly a place more conducive to
discussion leading to an amicable settlement, why he went there without Desoy,
the other party, indispensable it must be observed, to a settlement.

“Altogether, the alleged purpose of these meetings–to effect
a settlement of CAR Case No. 388–appears to undersigned as an all too apparent
ploy on respondent’s part to escape liability for his acts, and Antonio Desoy
lent himself most willing­ly in foisting such outlandish defense.  Consider thus the following factors:

“(a) Antonio Desoy, plaintiff in CAR Case No. 388 against
Quiz, accused the same Quiz in regard to a shooting incident which occurred on July 22, 1979, in which Desoy was
seriously wounded.  Parenthetically, it
must be added that the frustrated murder charge was dismissed by the military
legal authorities in December 1979. 
Desoy was insistent that he would not settle the agrarian case for less
than P15,000.00. 
Yet, in the alleged meeting he had with respondent on January 11, 1980,
when he pleaded with respondent to see Quiz to work for a settlement–a
fabricated incident to the mind of undersigned–Desoy urged respondent to have
the case settled for P20,000.00 because of the several
wounds he suffered when he was shot by Quiz (increasing thereby his asking
price from P15,000.00, the in­crease to include settlement of the criminal
case).  But when cross-examined on
whether the amount he was demanding would include the crim­inal case, he
immediately answered that he will never settle the criminal case, as he is
still angry at Quiz.

“Further, Desoy testified that he needed some funds very
urgently, because his family was in dire financial needs, with his children suffering
from malnutrition, and his wife about to deliver a child.  On January 20, P980, when Desoy saw respondent
again, the latter informed him that Quiz was willing to pay P10,000.00, and respondent also told Desoy to go
to the court house or to respondent’s house the following day as Quiz was
arriving with some money.  On the fateful
day of January 21, 1980,
Desoy, however, did not go either to respondent’s house or office if only to
inquire about the money brought by Quiz and which funds he badly needed.  Desoy’s explanation why he did not see
respondent judge on January 21, 1980, is that in the early morning of that day,
2 persons went to see him offering him a check for his 1/3 share of the
harvest, but because these 2 mysterious persons were asking him to sign some
documents, Desoy allegedly demurred because he wanted to see his lawyer and to
have the deposit made in court.  He spent
the whole day trying to locate his lawyer. 
Notwithstanding his pressing need for money, he did not inquire
thereafter whether a deposit of the check constituting his share was made; and
he also did not try to see respondent until January 23, 1980, or 2 days after the date they agreed to
meet in regard to the offer of P10,000.00.  For a
man who pictures him­self to be in such pressing and critical need of immediate
financial assistance, the above actions of Desoy generate grave suspicion.

“(b) On October 3,
1979, respondent issued an order (Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 26) lifting
the tem­porary restraining order in CAR Case No. 388.  In this order, the wife of Antonio Desoy was
required to deposit the landowner’s 2/3 share in accordance with the
restraining order because ‘records show that the last time the plaintiff made a
deposit of the landowner’s share of the copra sales was on March 1, 1979.’ As a
knowledgeable agrarian court judge, and as a coconut planter himself,
respondent knew that from August 3, 1979, (date of restraining order) to
October 3, 1979 (date of lifting), there were 5 trimestral harvests, and it was
of course of record that there was only one deposit of the 2/3 landowner’s
share of Quiz made and this was on March 4, 1979.  Desoy, as of January 1980, had not accounted
for at least 4 previous trimestral harvests, and according to the motion for
accounting (Exhibit P) these unaccounted shares amount to more than P50,000.00.
 With some money owing from Desoy in
favor of Quiz, and with Desoy already expressing himself as amenable to a
settlement for only P15,000.00 at the start of the
case and, therefore, before he incurred some indebtedness in favor of Quiz, it
is a wonder why Desoy should still ask for P20,000.00 and for respondent to
give an ear to such demand, without at least respondent reminding Desoy that
any demand must take into consideration Desoy’s unaccounted harvests.

‘(c) Respondent knew that Quiz would be coming into some money in
January 1980 because he would by then begin to harvest after respondent had
lifted his restraining order.  Thus, in
the order of re­spondent dated December 13, 1979 (Exhibit I), it was stated
among others, that ‘Dr. Julio Quiz informed the plaintiff in open court that
pursuant to the order of the Court, he is going to make the regular harvest in
the middle part of January 1980.’ Admittedly also, respondent at this time had
just bought a house and borrowed money from the Develop­ment Bank of the Philippines
and his family was still in the process of furnishing the house and intro­ducing
renovations and additional improvements.

“A concatenation of the above circumstances strengthen
undersigned’s conviction that respondent did try to extort money from Dr.
Quiz.  Perhaps respondent would have
escaped liability had he re­ceived the money in the court house and in the presence
of Desoy or at least some court personnel. 
But as it was, he had to go to a public eatery and accept money and pocket the same and thence only to be
subsequently apprehended red-handed with marked money.  Respondent himself deplores his action and
states, ‘As a general rule it is not proper for a judge to meet a party
litigant in a public eating place…’ (Annex D, p. 88, Record) But such act, taken together with the circumstances
discussed above, exposes respondent’s attempt to extort.

“A judge’s official and even personal conduct must be free
from any appearance of impropriety.  He
should in no way act or so bear himself in such a way that his acts may be
easily misinterpreted.  His actions must
be above reproach for the judicial office calls and demands of its holder that
he be studiously careful in avoiding any infraction or appearance of infraction
of the law, lest his example demoralize the people of the community whose
contentment and happiness his office is designed to promote.

“Verily, members of the Judiciary should display not only the
highest integrity but judges must at all times conduct
themselves in such manner as to be above reproach and suspicion.  Evidently, respondent’s actions fail to
measure up to such norm.  Even if one
were to be liberal and accede that respondent received P5,000.00 in behalf of
Desoy, his actions in (a) unilaterally seeking settlement by visiting litigants
in their residences and sending for them to see him in private residences, (b)
in meeting with them in the absence of the other party or their counsel or
authorized representative, (c) in meeting a litigant at a public eatery alone
and receiving a sum of money, and (d) in being apprehended thereat by NBI
agents in possession of marked money–all of these have totally and
irreversibly compromised respondent and have absolutely rendered him useless to
the Judiciary.  But as it is, under the
prevailing setting, one cannot afford to be magnanimous to respondent.  Undersigned is morally convinced that
respondent did try and attempt to extort money from complainant Dr. Quiz, for
which reason, his dismissal for the service must perforce be recommended.

“In view of the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that
respondent be dismissed from the service.”

The Court finds the above report and recommendation well-taken.

Accordingly, respondent Judge is hereby separated from the
service as recommended for serious misconduct with forfeiture of all retirement
benefits any pay and with prejudice to reinstatement in any branch of the
government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities.

Fernando, C.J., Barredo, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez,
Guerrero, De Castro, and
Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

Makasiar, J., no part.

Abad Santos, J., on official
leave.