ASSOCIATION OF COURT EMPLOYEES OF PANABO, DAVAO, COMPLAINANT, VS. MARIANO C. TUPAS, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 4, PANABO, DAVAO, RESPONDENT.

In a sworn “Charge Sheet” dated November 23, 1987 and
filed with the Court on December 1, 1987, which was signed by nine (9)
employees of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, in Panabo,
Davao, in the name of the Association of Court
Employees of Panabo, of which they professed to be
members, said Association accused the presiding judge of said court, Mariano C.
Tupas, of corruption and dishonesty (10 counts),
oppression and abusive and immoral conduct unbecoming a judge (2 counts), and
sought an investigation and hearing of the charges and imposition of the
appropriate penalty.^[1]

The Court acted on the charges by issuing a Resolution on
December 10, 1987 placing the respondent Judge under preventive suspension and
directing him to answer the charges within ten (10) days.^[2]
On December 21, 1987, the
respondent filed a 12-page verified answer with nineteen (19) annexes^[3]
and, simultaneously, a motion to lift his suspension and to detail him to
another RTC sala.^[4]
The Court Administrator favorably endorsed the motion and on January 12, 1988, the Court issued a
Resolution^[5]
lifting the respondent’s suspension effective immediately, detailing the latter
to Branch 19, Regional Trial Court, Digos, Davao del Sur, and referring the
complaint to Associate Justice Hector C. Fule of the
Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation.

Upon receipt of the record of the case, Justice Fule scheduled daily hearings for two successive
weeks:  March 7-11, 1988 and March 14-18, 1988, in his chambers in Manila
for reception of the evidence of the parties, the case thereafter to be deemed
submitted for resolution.^[6]
He subsequently denied a motion of the complainant association conduct the
investigation in Davao.^[7]

The complainant, however, took its plea for a change of venue to
this Court,^[8]
which granted the same, set aside that portion of its earlier Resolution
referring the complaint to Justice Fule for
investigation and instead directed Deputy Court Administrator Juanito C. Ranjo to conduct and
terminate said investigation in Davao City in the
chambers of the Executive Judge of that City, from April 11 to 15, 1988, and to
submit his report and recommendation within thirty days.^[9]

In carrying out the Court’s directive, Deputy Court Administrator
Ranjo received the testimony of twenty-five (25)
witnesses, eleven (11) for the complainant and fourteen (14) for the
respondent, in Davao
City, during the period April 11-16, 1988.  He also admitted thirteen (13) exhibits, some
with integral markings, for the complainant and fifty-nine (59) exhibits, also
with integral markings, for the respondent. 
Memorandums were thereafter submitted, and on August 8, 1988, the Investigator submitted a
42-page report and recommendation dated August
1, 1988.

The Investigator’s report groups the specific charges against the
respondent under four (4) general headings, as follows:

“I.    Corruption and
dishonesty for (1) using the cash collections of the Court; (2) collecting
P150.00 as fee for solemnizing marriage; (3) incurring obligations without any
intention of paying them; (4) ordering police officers to cut narra, knowing the same to be prohibited, and without
paying for the same; (5) receiving one truckload of ramie roots which are the
subject matter of Civil Case No. 86-36, entitled ‘Margarito
Hadia vs. Santos Barbarona’;
(6) directing Station Commander P/Capt. Celestino Donayre, Jr., P/Cpl. Ruperto Cagape and P/Cpl. Rafael B. Dolon
to order lumber from lumberyards without paying for it, thus forcing said
police officers to pay the same out of their own pockets; (7) always asking
gasoline from the municipal mayor who had to give cash from his own pocket; (8)
convincing the defendant in Civil Case No. 87-29 entitled ‘Rebecca Longa vs. Leonardo Longo,’ to discharge his lawyer Atty.
Samuel Oscena, so he could arrange (fix) the case for
a fee; (9) exacting money from litigants and employees; and (10) requiring the
Deputy Sheriff to give him P100.00 to P300.00 for every foreclosure, attachment
or execution the sheriff conducted.

“II.   Oppression,
Abusive and Immoral Conduct for:  (1)
interfering with the court stenographers for the payment of transcript of
stenographic notes; (2) making immoral advances on female employees; (3)
ordering lawyers to file charges against his own employees; and (4) actively
participating in the settlement of cases and sharing in the money settlement.

“III.  Inefficiency
for:  (1) not reporting on Mondays,
holding sessions at 9:30 A.M., and leaving the Court at 2:00 P.M., and issuing
Certificates of Service showing that he is reporting on Mondays and as
prescribed by law; and (2) not disposing of cases within the prescribed 90-day
period.

“IV.  Conduct unbecoming
a Judge for:  (1) selling raffle tickets
of the Knights of Rizal of which he is a ranking officer; and (2) openly
drinking in the company of friends at public places.”^[10]

The Court has carefully considered the Investigator’s Report in
the light of the testimonial and documentary evidence presented.  Said document not only comprehensively
summarizes the evidence for both sides; it also exhaustively analyzes the same
and details the reasons for the Investigator’s assessment of its weight and
credibility.  There appears no reason for
faulting that notable effort in any particular and, indeed, every reason to
uphold it as correct and in accordance with the proffered proof in every
substantive aspect.

Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts the findings set out in the
Report of the Investigator, and approves the recommendations made therein for
the dismissal, for insufficiency of evidence and/or want of merit, of all the
charges alleged in the complaint except those of (a) receiving gasoline,
or money with which to purchase it, from parties directly or indirectly
interested in cases pending in his (respondent’s) court, and (b) accepting from
Leo Caballero, OIC Branch Clerk of Court of respondent’s former sala, the amount of P1,000.00 to help defray his expenses
in travelling to the Supreme Court, Manila, to
requisition supplies, accountable forms and books while the recommendation of
said Mr. Caballero to the position of Legal Researcher was being considered by
him (respondent), which acts were either admitted by said respondent or
sufficiently established by the evidence.

This Court has, time and again, reminded members of the Judiciary
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 a 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.”^[11]

The aforestated proven or admitted
actuations of respondent constitute serious misconduct meriting commensurate
administrative sanction.

WHEREFORE, Judge Mariano C. Tupas
is held guilty of grave misconduct.  He
is hereby SUSPENDED from office for six (6) months without pay effective
immediately, and sternly warned that commission of other acts of misconduct
will warrant more severe sanctions from the Court.

SO ORDERED.

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

^[1]
Record, pp. 1-4

^[2] Id.,
p. 7

^[3] Id.,
pp. 9-41

^[4] Id.,
pp. 42-44

^[5] Id.,
pp. 96-97

^[6] Id.,
p. 99

^[7] Id.,
pp. 100, 102

^[8] Id.
(Vol. II), pp. 2-4

^[9] Id.
(Vol. II), pp. 25-26

^[10]
Report and Recommendation, pp. 1-2

^[11] Dia-Anonuevo v. Bercacio,
68 SCRA 81; See also Quiz V. Castano, 107 SCRA 196; Fonacier Abano v. Ancheta, 107 SCRA 538; Cabrera v. Pajares, 142 SCRA 127