ANA F. RETUYA, COMPLAINANT, VS. MUNICIPAL JUDGE PAULO A. EQUIPILAG OF MAASIN, LEYTE, RESPONDENT.

Ana F. Retuya, a widow with four minor
children, filed a claim for workmen’s compensation against Eastern Shipping
Lines, Inc., the employer of her husband who died in 1968.  In a decision dated December 4, 1970 the Workmen’s Compensation Unit at Tacloban City awarded to Ana the sum of P8,792.10
consisting of (a) P6, 000 as compensation
benefits, (b) P2,292.10 for medical and hospitalization expenses, (c) P200 as burial expenses
and (d) P300 as attorney’s fees of Atty. Iñego Gorduiz (Case No. 9728).

The employer appealed. 
During the pendency of the appeal, the employer
proposed to compromise the claim by paying P4,396.05
or only one-half of the total award.  Ana
accepted the proposal and directed that the amount be remitted to Fiscal Mamerto Daclan through the
Philippine National Bank’s branch at Maasin, Southern
Leyte.

The employer paid the reduced award on November 16, 1972.  Ana
sent to the employer the receipt and release signed by her with a covering letter
dated December 19, 1972
wherein she explained that her lawyer, Gorduiz, did
not sign the joint motion to dismiss the claim because he wanted twenty percent
of the award as his attorney’s fees.  She
was willing to
give him ten percent.

After she had cashed the check for P4,396.05,
she was not
able to contact Gorduiz and pay his fee.  Then, unexpectedly, in February, 1973, she
was served with a warrant of arrest issued in Criminal Case No. R-2362 of the municipal court of Maasin.  To avoid detention, she had
to post bail in the sum of one thousand pesos.

It turned out that on January
12, 1973 Atty. Gorduiz executed an
affidavit stating that Ana had misappropriated his attorney’s fees amounting to
three hundred pesos and that he had demanded payment of the amount from her but
she refused to
make payment and, instead, she went to Cebu
and stayed there for a long time.

On the basis of that affidavit, the acting chief of police filed
against Ana a complaint for estafa in the municipal court
of Maasin. 
After posting bail, she filed a motion to quash wherein she explained that she did not pay the fees of
Atty. Gorduiz because he was demanding one-third of the award; that when she did not
accede to his demand, he lowered his claim to eight hundred pesos, and that she
bargained for six hundred fifty pesos but he
refused to accept that amount.  Ana
averred that the estafa case was filed just to harass her.

Judge Paulo A. Equipilag denied the
motion to quash.  He granted the motion of Atty. Gorduiz
requiring Ana to produce a copy of the decision awarding her workmen’s compensation
for her husband’s death.

The estafa case was not tried.  Atty. Erasmo M. Diola, as lawyer of Ana, offered to Atty. Gorduiz the sum of five
hundred pesos as settlement of the case. 
The offer was accepted.

On November 22, 1973, the acting chief of police filed a motion to dismiss the case on
the basis of the affidavit of Atty. Gorduiz executed
on that date stating that the prosecution witnesses had allegedly become
hostile and that he was no
longer interested in further prosecuting the case.  Also,
on that same day, Judge Equipilag dismissed the
case.

In spite of the dismissal of the estafa
case, Ana F. Retuya
felt aggrieved by the proceedings therein. 
In a complaint dated July 24,
1974 but filed in this Court on October 30, 1974, she asked for the disbarment or suspension of Atty. Gorduiz
and Judge Equipilag. 
The disbarment case against Gorduiz was
referred to the Solicitor General.  It is still
pending (Administrative Case No. 1388).

The case against Judge Equipilag was
investigated by the Judge of the
Court of First Instance of Southern Leyte.

Complainant Retuya in support of her
complaint testified
that for more than three times at the hearing in the estafa case respondent judge, with
a contemptuous mien or harsh demeanor and in a loud and thunderous voice, asked
her in a sardonic tone in the
presence of Atty. Gorduiz: “Are you going to pay or not?”

She further testified that to settle the estafa
case she paid three hundred
fifty pesos to the clerk of Atty. Diola on November 15, 1973 (Exh. M) and the balance of one hundred fifty pesos was delivered by her
in the municipal court to Atty. Diola on November 22, 1973 (when the case was dismissed) in
the presence of respondent judge and that after the delivery Atty. Diola entered the chamber of respondent judge (14, 20-21 tsn,
June 26, 1975).

Ana F. Retuya testified that on August
5, 1973 she and a police sergeant wanted to deliver the five hundred pesos to
respondent judge but the latter said that he would accept the amount as a
custodian without any receipt since he had no form for the official receipt (23-24 tsn).

Respondent judge in his testimony denied Ana’s imputation that
during the scheduled hearings of the estafa case, he sarcastically shouted at her and asked her whether
she was going to pay the fees of
Atty. Gorduiz. 
The judge said that if it were true
that he shouted at Ana, then her counsel would have objected to his conduct.  No such objection was interposed.

He recalled that on one occasion, when Ana F. Retuya
wanted to deposit with his clerk of court the fees of Atty. Gorduiz,
he advised his clerk of court not to accept the deposit because he had no
authority to do so and he had no form
for the official receipt evidencing the deposit.

Respondent judge denied that he was present when Ana allegedly
gave five hundred pesos to Atty. Diola.  He denied that he and Atty. Diola entered his chamber after
the latter had received the sum of five hundred pesos from her.

Disciplinary action may be taken against a municipal judge if he has not been
performing his duties properly or if he is unfit for the office (Sec. 97,
Judiciary Law).  The question is whether respondent
judge’s handling of the estafa case constituted
malfeasance or misfeasance in office.

We find that there is no conclusive evidence that he committed
any venality or grave dereliction of duty in the disposition of the estafa case.

However, some credence may be given to the gripe of Ana F. Retuya that she did not receive gentle treatment from
respondent judge when, in an abrasive, if not coercive manner, he seemingly
pressured her to settle the claim of Atty. Gorduiz.

A judge is expected to practice courtesy and civility and to avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety (Pars. 4,
10 and 31, Canons of Judicial Ethics, Administrative Order No. 162, 42 O. G.
1803).

It is possible that respondent judge, by reason of a natural and
congenital tendency or due to tension, habitually talks in a loud voice and does not have a diplomatic manner.  The complainant, if of a sensitive nature, might have
felt that she was being bullied when the respondent repeatedly asked her to compromise the case.

With respect to
respondents giving due course to the complaint for estafa,
it may be observed that he followed the procedure for the preliminary
examination indicated in section 87 of the Judiciary Law.  The respondent was not obligated to notify
the accused, Ana F. Retuya, that she was charged with estafa.

However, considering the small amount involved and the fact,
well-known to the bench and bar, that the offended parties in estafa cases usually use the court as a collection agency,
the respondent could have subpoenaed the accused and ascertained whether the
filing of the complaint was due merely to
a misunderstanding or whether she could pay the amount due to her lawyer, Gorduiz.  He should not have been precipitate
in issuing the warrant of arrest.  As it
turned out, the respondent did not insist on trying the case
but, according to Ana’s version, persisted in pressing her to make a settlement.

There is no justification for suspending the respondent or for
imposing upon him any administrative penalty. 
But he is admonished to be more prudent and circumspect in the discharge
of his duties so as to obviate the suspicion that, for an ulterior motive, he is in cahoots with the offended party in a criminal case for the purpose of
using the strong arm of the law against
the accused in an oppressive and vindictive manner.  A copy of this
decision should be attached to respondent’s personal record.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, (Chairman), Antonio, Concepcion, Jr., Santos,
and Abad
Santos, JJ., concur.