SERGIO F. DEL CASTILLO, COMPLAINANT, VS. HON. RAFAEL C. CLIMACO, RESPONDENT.

This administrative case was initiated on January 29, 1969 upon complaint of Sergio F. del Castillo, charging Hon. Rafael C. Climaco,
District Judge of the Court of First Instance of Negros
Occidental, on three counts.  In synthesis they are:  (1) that respondent intentionally delayed hearing a certain case for
partition (No. 94) filed in his court in 1962, because the lawyer for the defendants, who was himself one of them, was a friend of
his; (2) that in said case he compelled the plaintiffs to mark their documentary
evidence all at once and indicate the pages of the record where the documents were found
instead of having them formally marked and
presented individually in the course of
the trial, in accordance with the
customary procedure, and that because the marking consumed some time he
lost his patience and left the court, but continued to conduct the proceeding
by telephone; and (3) that he tried to coerce the plaintiffs to enter into a
compromise with the defendants although he knew there was no prospect that it
could be done, thus
unnecessarily delaying the disposal of the case.

Respondent Judge filed his answer to the complaint, after which
the case was assigned to Hon. Arsenio Solidum, Associate
Justice of the Court of Appeals, for investigation, report and
recommendation.  Hearing was held before
him on August 28, 1969, at
which only complainant appeared and testified, respondent submitting the case
on the strength of his answer.

The report of Justice Solidum,
submitted on August 21, 1970,
contains the following findings:

“As to the first charge
that the respondent Judge deliberately delayed the trial of civil case
No. 94 because of his alleged friendship for Atty. Vivencio
Ibrado, Sr., one of the attorneys for the defendants
and actually one of the defendants in said case, as they are both members of
the Rotary Club of Bacolod, the same has not been
sufficiently established.  There is absolutely no proof to show
in what way the respondent had intentionally delayed the hearing of said case
simply because Atty. Ibrada and the respondent were
friends and members of the Rotary Club of Bacolod.  Be that as it may, in the memorandum filed by
the respondent, he states that
even before his receipt of the complaint in this administrative case, he had
resigned from the Rotary Club of Bacolod because his
son was being considered for a scholarship grant by said club.

As to the second charge, the respondent in his memorandum admitted
that he abruptly adjourned the trial in the afternoon of February 14, 1967, but
the reason was because complainant, as counsel for plaintiffs, had indicated
that he had about 20 documents
to be marked and offered as evidence but when Atty. Castillo and the deputy
clerk started marking the exhibits after one hour, they made very little
progress as the record was voluminous; so respondent directed Atty. Castillo to
make use of the remaining time and proceed with the marking of the exhibits in
the presence of the deputy clerk.  The
undersigned does not find anything wrong with this procedure.  At any rate, according to the respondent he
adjourned the hearing that afternoon at already 3:25
o’clock.

With respect to the charge that the respondent tried to
coerce the plaintiffs in the
said Tupas case to enter into a compromise with the
defendants knowing that there was absolutely no prospect for said compromise, thereby delaying the proceeding of this case, the
respondent readily admitted that considering that the parties in said
civil case are close relatives, being brothers and sisters, he really exerted efforts to achieve such
compromise.  This actuation of the
respondent Judge is not improper for as a matter of fact the law expressly
directs that litigants be advised and counselled to
compromise their mutual differences, especially when they are members of the
same family.  (Art. 222, New Civil
Code).”

It may be mentioned that according
to respondent the trial of the civil case No. 94 was terminated on July
31, 1969 and was then awaiting only the filing of the memoranda of
the parties.

In view of the foregoing, and as recommended by the
investigator, the complaint is dismissed
and respondent Judge is absolved
of the charges against him.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Zaldivar, Castro,
Fernando, Teehankee, Villamor,
and Makasiar, JJ., concur.

Barredo, J., did not take part.