ATTY. ROMEO S. GEOCADIN, COMPLAINANT, VS. HON. REMEGIO M. PEÑA, RESPONDENT.

Administrative charges of
(1) knowingly rendering manifestly unjust orders; (2) partiality; (3)
pretending to possess influence on one who pretends to be “malakas” with the higher authorities; (4) drunkenness,
ineffi­ciency and laxity in supervision of court personnel; and (5) oppression
against respondent Judge Remegio Peña,
Municipal Judge of Binalbagan, Negros
Occidental.

After respondent had
filed his comment on said charges and the complainant, Atty. Romeo S. Geocadin, his reply thereto, We
referred the case for investigation, report and recommendation to the Executive
Judge, Hon. Ostervaldo Emilia
of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental.

On February
2, 1981, Judge Emilia filed his report, which, however, is based
exclusively on the evidence of the complainant which was closed on January
19, 1979, because by the time respondent was to present his evidence serious
illness overcame him.  As certified to by
Dr. Antonio L. Corral, he suffered from “massive cerebral infarction
with paralysis of the left half of the body due to
accelerated hypertension; lobar pneumonia, bilate­ral, and diabetes mellitus
and emergency tracheactomy was performed to save his
life from cardio-respiratory arrest. 
Prognosis is serious.  Patient confined at the Our Lady of Mercy Hospital” where he
is up to the present.

The recommendation of the Investigator reads as follows:

“Carefully appreciating the evidence on record presented by
complainant Romeo Geocadin, and in the absence of
proof to the contrary, there is indubitable proof to support a find­ing of
guilty under the first listed charge – that of knowingly rendering manifestly
unjust orders and partiality.

“The first of such orders is that one issued on August
11, 1975 (Exhibit “A-1”), reconsidering, lifting and
setting aside the decision rendered on July
26, 1974 (Exhibit “A-2”). 
It is a mani­festly
unjust order because it was issued long after the decision had become
final.  More so is this conclusion
bolstered by the fact that a series of acts implementing the decision had
already been accomplished.  First, a writ of execution dated November 12, 1974 (Exhibit
“A-3”), was issued to enforce the decision.  Second, a notice of auction sale dated
January 24, 1975 (Exhibit “A-4”), was also issued by the Provin­cial
Sheriff, followed by the issuance of a certificate of sale dated April 14, 1975
(Exhibit “A-5”).  And third,
the lifting and setting aside of the decision by virtue of a motion for recon­sideration
dated May 30, 1975 (Exhibit “A-6”), filed by Atty. Jose Presquito, respondent’s close friend and counsel, should
not have been enter­tained as it was not under oath, and not accom­panied by an
affidavit of merit, as so provided by the Rules of Court.  Two other orders, one denying the motion for
reconsideration dated September 6, 1975 (Exhibit “A-7”), filed by com­plainant
Romeo Geocadin in an Order of September 10, 1975
(Exhibit “A-8”), and the other, an order issued on same date
directing the arrest of complainant Romeo Geocadin
(Exhibit “A-12”).  These orders
are manifestly unjust and knowingly issued for the following reasons.  First, from the unimpeached
testimony of Romeo Geocadin, the evidence is
undisputed that the two orders in question were prepared by Atty. Jose Presquito, the very oppossing counsel of Atty. Geocadin
in Civil Case No. 228
where the said orders were issued.  In an
occasion sometimes in October-November, 1974, in the presence of Colonel Meliton Goyena, Provincial
Commander, Judge Peña
admitted having allowed Atty. Presquito to make and
prepare some orders for him and which he thereafter signed.  An argument between Geocadin
and respondent ensued but the latter stated it does not make any differ­ence if
Atty. Presquito prepared the orders for as long as he signs them, they are
considered as his own.  This disclosure
of Judge Peña prompted Atty. Geocadin
to gather pleadings belonging to Atty. Presquito in
other cases of which the former was the opposing counsel, and discovered that,
indeed, the admission of Judge Peña that Atty. Presquito prepared some of his orders is corroborated by
the appearance and style in which Atty. Presquito
prepared his pleadings.  In four cases
(Exhibits “A-9”, “A-10”, “A-11” and
“A-13”), the uniformity in style of the way Atty. Presquito
prepared his pleadings is demonstrated in the following manner:  (1) just below the heading, there appears a
continuous dash (Exhibits “A-9-B”, “A-10-B”,
“A-11-B” and “A-13-A”), (2) in the title for either complainants, claimants, plaintiffs
or defendants, the phrase “ET. ALS.”
appears (emphasis on the letter “S”) (Exhibits “A-9-C”,
“A-10-C”, “A-11-C” and “A-13-B”, (3) the title is
underlined conti­nuously and all written in capital letters (Exhi­bits
“A-9-F”, “A-10-D”, “A-11-D” and
“A-13-C”), and (4) in the prayer the phrase “IN VIEW OF ALL THE
FOREGOING” are all written in capital letters (Exhibits “A-9-D”,
“A-10-E” and “A-11-E”). 
The above-enumerated examples of the style of Atty. Jose Presquito follow the same pattern as contained in the two
disputed orders both dated September 10, 1975, and marked as Exhibits “A-8”,
and “A-12” (Exhibits “A-8-A”, “A-8-B”,
“A-8-C”, “A-8-D”, “A-8-E”, “A-12-A”,
“A-12-B”, “A-12-C”, “A-12-D”, and
“A-12-E”), indicative of the inescapable con­clusion that Exhibits
“A-8” and “A-12” were both prepared by Atty. Presquito. 
Additionally, the fact that when the orders of August 11, 1975, and
September 10, 1975 (Exhibits “A-1”, “A-8” and
“A-12”) issued by Judge Peña in Civil Case
228 in favor of Atty. Presquito became the subject of review on certiorari and mandamus
before the Court of First Instance (Exhibit “A”) the same were
annulled and set aside, and more importantly, sustained and affirmed by the
highest tribunal of the land (Exhibit “D”), clinches the view that
the aforesaid orders were manifestly unjust and knowingly issued.

“On partiality, the evidence of complainant is likewise clear
on the culpability of respondent judge. 
As testified to by complainant, he met respondent judge in Isabela in the house of Jesus Moises.  In that meeting, Judge Peña
informed Atty. Geocadin that his case of contempt and
motion for reconsideration in Civil Case No. 228 have been referred to his
lawyer, Atty. Jose Presquito.  Geocadin was
further told to leave a copy as same
will be sent to Atty. Presquito for the latter to
study.  This disclosure irked Atty. Geocadin who said, ‘You mean to tell me that your orders are prepared by Atty. Presquito‘,
to which Judge Peña replied, ‘It does not make any
difference who prepared the order, as long as I sign it, that is my order.’ In
another occasion, in the presence of Colonel Goyena,
Provincial Commander, where Judge Peña was present,
Atty. Geocadin, complained of the actuation of Judge Peña in allowing Atty. Presquito
to prepare his orders and further said what chance has he to win when his
opposing counsel, Atty. Presquito, is the one who
prepared the orders of contempt and arrest against him.  The above facts are admitted by Judge Peña in his very own comment and/or answer to the charges
filed against him.  (Exhibit
“G-1”, page 10 of Exhibit “G”).

“Under the charge of pretending to possess influence or one
who pretends to be ‘malakas‘ with the higher
authorities, this investigator believes that the language used by respondent
judge is highly offensive, and thus deserving of severe reprimand and
condemnation.

“On the charge of
drunkenness, the evidence of complainant is likewise amply sufficient to induce
a finding of guilty against the respondent judge.  Being heavily drunk while
in the process of holding court sessions cannot be anything less than a very
unbecoming and reprehensible act of a judge, placing the honor and integrity of
the bench in disrepute and shame.

“Regarding the remaining charges of in­efficiency and laxity
in the supervision of court employees as well as oppression, this investigator
is of the considered view that respondent deserves only to be censured and
admonished.

“In summation, taking into account the nature and gravity of
the charges as well as the long years of service rendered by respondent Judge Remegio Peña in the judiciary, it
is respectfully recommended that justice be tempered with mercy and that a
penalty of forfei­ture of salary for a period of THREE months be imposed upon
said respondent Judge Remegio Peña.”

While on its face, the report presents a picture not only of
grave misconduct but of acts unbefitting an occupant of a judicial office, the
Court cannot overlook the fact that due to no fault of his own, but because of
the serious illnesses that have overcome him, respondent was not able to
present his evidence.  True it is that some
of the facts found by Judge Emilia seem to be borne
by admissions in the comment/answer of respondent to the charges against him,
but conventional wisdom tells Us that even those
admissions could have been probably explained by respondent so as to at least
mitigate his liability.  In any event,
there being a presumption of innocence in his favor, We
are not inclined to give full weight
to the report under consideration. 
Besides, as may be noted, Judge Emilia himself
recommends benignity, considering the unfortunate condition of respondent.  We agree that respondent is deserving of
compassion and humanitarian
consideration.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court hereby approves the
recommendation of the Investigator that on the basis of a prima
facie finding of acts
unbecoming of a judicial officer,
without any opportunity on his part to present evidence, the respondent be, as
he is hereby reprimanded and made to suffer the forfeiture of three (3) months of his salary, to be deducted from
whatever retirement benefits he
may be entitled to under existing laws.

Aquino, Concepcion,
Jr., Abad Santos, and
De Castro, JJ., concur.