PRUDENCIO S. PENTICOSTES, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE RAFAEL HIDALGO, RESPONDENT.

Complainant Prudencio S. Penticostes has
filed a series of administrative charges against Judge Rafael B. Hidalgo of Regional Trial Court
Branch 68 of Tarlac, Tarlac.  In the resolution dated June 20, 1989 dismissing RTJ-89-294, the Court admonished the complainant “to exercise more
care and decorum in filing unfounded and unsubstantiated charges against
officers of the court in order to maintain and uphold the dignity of the same
of which he is a part” (also
dismissed was RTJ-88-213 in a Resolution dated July 18, 1989.) Complainant did not heed this
admonition.

In his Comment in RTJ-89-361, and his Compliance by way of
comment in RTJ-89-355, the respondent judge asked that the other
administrative cases by the same complainant be consolidated.  Complainant, in his Reply in RTJ-89-355, made a similar
request.

The Court directed the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to
gather all charges filed by the complainant against the respondent judge and
thereafter consolidated six (6) administrative
complaints:  RTJ-89-331
(which recites ten [10] causes of action), RTJ-89-355, RTJ-89-361,
RTJ-89-362, RTJ-89-439, and RTJ-89-438.

Subsequent to the June
20, 1989 admonition, complainant continued to file charges against respondent.  He also threatened to bring more cases, as
evidenced by the following:  (1) a
Manifestation dated March 1, 1990
(submitted to respondent judge in relation to two civil cases), which reads:

Counsel will make it appear on record that if the motion and joint
motion will not be acted (upon) on March
21, 1990 as scheduled he will be forced
much to his regret to file the following administrative and criminal complaints
against the presiding judge, namely:

1.  violation of his
oath;

2.  falsification under
Art. 171 of the Revised Penal Code;

3.  knowingly rendering
an unlawful order;

4.  maliciously delaying
the administration of justice;

5.  grave misconduct x x x.

(2)  his Reply
to RTJ-89-361 dated May 18, 1990:

It is respectfully submitted, that the respondent has made Branch
68 as his personal court thus making it as a court for his friends, the rich,
powerful and influential and against his foes, the poor and powerless.  This claim will be
discussed lengthily in the next administrative
charge which complainant will file against
the respondent [underscoring supplied.]

(3) his letter to the Court dated August 8, 1990, opposing respondent’s application for
disability benefits because of the “pendency of
administrative cases against him filed by me and some more will
follow as soon as I consolidate my
evidences” [underscoring supplied.]

In a memorandum dated July
13, 1990, the OCA, after enumerating some of the charges, noted
that complainant’s persistent filing of administrative cases against respondent
“signif(ies) a desire to unjustifiably
bring respondent to public disdain and ridicule.” Also brought to the
attention of the Court was complainant’s letter dated June 7, 1990, which
contains accusations that respondent has a “conspirator” in the
Office of the Clerk of Court.  The conspirator allegedly inserted
inconsistent a words in a final
Court resolution, and supplied lies in respondent’s comment.  From the foregoing, the OCA recommended that
complainant be strongly reprimanded, if not suspended from the practice of law
for three (3) months.

A  careful study of the charges in these complaints,
the Comment in RTJ-89-361, the Compliance filed by respondent in RTJ-89-355, the records of the consolidated cases, and the memorandum of
the OCA dated July 13, 1990, clearly reveals that all but three cases*
can be dismissed outright because:  (1)
the complainant failed to establish prima facie cases; (2) the
complainant filed administrative cases as substitute for the appropriate remedy
in rulings adverse to him; and (3) the complaints involve the appropriate
exercise of respondent’s discretionary authority.

First, no prima facie cases have been established
in:  (1) the Seventh Cause of Action in RTJ-89-331, since the same grounds have already been found to be without merit by the Court in Prudencio Penticostes,
Sr. v. DBP, et al. [G.R. No. 89620, July 13, 1990];
(2) RTJ-89-361, which charges respondent with falsification of three
separate orders in three different cases, since no indication of such
falsification can be gleaned from the record; and (3) RTJ-89-438, which
takes issue with the order to archive Civil Case No. 280, “pending
resolution of the matters raised by complainant in the Supreme Court,”
there being nothing irregular in such
order.

Second, in the First, Second
and Fifth Causes of Action in RTJ-89-331 (which arose from respondent’s
dismissal of Civil Case Nos. 198, 234, and 205, respectively), the complainant
resorted to the filing of administrative complaints against respondent judge
instead of availing of the
appropriate legal remedies from the adverse rulings, i.e., by motion for
reconsideration, appeal or
petition for review or for certiorari.

Third, the complainant challenges the due exercise by respondent judge of his discretion in the following
instances:  (1) RTJ-89-331, the Third
Cause of Action, the order denying a motion to declare defendants in contempt,
and the order deferring action on a motion for an accounting of harvests; the
Fourth Cause of Action, the denial of a
motion to dismiss; the Sixth Cause of Action, the denial of a motion for
inhibition and two motions for reconsideration; the Eighth Cause of Action, the
order setting aside an order of dismissal; the Ninth Cause of Action, the order
granting a motion for reconsideration; the Tenth Cause of Action, the denial of
a motion for inhibition; (2) RTJ-89-362, separate orders setting aside
the amended complaints in Civil Case Nos. 228, 253, 255, which complaints were
amended to implead respondent as co-defendant for his
alleged use of his judicial powers to prejudice complainant during the
proceedings of the aforestated cases; (3) RTJ-89-355,
direct contempt orders; and (4) RTJ-89-439,
the failure of respondent judge to strike out the answer in two civil
cases.

Considering the nature, frequency and indiscriminate filing of
groundless charges and despite the admonition previously given by resolution of
the Court dated June 20, 1989, which the complainant willfully ignored and
disobeyed by manifesting the intent to file more of the same, the complainant
imposed upon the time, resources and forbearance of the Court and diverted the
energies of the respondent judge who has
been called upon to comment and defend his every action.  This is not to say that a judge may not be
answerable for violation of the law and the Code of Judicial Conduct, but not
every order or ruling adverse to a party can be made the basis for an
administrative charge.

As a member of the bar, the complainant has responsibilities to
the judiciary.  The Code of Professional
Responsibility and the rules thereunder impose
obligations on the lawyer in relation to the court:  Canon 10 states that a lawyer owes candor,
fairness and good faith to the court. 
Canon 11 provides that a lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect
due to the court and to judicial officers, while Canon 12 mandates that a
lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the
speedy and efficient administration of justice. 
Through his imprudent filing of administrative cases against respondent
judge, complainant has transgressed the provisions of the Code of Professional
Responsibility and miserably failed to observe conduct expected of a member of the bar under the Code and
in accordance with his lawyer’s oath.

WHEREFORE, having found the charges
above-mentioned to be absolutely
without basis, the Court Resolved to:

(1) DISMISS outright the following
complaints:  RTJ-89-331; RTJ-89-362;
RTJ-89-438; and RTJ-89-355; RTJ-89-361 and RTJ-89-439
are likewise dismissed, except as to charges for which comment has been required;
and

(2) IMPOSE upon complainant a FINE of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00)
payable within ten (10) day from receipt of this Resolution, or IMPRISONMENT of ten (10) days in the
local jail in case of failure to pay the fine within the time appointed; and

(3) 
SUSPEND complainant from the practice of law for one (1) year for his willful disregard
and disobedience of the admonition made by the Court in RTJ-89-294, and
his violation of Canons 10, 11 and 12 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same will be
dealt with more severely.  The suspension
shall take effect from the date
of receipt of this Resolution.  Let
copies of this Resolution be circulated
to all courts of this country
for their information and guidance, and spread in the personal record of Atty. Penticostes.

SO
ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Cortes, Grino-Aquino, Medialdea, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Paras, J., on leave.

*
The respondent has been required to comment on the following cases which will be consolidated and dealt with in
a separate resolution:  1) alleged
falsification of his certificate of service for the months of March to May 1989,
contained in RTJ-89-350, and the month of June 1989,
contained in RTJ-89-439; and 2) alleged use of the sala of Branch 68 as his personal living quarters, and
alleged use of the services of the court janitor as his personal help,
contained in RTJ-89-361.