LETECIA MIL CAAMIC, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE VICTORIO GALAPON, JR., MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, DULAG, LEYTE, RESPONDENT.

In a letter addressed to the Court Administrator dated 9 August
1993, to which she attached her affidavit of the same date, complainant charges
respondent Judge Victorio Galapon, Jr. of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of
Dulag, Leyte, with grave coercion.

In the affidavit, she states that on 3 August 1993, she was
served by police officer Alberto Peque a subpoena issued by the respondent
commanding her to appear before him at 10:00 a.m. of 4 August 1993; she was
surprised because she does not know of any pending case or any complaint
against her; when she appeared before the respondent at the time and on the
date designated in the subpoena, respondent threatened, berated, and coerced
her to produce and give him the amount of P8,000.00 which she received as her lawful share as beneficiary in a life
insurance policy obtained by her common-law husband, Edgardo Sandagan, who had
died; and as a consequence of the threats and coercion, she “suffered
sleepless nights, serious anxiety, mental anguish and similar moral
pains.”

In his Comment dated 7 February 1994 which he submitted even
prior to his receipt of this Court’s Resolution of 26 January 1994 requiring
him to comment on the complaint, the respondent avers that the instant
complaint was masterminded by SPO4 Rogelio Asis who had earlier filed
fabricated and concocted charges against him (Adm. Matter No.
MTJ-93-742), which this Court dismissed on 1 June 1993 for lack of
merit, and against whom he, in turn, filed administrative complaints, one of
which resulted in Asis’ suspension for one month.

As to the complainant’s specific charge in this case, the
respondent avers that the former lied when she claimed to have been surprised
to receive the subpoena because she could not have failed to read in the
subpoena that it was issued upon request of Generosa Sandagan; he did not
coerce and berate her, nor try to exact money from her as he is not a pauper as
shown by the fact that last December 1993, he even voluntarily offered for sale
to the CARP program of the Department of Agrarian Reform about 50 hectares of
agricultural land for over P2 million. He admits, however, that he “caused to be issued” to the
complainant the subpoena in question which was signed by his Clerk of Court,
Blandino Bautista, an uncle of the complainant.

In the affidavit of Generosa Sandagan, attached to the Comment as
Annex “I,” she states that the subpoena was issued to the complainant
upon her request so that she can have a confrontation with the complainant
before the respondent Judge. Generosa
further declares that she is the mother of Edgardo Sandagan, who was lawfully
married to Jeana Lagunzad; the complainant was Edgardo’s paramour who, however,
got the death benefits of Edgardo after the latter died; in order that she
could get a share of the death benefits which the complainant refused to give,
Generosa then asked the help of the respondent; and at the confrontation, the
respondent “advised” the complainant “to share [with Generosa]
some of the proceeds of the death benefits” of her deceased son.

In his affidavit, attached as Annex “L” of the
respondent’s Comment, Blandino Bautista declares that the respondent directed
him to issue the subpoena to the complainant requiring her to appear for a
confrontation with Generosa on 4 August 1993.

The other affidavits and documents attached to the respondent’s
Comment seek to prove the bad reputation of the complainant — being not only a
paramour of the late Edgardo Sandagan, a married man, but also the common-law
wife of Policarpio Bautista by whom she has two children; and that having just
“reached Grade II” and unable “to read and write” very
well, she could have been manipulated by Rogelio Asis who is her distant
relative by affinity (Annexes
“J,” “K,” “M,” and “N”; Comment).

On 11 May 1994, this Court required the parties to manifest
whether they are willing to submit this case for decision on the basis of the
pleadings already filed. In compliance
therewith, the respondent submitted a manifestation dated 30 May 1994,
informing the Court that this case be now decided on the basis of the pleadings
already filed. No compliance has been
received from the complainant. This
Court cannot wait for that. Anyway, the
issue is quite simple in view of the admissions of the respondent in his
Comment and the annexes attached thereto.

While the charge is for grave coercion, which is a crime under
the Revised Penal Code, for purposes of administrative discipline, which is
actually the complainant’s main objective, this complaint shall be treated as
one for ignorance of law and oppression.

The subpoena which the respondent caused to be issued reads as
follows:

“Republic
of the Philippines
Municipal Trial Court
8th Judicial Region
Dulag, Leyte

The People of the

Philippines

Plaintiff,                                                       Crim.
Case No.                                  

-vs-                                                             For:

______________________________                       ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE_

Accused.

X- – – – – – – – – – –
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – -X                    ______________________________

S U B P O E N A

TO  :    LETECIA
MIL               OF BRGY.
CABACUNGAN, DULAG, LEYTE____________

                                                OF
____________________________________________

REQUESTED BY:              OF ____________________________________________

OF
____________________________________________

GENEROSA SANDAGAN OF                  DO                                  ____________

OF                                                                   __

G R E E T I N G S:

You are hereby commanded to be at and
appear, before this Court at the Municipal Building, Dulag, Leyte on the 4
day of August 1993 at 10:00 o’clock in the morning then
and there to testify in the above-entitled case.

FAIL NOT, under penalty of the law.

WITNESS the Honorable Victorio L. Galapon,
Jr. judge of this Court this 3rdth dya (sic) of August 1993 at
Dulag, Leyte, Philippines.

VICTORIO
L. GALAPON, JR.
Municipal Trial Judge

by:

(SGD)
BLANDINO C. BAUTISTA
(TYP) BLANDINO C. BAUTISTA
Clerk of Court”

As a Municipal Trial Court Judge, who, as asserted by him in his
Comment, is “well known in
the legal profession, here in Leyte Province, and in the town of Dulag,”
as “being considered by the Judicial and Bar Council for promotion as RTC
Judge in either Branch 15, Burauon, Leyte
or Branch 36, Carigara, Leyte” and, anteriorly, for having been
“nominated for promotion as Presiding Judge of Branch 13, RTC, Carigara,
Leyte,” which he nevertheless, failed to get as “someone else more
lucky was appointed,” respondent should have known or ought to know that
under Section 1, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court, a subpoena “is a process
directed to a person requiring him to attend and to testify at the hearing or
the trial of an action, or at any investigation conducted under the laws of the
Philippines, or for taking of his deposition.” Although the subpoena he
caused to be issued purports to be in a form for criminal cases pending in his
court, it was not, in fact, issued in connection with a criminal case or for
any other pending case in his court nor for any investigation he was competent
to conduct pursuant to law or by direction of this Court. It was designated for a specific purpose,
viz., administrative conference. That purpose was, in no way connected with or related to some of his
administrative duties because he knew from the beginning that it was for a
confrontation with the complainant as solicited by Generosa Sandagan for the
latter to get a share in the death benefits of Edgardo Sandagan which was
received by the complainant. Generosa
had not filed any action in respondent’s court for her claim; neither is there
any case in respondent’s court concerning such death benefits. What Generosa wanted was for respondent to
act as mediator or conciliator to arrive at a possible compromise with the
complainant, which was, obviously, non-official and absolutely a private
matter. Not being then directly or remotely
related to his official functions and duties, accommodating the request and
using his official functions and office in connection therewith was, by any
yardstick, improper. The public trust
character of his office would have been enough reason for him to decline the
request. And, there being no case in
his sala in connection with which complainant could be subpoenaed, respondent
then had absolutely no power or authority to issue one to the complainant. He thus exhibited his ignorance of the
elementary rule on issuance of subpoenas.

There is something more, however, in this case. In using the subpoena form for criminal
cases, which was never explained by respondent, nothing could have been
intended but to sow fear in the mind of the complainant and compel her
attendance, for her failure to do so would have subjected her to “the
penalty of law.” There was, therefore, some element of intimidation,
oppression or abuse of authority, which aggravates his apparent ignorance of
the law on issuance of subpoenas. Considering that it was done upon request of a party which has no case
before his court, he invited legitimate criticism against his office as an
instrument of oppression.

The courts exists to promote justice (Canon 2, Canons of Judicial
Ethics); accordingly, a judge’s official conduct should be free from appearance
of impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only upon the bench and in the
performance of official duties, but also in his every day life, should be
beyond reproach (Canon 3, id.). He is the visible representation of
the law and, more importantly, of justice (Office
of the Court Administrator vs. Gines, 224 SCRA 261 [1993], Inciong vs.
De Guia, 154 SCRA 93 [1987]; De la Paz vs. Inutan, 64 SCRA 540 [1975]). He should administer
his office with a due regard to the integrity
of the system of the law itself, remembering that he is not a depositary
of arbitrary power, but a judge under the sanction of law (Canon 18, id.). Never for a moment must he act like a petty
tyrant or provide any opportunity to be perceived as such through the abuse or
misuse of the compulsory processes of the law, otherwise the faith of the
people in the courts could be irreparably eroded.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding
respondent Judge Victorio Galapon, Jr. guilty
of ignorance of law and oppression and he is hereby ordered to pay a fine of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00). He is further admonished to exercise
greater care and be more circumspect in the performance of his duties for a
repetition of the same or the commission of similar acts in the future would be
dealt with more severely by this Court.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Bellosillo, Quiason, and Kapunan, JJ., concur.