PONCIANO A. ARBAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MELECIO B. BORJA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 20, NAGA CITY, RESPONDENT.

Arban versus Borja

The Case

This is an administrative case for grave misconduct filed by Ponciano A. Arban, then District Engineer for Camarines Sur in the Ministry of Public Works and Highways, against Judge Melecio B. Borja, Presiding Judge of a Regional Trial Court branch in Naga City. Arban charged that Judge Borja pistol-whipped him in a public restaurant in broad daylight. The case matters far beyond the two men involved: it is the Supreme Court's own disciplinary proceeding against a member of the bench, and it teaches that a judge's misconduct is not a private quarrel that the complainant can simply withdraw. The Court itself framed the question: did the respondent Judge commit an act of serious misconduct, one which degrades the integrity of the judicial office and serves as a demoralizing example to the public?

Procedural History

The matter began not with a complaint but with newspaper reports. On March 4, 1985, the Supreme Court, through the Deputy Court Administrator, sent Judge Borja a telegram requiring him to come immediately and explain the alleged pistol whipping. The Court designated the Acting Court Administrator to investigate. On the strength of that memorandum, which stated that a prima facie case had been established, the Court issued a resolution on March 19, 1985 referring the matter to Justice Bienvenido B. Ejercito of the Intermediate Appellate Court for investigation, report and recommendation, and suspended Judge Borja effective immediately. This was done even before Engineer Arban filed his own petition on March 21, 1985. Justice Ejercito recommended dismissal of the case after the complainant moved to withdraw it. The Supreme Court refused to accept that recommendation, transferred the case to Justice Nathanael de Pano of the Intermediate Appellate Court for further investigation, and required complainant's counsel to appear under threat of disciplinary measures. Justice de Pano conducted further hearings and submitted his report and recommendation. The case was then resolved by the Supreme Court in this per curiam decision.

Facts

On February 23, 1985, at about one in the afternoon, Engineer Arban was at Cindy's Restaurant in downtown Naga City. Judge Borja, who was carrying a pistol, struck Arban on the left side of his head with the weapon, sending him sprawling to the floor and rendering him momentarily unconscious, in the presence of people taking their lunch. The respondent also threatened Arban's companions with the gun. Minutes earlier, the respondent had fired his gun on the balcony of the apartment where he was lodging, from where he followed the petitioner to the restaurant. Arban reported the incident to the Executive Judge, who advised him to seek the assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation rather than report to the police station. The incident drew nationwide publicity in regional and national newspapers.

In his defense, Judge Borja denied the charge. In a letter to the Chief Justice, he explained that Arban tried to hit him with a fist blow and that, while parrying it, he wildly swung his right hand and happened to hit the complainant's face. He also denied that jealousy over a woman was the motive. The Court gave credence to that denial of motive, resolving doubts in his favor, but not to the denial of the act.

Meanwhile, the complainant lost interest. He filed a motion to withdraw the petition, saying that after more mature deliberation he concluded that the filing was caused by a misunderstanding of the respondent's motives, and that the public apology had appeased the scandal. Judge Borja had signed a written apology dated June 25, 1985, sincerely apologizing to Engineer Arban for what he did to him at the Cindy Restaurant, which act inflicted physical injuries on the left side of his face, and giving him permission to publish the apology in all media outlets. The complainant later filed a second reiteration of the motion to withdraw, signed by him and his counsel, stating that his personal interests had been satisfied.

Issues

• Whether or not the withdrawal of the complaint by the complainant and his satisfaction with the respondent's public apology bar or terminate the administrative proceeding against the respondent Judge.
• Whether or not the respondent Judge committed grave misconduct, degrading the integrity of the judicial office and serving as a demoralizing example to the public.
• Whether or not the penalty of dismissal, rather than suspension, is warranted.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3 of the Code of Judicial Ethics, as quoted in the decision, provides:

A judge's official conduct should be free from appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior not only upon the bench and in the performance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach.

This is the norm the Court applied: the standard reaches the judge's everyday life, not only his conduct in court, and it is precisely this norm that the restaurant incident violated.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the withdrawal of the complaint and the private satisfaction of the complainant are not very material nor controlling. The Court explained that it had acted even before the petition was filed, in light of its responsibility to discipline erring members of the bench and bar and to preserve the integrity of the judiciary. What matters is the truth: did the respondent commit an act of serious misconduct? Justice de Pano's report, adopted by the Court, stressed that there is not only the complainant's private interest but also the public interest, because the respondent is a highly visible member of the judicial branch and the complainant himself a government official, and the incident received the widest publicity.

On the second issue, the Court found that the apology itself was an admission of the act charged. The respondent admits in his public apology that he inflicted physical injuries on the left side of the face of District Engineer Arban in a public place. The Court rejected the explanation that he accidentally hit the complainant while parrying a fist blow, finding from the records, despite the cover-ups and the sudden loss of interest of the complainant, that the injuries were caused by a pistol-whipping. Whatever the motive, the violent action in a public place constitutes serious misconduct, and the resultant outrage of the community is a blow to the image of the entire judiciary. The Court quoted its earlier ruling in De la Paz versus Inutan:

The judge is the visible representation of the law and, more importantly, of justice. From him, the people draw their will and awareness to obey the law. They see in him an intermediary of justice between two conflicting interests, specially in the station of municipal judges, like respondent Judge, who have that close and direct contact with the people before anybody else in the judiciary. Thus, for the judge to return that regard, he must be the first to abide by the law and weave an example for the others to follow. He should be studiously careful to avoid even the slightest infraction of the law.

On the third issue, although the Investigator-Justice recommended suspension for two years, the Court held that the serious nature of the offense and the best interests of the judiciary warrant the penalty of dismissal. The Court added that it frowns upon prolonged suspension of judges or court personnel as a penalty, even assuming that it is deserved.

Doctrine

First, an administrative complaint against a judge is not a private action that the complainant owns and may abandon at will. Withdrawal of the complaint and a public apology do not divest the Supreme Court of its authority to discipline; the public interest in preserving the integrity of the judiciary controls, and the truth of the charge remains the question.

Second, a judge's conduct, both on and off the bench, must be free from the appearance of impropriety and beyond reproach, as Section 3 of the Code of Judicial Ethics commands. Violence by a judge in a public place is serious misconduct, whatever its motive, because it degrades the judicial office and demoralizes the public.

Third, where the offense is serious, dismissal is the proper penalty, and prolonged suspension is disfavored as a penalty for judges and court personnel.

Disposition

Judge Melecio B. Borja was found guilty of grave misconduct and dismissed from the service, with forfeiture of retirement benefits and with prejudice to reinstatement in any branch of the government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities, though he was to be paid back salaries and accrued leaves due him, and the decision was declared immediately executory.

Remember This

Memorize the line: the withdrawal of the complaint and the public apology are not very material nor controlling, because the truth is what is important and the public interest in the integrity of the judiciary is at stake. Examiners use this case on the independence of administrative discipline from the complainant's will, on the standard of judicial conduct on and off the bench, and on dismissal as the penalty for grave misconduct by a judge.