EUGENIO K. CHAN, COMPLAINANT, V. JUDGE JOSE S. MAJADUCON, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, GENERAL SANTOS CITY, BRANCH 23, RESPONDENT.

Chan versus Majaducon

The Case

This is an administrative case in which Eugenio K. Chan filed a complaint against Judge Jose S. Majaducon, then Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of General Santos City, Branch 23, charging him with non-feasance, impropriety, partiality, and inefficiency. The complaint was joined by an undated letter from a concerned citizen who accused the judge of not wearing his black robe during court sessions and of habitual tardiness. The case matters because it fixes the administrative consequences of a judge's refusal to wear the judicial robe, of holding in-chamber meetings with litigants and counsel without the adverse party present, and of the effect of a complainant's desistance and the respondent's retirement on the Court's disciplinary jurisdiction.

Procedural History

The complaints were filed directly with the Supreme Court, which required the respondent judge to submit his comment. The Office of the Court Administrator investigated and submitted its Report, finding the judge liable for violation of Administrative Circular Number 25 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, recommending dismissal of the other charges, and proposing a fine of 5,000 pesos. The Court adopted the Report except as to the recommended penalty, and imposed a fine of 10,000 pesos.

Facts

In an undated letter, a concerned citizen charged Judge Majaducon with not wearing a black robe during court sessions and with being habitually tardy. In a separate complaint dated 3 November 2000, Eugenio K. Chan charged the judge with improprieties and irregularities: starting hearings at 10:00 in the morning and 2:30 to 3:00 in the afternoon, not wearing his robe despite the Supreme Court requirement, entertaining lawyers in his sala despite the absence of opposing counsel, continuing to hear cases despite an appearance of impartiality, and reading case records only during the hearing itself.

In his comment, the judge explained that on his doctor's advice he stopped wearing the robe because it triggered and aggravated his hypertension, and he promised to resume once his blood pressure stabilized. He admitted taking breaks at 10:00 in the morning and 3:30 in the afternoon, but claimed his hearings began on time and sometimes lasted more than eight hours. He admitted entertaining litigants and counsel with pending cases, saying his chamber's two doors are always open, but denied discussing the merits of their cases. He explained that he consulted case records during hearings only to verify contested matters. He also suspected that the complainant, whose motion for inhibition he had refused, may have wanted to get back at him.

On 30 January 2001, the complainant withdrew his complaint, saying he had realized the judge was only doing his job. On 16 May 2001, the judge informed the Court that since February 2001 he had resumed wearing the robe. During the pendency of the case, he compulsorily retired from service on 24 February 2002.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent judge is administratively liable for refusing to wear the mandated judicial robe during court sessions.
• Whether or not the respondent judge is administratively liable for entertaining lawyers and litigants with pending cases in his sala without the presence of the adverse party or counsel.
• Whether or not the respondent judge is liable for the other charges of tardiness, partiality, and failure to study the cases.
• Whether or not the complainant's desistance and the respondent judge's retirement preclude the Court from holding him liable and imposing a penalty.

Applicable Provisions

Administrative Circular Number 25 dated 9 June 1989 provides:

Pursuant to Sections 5 and 6, Article VIII of the Constitution and in order to heighten public consciousness on the solemnity of judicial proceedings, it is hereby directed that beginning Tuesday, August 1, 1989, all Presiding Judges of all Trial Courts shall wear black robes during sessions of their respective Courts.

This is the circular the respondent judge admittedly violated, and the Court holds that exemption from it requires prior permission from the Court.

Rule 1.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides:

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

The Office of the Court Administrator found this rule violated, and the Court affirms that finding.

Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides:

CANON 2 — A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES.

This canon is the basis for condemning the judge's in-chamber meetings with litigants and counsel without the adverse party present.

Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides:

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

The Court cites this rule in holding that the judge's conduct eroded public confidence in the judiciary.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held the judge liable. The wearing of robes is not an idle ceremony; it heightens public consciousness of the solemnity of judicial proceedings and impresses upon the judge the exacting obligations of his office. While a medical condition may exempt a judge from Circular Number 25, he must first secure the Court's permission for the exemption. The judge simply excused himself. Neither does his subsequent resumption of the robe exculpate him; his medical condition and later compliance serve only to mitigate his liability.

On the second issue, the Court also held him liable. The Court stressed that lower court judges are the front-liners who give a human face to the judiciary at the grassroots level, and that the admonition to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety is more sternly applied to them. In-chamber meetings with litigants or counsel without the adverse party present constitute an impropriety. The judge's claim that nothing illegal transpired revealed his ignorance of the prohibition's purpose. As the Court put it, judges, like Caesar's wife, should be above suspicion.

On the third issue, the Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator that the other charges were unsubstantiated. Mere allegation of habitual tardiness or partiality, without more, does not suffice. There is also nothing improper in consulting case records during hearings to clarify contested matters, especially for lower court judges with heavy caseloads and marathon hearings.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that neither desistance nor retirement bars liability. A complainant's desistance will not by itself warrant dismissal, especially where the respondent admits the material allegations. Nor is the Court ousted of jurisdiction by the respondent's cessation from office during the pendency of the case.

Doctrine

A judge must wear the black robe during court sessions under Administrative Circular Number 25. Exemption for medical or other reasons requires prior permission from the Supreme Court; a judge cannot unilaterally excuse himself, and subsequent compliance only mitigates liability.

A judge must avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities under Canon 2, and must behave at all times so as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary under Rule 2.01. Holding in-chamber meetings with litigants or their counsel without the adverse party present is an impropriety, even if nothing illegal transpires.

A complainant's desistance does not by itself warrant dismissal of an administrative complaint, especially where the respondent admits the material allegations. The Supreme Court retains jurisdiction over an administrative case even after the respondent public official has ceased to be in office.

Disposition

The Court found Judge Majaducon guilty of violating Circular Number 25 and Rules 1.01 and 2.01 and Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and ordered him to pay a fine of 10,000 pesos, to be deducted from whatever retirement benefits he is entitled to.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that judges, like Caesar's wife, should be above suspicion, and that a judge cannot exempt himself from the robe requirement without the Court's permission. Examiners use this case for the ethical duties of judges on appearance of impropriety, in-chamber meetings, and the rule that desistance and retirement do not defeat administrative liability.