VICTOR B. REYES, COMPLAINANT, VS. HON. ERNESTO A. FADERAN, RESPONDENT.

Reyes versus Faderan

The Case

This is a consolidated administrative matter in which Atty. Victor Reyes, an Assistant Provincial Fiscal of Ilocos Norte, together with several other complainants, charged Judge Ernesto A. Faderan, then Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Paoay-Currimao, Ilocos Norte, with inefficiency, incompetence, gross ignorance of the law, oppression, neglect of duty, serious misconduct, dereliction of duty, and grave abuse of authority. The complaints were filed directly with the Supreme Court, which supervises all judges and court personnel. The case matters because it is a leading illustration of the Court's intolerance for a judge who defies its orders, continues to act despite suspension, and treats his judicial office lightly. It is a study in the administrative liability of a magistrate.

Procedural History

The complaints were filed directly with the Supreme Court as administrative cases against a judge of a municipal circuit trial court. There was no trial court or Court of Appeals below; the Supreme Court itself, acting through its Office of the Court Administrator, conducted the inquiry. The Court required the respondent to comment on the complaints in several resolutions. When he failed to comply, the Court suspended him from service in a resolution dated October 8, 1987, and again required him to submit his comment. He still did not comply. The Court then issued a resolution dated February 8, 1990, ordering him to cease discharging his functions and to show cause why he should not be removed from the service for his willful and continued defiance. The Deputy Court Administrator interviewed the respondent in Paoay, Ilocos Norte, and prepared an investigation report, and the respondent submitted a letter dated March 1, 1990. The Court then resolved the consolidated cases.

Facts

Judge Faderan was the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Paoay-Currimao, Ilocos Norte, until he was transferred in January 1987 to the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Piddig-Carasi-Solsona, Ilocos Norte. Beginning in 1985 and continuing through 1988, several complaints were lodged against him. Fiscal Reyes charged him with failing to attend scheduled hearings of criminal cases without notice to the parties and without being on leave. Romeo Acdal, a detention prisoner, charged him with failing to conduct a preliminary investigation in the criminal case filed against him. Barrio Captain Eisenhower Adaza charged him with ignorance of the law and incompetence for failing to conduct a preliminary investigation in a case involving a confiscated revolver. Lourdes Clemente Santos charged him with gross ignorance of the law, oppression, neglect of duty, and serious misconduct for hastily issuing a warrant of arrest in a theft case without a proper preliminary investigation and without furnishing her copies of the complaint and affidavits. Leonora Pascua charged him with dereliction of duty for failing to resolve a civil case within the ninety-day period. Vicente Gregorio charged him with grave abuse of authority and ignorance of the law for conducting mediation and conciliation himself and issuing an order in a matter where no case had been filed in his court.

The Court required the respondent to comment on the complaints. He failed to do so. In a resolution dated October 8, 1987, the Court suspended him from service for his failure to file his comment and again required him to comply. He still did not comply. All the while, he continued conducting trials, deciding cases, and submitting monthly reports, his latest being for October 1989, in defiance of the suspension. The Court then issued a resolution dated February 8, 1990, ordering him to cease discharging his functions and to show cause why he should not be removed from the service.

In his defense, the respondent explained that from the time his wife left him in 1985, he felt depressed and emotionally disturbed and was not in the proper disposition to answer the charges. He claimed he believed that his transfer rendered the administrative cases moot and academic. As to his continued discharge of functions despite suspension, he said he had many pending warrants of arrest and feared that arrested persons would be unduly detained without his presence, that no acting judge had been designated, and that he acted out of a desire to help litigants and to avoid humiliation. He also claimed that his Branch Clerk of Court prepared the monthly reports and that he signed them only to prevent the withholding of the clerk's salary.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is administratively liable for inefficiency and for failing to attend scheduled hearings without notice to the parties.
• Whether or not the respondent is liable for incompetence and neglect in failing to conduct preliminary investigations as required by the Rules of Court.
• Whether or not the respondent is liable for gross ignorance of the law and oppression in issuing a warrant of arrest without a proper preliminary investigation.
• Whether or not the respondent is liable for dereliction of duty in failing to decide a case within the required period.
• Whether or not the respondent is liable for grave abuse of authority in conducting mediation and conciliation and issuing an order in a matter not filed in his court.
• Whether or not the respondent is liable for willful disobedience of the Court's orders of suspension and for signing false monthly reports.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 1.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides:

Rule 1.01. A judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence.

This rule is the standard against which the respondent's competence and integrity are measured.

Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides:

Rule 2.01. A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

This rule is violated when a judge's conduct erodes public trust in the courts.

Rule 2.03 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides:

Rule 2.03. A judge shall not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.

This rule bears on the respondent's act of mediating and issuing an order as a friend rather than as a judge.

Rule 3.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides:

Rule 3.01. A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence.

This rule is the measure of the respondent's fidelity to law and professional competence.

Rule 3.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides:

Rule 3.02. In every case, a judge shall endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and the applicable law unswayed by partisan interests, public opinion or fear of criticism.

This rule requires diligence in ascertaining facts and law in every case.

Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides:

Rule 3.05. A judge shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.

This rule is violated by the respondent's failure to decide a case within the required period.

Rule 3.08 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides:

Rule 3.08. A judge should diligently discharge administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence in court management, and facilitate the performance of the administrative functions of other judges and court personnel.

This rule governs the respondent's administrative responsibilities over his court.

Rule 3.09 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides:

Rule 3.09. A judge should organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business, and require at all times the observance of high standards of public service and fidelity.

This rule is violated by the respondent's failure to supervise his personnel and his signing of false reports.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found that a certification by the Clerk of Court of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Paoay-Currimao showed the respondent was indeed absent during one scheduled hearing, though there was no evidence as to the others.

On the second issue, the Court held that the respondent's recommendation to the Provincial Fiscal did not excuse him; a misunderstanding between the respondent and the fiscal should not prejudice the rights of a detention prisoner, and a judge should be the first to respect and promote an accused's constitutional rights.

On the third issue, the Court held that while the existence of probable cause depends on the judgment and discretion of the judge issuing the warrant, the respondent should have followed the proper procedures before issuing the warrant and should have considered the facts and circumstances in his personal examination.

On the fourth issue, the Court found the records incomplete to support the allegation that the case had been submitted for decision three years earlier, but the judge practically admitted he failed to act on the case on time.

On the fifth issue, the Court rejected the respondent's claim of a mental lapse, holding that an order issued by a judge is accorded great weight and respect by the people in a community and should be issued with great care and discretion, and it found no excuse for issuing an order as a judge when no case was filed in his sala.

On the sixth issue, the Court held that the respondent acted with great disrespect and willful disobedience to its orders. It rejected his explanations, noting that depression is never a reason for a public officer's non-compliance with simple duties, and that if he cannot do his work, he should go on leave or resign. It found that his receipt of the October 1987 resolution in November 1987 would have notified him that the cases were not moot. It held that his signing of false monthly reports revealed gross negligence. The Court concluded that the facts, especially the respondent's admissions, showed guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and that he had violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. It declared him totally unfit and undeserving to be a member of the Judiciary.

Doctrine

A judge must be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence under Rule 1.01, and must behave at all times to promote public confidence in the judiciary under Rule 2.01. A judge must be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence under Rule 3.01, and must dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods under Rule 3.05. A judge must diligently discharge administrative responsibilities and supervise court personnel under Rules 3.08 and 3.09. Willful disobedience of the Court's orders of suspension and the signing of false monthly reports constitute gross negligence and warrant dismissal. Depression or personal problems never excuse a public officer's non-compliance with simple duties; if he cannot do his work, he should go on leave or resign. A judge who issues an order in a matter not filed in his court abuses his authority, for such orders carry great weight and must be issued with great care.

Disposition

The Court dismissed Judge Ernesto Faderan from the service with forfeiture of all salaries, benefits, and leave credits, with prejudice to re-employment in the government service, without prejudice to any criminal or civil liability arising from the acts complained of.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that depression is never a reason for a public officer's non-compliance with simple duties; if he cannot do his work, he should go on leave or resign. Examiners use this case to test the administrative liability of judges for willful disobedience of Supreme Court orders, continued discharge of functions despite suspension, and violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct.