BENJAMIN MARAVILLA, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE GUMERSINDO ARCILLA, RESPONDENT.

Maravilla versus Arcilla

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed by Benjamin Maravilla, a sheriff, against Judge Gumersindo Arcilla, a city judge, charging the latter with grave abuse of authority, assault upon a person in authority, and acts unbecoming a public officer. The charge grows out of a confrontation in the Office of the Clerk of Court of the City Court of Davao City, where the respondent judge, believing that the complainant had improperly included his wife's beach house in a demolition he was executing, made a move as if to dash towards the complainant. The case matters because it fixes the standard of conduct expected of members of the judiciary even in their private affairs, and because it shows how the Court calibrates the penalty when the charge of assault is not proven but the judge's behavior is still found unbecoming.

Procedural History

The complaint was referred by the Court to Judge Dominador Zuño, Senior, Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance of Davao, for investigation. The investigator submitted a report recommending that the respondent be found guilty of abuse of authority and of conduct unbecoming a public officer, and be penalized with suspension for six months without pay. The records were then transferred to the Supreme Court pursuant to the Constitution, and the Court issued a resolution referring the case for investigation. After a careful review of the evidence on record, the Supreme Court concluded that the recommendation was rather harsh and resolved the case itself.

Facts

In a land registration case before the Court of First Instance of Davao City, an order of demolition was issued. The complainant, as sheriff, executed that order and, in the process, included in the demolition a beach house belonging to the respondent judge's wife. The respondent believed that the land on which the beach house stood was outside the property involved in the registration case, and that the complainant had abused his authority.

On September 22, 1972, the complainant was in the Office of the Clerk of Court of the City Court of Davao City, putting up a three hundred peso bailbond for his provisional release as an accused in a criminal case for malicious mischief, the very case arising from what he had done to the beach house. It was on that occasion that the respondent judge confronted him and made a move as if to dash towards him, but was unable to reach him because of the intervention of other persons present.

The complainant had, as early as October 9, 1972, executed an affidavit stating that he had patched up his differences with the respondent and asking that the controversy be considered definitely closed and totally disregarded. On November 2, 1972, he wrote the then Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance of Davao requesting that the case be considered closed and his complaint disregarded, and that judge recommended that the matter be considered closed. The complainant desisted, but the Department of Justice made him understand that appropriate disciplinary action would be taken against him for having compromised a matter of public interest, and he later testified that he was prosecuting the case only because it had been ordered by the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of grave abuse of authority and assault upon the complainant.
• Whether or not the respondent committed acts unbecoming of his position as a judge, warranting disciplinary action.
• Whether or not the recommended penalty of suspension for six months without pay is proper.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision. It rests on the settled standard of conduct for members of the judiciary, which the Court states as a rule of behavior rather than as a codal text, and which governs the second and third issues.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that a case of actual assault had not been established. Even considering the inconsistencies noted by the investigator in the respondent's statements, it did not appear clearly that the respondent had succeeded in actually laying hands on the complainant. The most that the evidence showed was that the respondent made a move as if to dash towards the complainant but was unable to reach him because of the intervention of other persons present. The medical evidence offered to prove physical injuries was inconclusive and did not impress the investigator, and the respondent did not persist in his apparent intention.

On the second issue, the Court held that the respondent's aggressive posture, although understandable because of the unwarranted inclusion of his wife's hut in the demolition, was uncalled for considering his position as City Judge, and could not be totally excused. As a member of the judiciary, he should have refrained from dealing with the complainant directly, whatever he personally felt aggrieved about, and should have considered that there are adequate remedial measures for all kinds of improper or even illegal acts, always available to aggrieved parties either in the courts or in the corresponding administrative agencies. As a judge, he is not supposed to forget at any time that no one is permitted to take the law in his hands, except perhaps when acting in justifiable self-defense, which was not the case here.

On the third issue, the Court held that the recommended suspension was rather harsh. It noted that the special circumstances which induced the respondent to act the way he did may not always be easy for a man to undergo with real composure, and that this was the first occasion he was charged administratively, although it warned that were it not for his long public service and the absence of any prior administrative charge, the Court would have dealt with him more drastically.

Doctrine

A member of the judiciary must, in all that he does, whether in the performance of his judicial functions or in the handling of his private affairs, control his feelings whenever under stress or pressure to redress any wrong he suffers. He must seek justice through the means provided by the rule of law, instead of being carried by passion and the wish to retaliate or avenge any aggression, real or fancied. A judge may not take the law into his own hands, except perhaps when acting in justifiable self-defense. Where the charge of assault is not proven for insufficiency of evidence, a judge may still be reprimanded for acts unbecoming of his position, and the penalty is measured against the gravity of the act, the presence of special circumstances, length of public service, and the absence of prior administrative charges.

Disposition

The charge of abuse of authority and assault was not proven, but the respondent was reprimanded and admonished to be careful not to repeat any similar attempt to secure redress by trying to physically lay hands on someone instead of resorting to the corresponding legal remedies.

Remember This

The single line to memorize is that no one is permitted to take the law in his hands, and a judge least of all. Examiners use this case to test the standard of judicial conduct in private dealings and the rule that an unproven charge of assault may still yield a reprimand for acts unbecoming of a judge.