MAYOR ROGER S. PADILLA, COMPLAINANT, VS. HON. ROBERTO V. ZANTUA, JR., MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, JOSE PANGANIBAN, CAMARINES NORTE, RESPONDENT.

In a sworn complaint dated October 5, 1993, Mayor Roger S. Padilla of the Municipality of Jose
Panganiban, Camarines Norte charges respondent Judge Roberto V. Zantua,
Municipal Trial Court of Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte with serious
irregularities and grave misconduct in the performance of his official duties
for: (1) failure to decide cases within
the prescribed period; (2) unreasonable delay in the disposition of cases which
have been prejudicial to litigants; (3) manifest partiality in favor of a
litigant and (4) fraternizing with lawyers who have pending cases in his sala.^[1]

Mayor Roger S. Padilla alleges that in Criminal Case Nos. 5935
and 5936 (People v. Ventura Calzada, et al.) for grave coercion and grave
threats; Criminal Case No. 5973 (People v. Efren Dalde, et al.) for
highgrading; Civil Case No. 610 (Vicente Enriquez v. Zaldy Suarez) for
trespassing (sic); Criminal Case No. 5908 (People v. Rolando Racasa) for
highgrading; and Criminal Case No. 5998 (People v. Job Riel) for alarms and
scandals, the opposing counsel, Atty. Augusto B. Schneider is always seen
eating and drinking in the constant company of respondent Judge in public
establishments in the Municipality of Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte.

Mayor Padilla complains that these cases have been pending since
1991, some have not even been tried and because of delays in the disposition of
these cases and the perceived partiality of respondent Judge to Atty. Augusto
Schneider, the people’s confidence in the judiciary is being eroded.

In compliance with the Resolution of this Court dated February
14, 1994,^[2]
respondent Judge Zantua denied the accusations against him in his answer and
comment alleging, among others, that Criminal Case Nos. 5935 and 5936 for grave
coercion and grave threats had been lagging for more than two (2) years because
of the numerous postponements of both the prosecution and the defense; that he
allowed the presentation of the witnesses without the presence of opposing
counsel provided that the parties and their counsel were properly notified and
the witnesses shall be subject to cross examination pursuant to Section 2, par.
(c) of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure and the case of Borja v.
Mendoza, 77 SCRA 422; that Atty. Schneider has never been a counsel in
this case because the prosecutor was Pedro Vega and the defense counsel was
Freddie Venida.^[3]

Respondent Judge claims that in Criminal Case No. 5973 (People v.
Efren Dalde) for highgrading wherein Mayor Padilla claims that no hearing has
been conducted, records of the case will bear him out that a hearing had
actually been conducted; that the accused, represented by a DAR lawyer, was
arraigned, pre-trial was held, and ocular inspection was made.

In Civil Case No. 610 (Vicenta Enriquez v. Zaldy Suarez) for
forcible entry (not for trespassing) wherein Mayor Padilla complains that it
was decided without a hearing, respondent Judge maintains that the case was
tried pursuant to Section 1, par. 1-A of the Rule on Summary Procedure. After an answer was filed, the parties were
asked to submit their respective position papers with their evidence, after
which the case was decided in accordance with Section 10 thereof.

The delay in Criminal Case No. 5908 (People v. Rolando Racasa),
according to respondent Judge, was caused by the frequent postponements and
non-appearance of the private prosecutor and/or defense counsel, and justice
requires the presence of lawyers in the trial of cases where the records show
that the accused had already been arraigned and the three prosecution witnesses
had already been presented.

In Criminal Case No. 5998 (People v. Job Riel), respondent Judge
claims that the delay was due to numerous postponements but explains that the
accused has already been arraigned and the last witness is to be presented by
the prosecution.

Respondent Judge denies that he is fraternizing with lawyers with
pending cases in his sala, explaining that in the case of Atty. Schneider, he
is the only lawyer in the Municipality of Jose Panganiban and it is but natural
for respondent Judge to be friendly with him but maintains that their
friendship has never been a hindrance to the proper disposition of the cases in
his sala as his impartiality is
known not only in the Municipality of Jose Panganiban, but also in the province
of Camarines Norte as shown by his decisions in MTC Mercedes, MTC Paracale and
MTC Basud.

Respondent Judge attributes the filing of the instant complaint
against him to local politics in the Municipality of Jose Panganiban, alleging that since his appointment on February
16, 1983, he has always been neutral and impartial in all the cases he disposed
of; that even in the case against herein complainant Mayor for slander by deed,
he displayed his position of being neutral and impartial, for which reason he
has earned the ire of Governor Roy Padilla, Sr., complainant’s father, and
Mayor Roger Padilla because respondent Judge refuses to succumb to their
influence and pressure; that for this reason, he requested his transfer on
November 29, 1990 to another station (MTC, Basud, Camarines Norte) as his life
in Jose Panganiban is in imminent danger brought about by the political
pressures, and this request was followed by his letter-requests dated May 2,
1991, then August 30, 1993, and most recently, the letter-request dated
December 10, 1993 addressed to Hon. Reynaldo L. Suarez, Deputy Court
Administrator.

The case was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator
for evaluation, report and recommendation. In a Memorandum dated August 4, 1994 addressed to the Hon. Chief Justice
Andres R. Narvasa, Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez, concurred in
by Court Administrator Ernani Cruz Paño, recommended the dismissal of charges
for failure to decide cases within the prescribed period and for unreasonable
delay in the disposition of cases.^[4]

We agree with the dismissal of the charges with respect to
failure to decide the cases within the prescribed period and the charges of
unreasonable delay in the disposition of cases against respondent Judge.

Complainant in the instant case failed to specifically cite any
of the cases referred to in the complaint which remained undecided after the
lapse of the required 90-day period to decide cases; hence, the dismissal of
charges of violation of the 90-day period is in order. The delay in the trial of the cited cases in
the complaint, particularly Criminal Case Nos. 5935 and 5936, Criminal Case No.
5908 and Criminal Case No. 5998, was not entirely the fault of herein
respondent Judge. The delay was caused
by the numerous postponements both by the prosecution and the defense. However, respondent Judge should be reminded
of the directive in Circular No. 1-89 dated January 19, 1989 requiring all courts to conduct a mandatory continuous
trial which is to be terminated within 90 days from inception of the initial
hearing.

However, as regards the allegations of manifest partiality in
favor of a litigant and fraternizing with lawyers who have pending cases in his
sala, we note that respondent Judge does not deny his close friendship and
association with Atty. Augusto Schneider. Respondent Judge pointed out that while it is true that Atty. Schneider
has pending cases in his sala, the latter lost in these cases which is supposed
to give the impression that such close association with Atty. Schneider has not
affected his neutrality and impartiality as a Judge.

We cannot fully countenance the view of respondent Judge. Constant company with a lawyer tends to
breed intimacy and camaraderie to the point that favors in the future may be
asked from respondent judge which he may find hard to resist. The actuation of respondent Judge of eating
and drinking in public places with a lawyer who has pending cases in his sala
may well arouse suspicion in the public mind, thus tending to erode the trust
of the litigants in the impartiality of the judge. This eventuality may undermine the people’s faith in the
administration of justice. It is of no
moment that Atty. Augusto Schneider is the only lawyer in the locality.

A judge should behave at
all times as to inspire public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of
the judiciary.^[5] 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.^[6]

Once again, we find this case an occasion to remind members of
the Judiciary:

“x x x to so conduct themselves as to be beyond reproach and
suspicion, and be free from any appearance of impropriety in their personal
behavior not only in the discharge of their official duties but also in their
everyday life, for as we have earlier stressed, ‘no position exacts greater
demand on moral righteousness and uprightness of an individual than a seat in
the Judiciary’ so that (a) magistrate of the law must comport himself at all
times in such a 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.”^[7]

Public confidence in the Judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or
improper conduct of judges. A judge
must avoid all impropriety and the appearance thereof. Being the subject of constant public
scrutiny, a judge should freely and willingly accept restrictions on conduct
that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen.^[8]

ACCORDINGLY, in view of the foregoing, respondent
Judge is hereby ADMONISHED with a
warning that a repetition of similar acts in the future will be dealt with more
severely. Respondent Judge is reminded
to be prompt in the disposition of cases pending in his sala pursuant to
Sections 3, 4, 5 of Rule 22, Rules of Court and Administrative Circular No.
1-88 and Circular 1-89.

Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to his personal
records.

Bidin, (Acting Chairman), Melo, and
Vitug, JJ., concur.

Feliciano, J., on leave.

^[1]
Rollo, pp. 2-4.

^[2]
Rollo, p. 8.

^[3]
Rollo, pp. 9-15.

^[4]
Rollo, pp. 91-94.

^[5]
Canon 2, Rule 2.01, Code of Judicial
Conduct.

^[6]
Canon, Rule 2.03, Code of Judicial Conduct.

^[7]
National Intelligence and Security Authority v. Tablang, A.M. No.
R-94-RTJ, July 31, 1991 and its companion case, Jose Lagon v. Tablang,
A.M. No. RTJ-86-24, July 31, 1991, 199 SCRA 766, 776, citing Association of
Court Employees of Panabo Davao v. Tupas, 175 SCRA 292.

^[8]
In Re: Judge Benjamin H. Virrey, A.M. No. 90-7-1159-MTC, October 15, 1991, 202
SCRA 628.