JOSELITO S. PASCUAL, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE RODOLFO R. BONIFACIO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 151, PASIG CITY, RESPONDENT.

Pascual versus Bonifacio

The Case

This is an administrative case in which Joselito Pascual, a litigant in a marriage annulment proceeding, charged Judge Rodolfo Bonifacio of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 151, with conduct unbecoming a judge. Pascual alleged that the judge, who had taken over his pending case, met with him privately and pressed him to settle the conjugal assets on terms the judge himself proposed. The case matters because it fixes the standard of judicial conduct: a judge must not only be impartial but must appear to be so, and a litigant is entitled to no less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.

Procedural History

Pascual filed his verified letter-complaint against Judge Bonifacio in October 1999. The judge filed his comment, and Pascual replied, later supplementing his reply. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended that the matter be referred to a Justice of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report, and recommendation. The Supreme Court referred the case to Justice Conchita Carpio Morales of the Court of Appeals. During the investigation, Pascual manifested that he was no longer interested in pursuing the case because he was working abroad. Justice Morales nonetheless submitted her report, finding that the respondent had violated Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and recommending a fine of thirty thousand pesos. The case then came before the Supreme Court as an original administrative matter for its own resolution.

Facts

When Judge Deogracias Felizardo of Branch 151 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City died in August 1998, Judge Bonifacio took over his cases. Among them was the annulment suit filed by Pascual's wife of fifteen years, in which Pascual had filed a counterclaim for legal separation. The case had already been submitted for decision.

At around nine in the evening of November 25, 1998, the judge came to see Pascual at the Lobby Lounge of the Manila Hotel, where Pascual worked as a pianist. The judge told him he wanted the annulment case settled. He suggested that Pascual agree to a one third to two thirds sharing of the conjugal assets between Pascual and his two children, and that the conjugal home in Ayala Alabang Village, Muntinlupa City be sold with the children's share given to them. The judge made clear that Pascual would not administer the children's two thirds share. Pascual refused, believing his counterclaim meritorious and that he was entitled to one half of the conjugal assets. The conversation ended with the judge assuring him that he would inhibit himself if Pascual filed a motion to inhibit.

Pascual filed a motion to inhibit in December 1998, which the judge denied. On reconsideration, Pascual cited the Manila Hotel conversation as his ground. The judge denied the motion for reconsideration in August 1999, calling the grounds untenable. In his comment, the judge denied seeking a settlement and claimed he was at the hotel on the invitation of Judge Arsenio Magpale to finalize arrangements for a judges' golf tournament, and that Pascual merely joined them and steered the conversation to his case. Pascual refuted this account. Notably, the judge did not deny meeting Pascual at the Manila Hotel on that date, and he still decided the annulment case against Pascual in December 1999, after the administrative complaint had been filed.

Issues

• Whether or not the complainant's desistance warrants dismissal of the administrative case against the respondent judge.
• Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.

Applicable Provisions

Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides:

A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.

This is the general standard the respondent was found to have breached.

Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides:

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

This is the specific rule the Court held the respondent violated by proposing settlement terms to a litigant in his own sala.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that desistance does not mean the charge is without merit. The withdrawal of a complaint or the complainant's loss of interest will not necessarily cause the dismissal of an administrative case against a judge. To condition administrative action on the will of a complainant, who for one reason or another condones a detestable act, would strip the Court of its power to supervise and discipline erring members of the judiciary.

On the second issue, the Court agreed with the investigator's findings. The respondent did not deny meeting the complainant at the Manila Hotel on November 25, 1998. In his order denying reconsideration, he wrote off the allegation as untenable without any explanation, and he took seven months to rule on the motion without ever supplying a factual or legal basis. That failure, the Court said, gave merit to the contention that he had in effect admitted the improper conduct.

The Court stressed that a judge is the visible representation of the law and of justice, and that membership in the judiciary circumscribes one's personal conduct. Judges need not measure up to the standards of saints and martyrs, but they are expected to be like Caesar's wife in all their activities. Whether or not the respondent purposely went to the hotel to meet the complainant, his act of trying to convince him to agree to his proposal was an act of impropriety. It is improper and highly unethical for a judge to suggest to a litigant what to do to resolve his case, for such would generate the suspicion that the judge is in collusion with one party. A litigant is entitled to no less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. Judges are not only required to be impartial but also to appear to be so, for appearance is an essential manifestation of reality. The misconduct was made more glaring by the fact that the controversy was pending in the respondent's own sala. The Court thus ruled that he violated Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

On the penalty, the Court agreed that a fine was proper, but noting that this was the first case against the respondent, it treated that as a mitigating circumstance and imposed a minimum fine of ten thousand pesos instead of the thirty thousand pesos recommended.

Doctrine

A judge must comport himself at all times so that his conduct, official or otherwise, can withstand the most searching public scrutiny. He must not only be impartial but must appear to be impartial, because appearance is an essential manifestation of reality. A judge who suggests to a litigant what to do to resolve a case pending in his own sala violates Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, because such conduct generates the suspicion of collusion with one party and tarnishes the image of the judiciary. A litigant is entitled to no less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. Finally, a complainant's desistance or loss of interest does not divest the Supreme Court of its power to supervise and discipline erring members of the judiciary, and does not by itself warrant dismissal of an administrative case against a judge.

Disposition

The Court found Judge Rodolfo Bonifacio guilty of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct and ordered him to pay a fine of ten thousand pesos, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely, and directed that a copy of the resolution be attached to his personnel records.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a litigant is entitled to no less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge, and that a judge must not only be impartial but must appear to be so. Examiners use this case on judicial ethics and administrative supervision, especially for the rules that desistance does not moot an administrative complaint and that a judge may be disciplined for proposing settlement terms in a case pending in his own sala.