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

Retuya versus Judge Equipilag

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed by Ana F. Retuya, a widow with four minor children, against Municipal Judge Paulo A. Equipilag of Maasin, Leyte, arising from his handling of an estafa case that she believed was filed only to harass her. The case matters because it fixes the standard of judicial conduct: a judge may be admonished, even without suspension, for abrasive and coercive behavior that creates the appearance of impropriety, and for being precipitate in issuing a warrant of arrest in a case that is really a lawyer's fee dispute.

Procedural History

Ana Retuya filed a complaint dated July 24, 1974, but filed with the Supreme Court on October 30, 1974, asking for the disbarment or suspension of Atty. Gorduiz and Judge Equipilag. The disbarment case against Atty. Gorduiz was referred to the Solicitor General and remained pending. The case against Judge Equipilag was investigated by the Judge of the Court of First Instance of Southern Leyte. It reached the Supreme Court as an original administrative matter, decided by the Court en banc.

Facts

Ana Retuya filed a claim for workmen's compensation against Eastern Shipping Lines, 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 her 8,792.10 pesos, consisting of 6,000 pesos as compensation benefits, 2,292.10 pesos for medical and hospitalization expenses, 200 pesos as burial expenses, and 300 pesos as attorney's fees of Atty. Iñego Gorduiz. The employer appealed. During the pendency of the appeal, the employer proposed to compromise by paying 4,396.05 pesos, or only one-half of the total award. Ana accepted 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 the receipt and release with a covering letter dated December 19, 1972, explaining that her lawyer, Gorduiz, did not sign the joint motion to dismiss because he wanted twenty percent of the award as his attorney's fees; she was willing to give him ten percent.

After cashing the check, she could not contact Gorduiz to pay his fee. In February 1973, she was served with a warrant of arrest in Criminal Case No. R-2362 of the municipal court of Maasin, and to avoid detention she posted bail 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 had refused to pay. On the basis of that affidavit, the acting chief of police filed a complaint for estafa in the municipal court of Maasin.

After posting bail, Ana filed a motion to quash, explaining that she did not pay Gorduiz because he was demanding one-third of the award; when she did not accede, he lowered his claim to eight hundred pesos, and she bargained for six hundred fifty pesos, which he refused. She averred that the estafa case was filed just to harass her. Judge Equipilag denied the motion to quash and granted Gorduiz's motion requiring Ana to produce a copy of the decision awarding her workmen's compensation. The estafa case was not tried. Atty. Erasmo M. Diola, as Ana's lawyer, offered Gorduiz five hundred pesos as settlement, and the offer was accepted. On November 22, 1973, the acting chief of police filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of Gorduiz's affidavit stating that the prosecution witnesses had allegedly become hostile and that he was no longer interested in prosecuting. On that same day, Judge Equipilag dismissed the case.

Ana testified that more than three times at the hearing, the 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 testified that she paid three hundred fifty pesos to the clerk of Atty. Diola on November 15, 1973, and the balance of one hundred fifty pesos was delivered to Atty. Diola on November 22, 1973, in the presence of the respondent judge, after which Atty. Diola entered the judge's chamber. She also testified that on August 5, 1973, she and a police sergeant wanted to deliver the five hundred pesos to the respondent judge, but he said he would accept the amount as a custodian without any receipt since he had no form for the official receipt. The respondent judge denied shouting at her and denied being present when she allegedly gave the money to Atty. Diola.

Issues

• Whether or not respondent judge's handling of the estafa case constituted malfeasance or misfeasance in office warranting disciplinary action.
• Whether or not respondent judge should be suspended or penalized administratively for his conduct in the estafa case.

Applicable Provisions

Section 97 of the Judiciary Law provides:

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.

This is the basis for the Court's power to discipline the respondent.

Paragraphs 4, 10 and 31 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, Administrative Order No. 162, provide:

A judge is expected to practice courtesy and civility and to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.

This is the standard against which the respondent's abrasive conduct was measured.

Section 87 of the Judiciary Law provides:

The procedure for the preliminary examination indicated in section 87 of the Judiciary Law.

The Court noted that the respondent followed this procedure and was not obligated to notify the accused that she was charged with estafa.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found that there is no conclusive evidence that the respondent committed any venality or grave dereliction of duty in the disposition of the estafa case. However, some credence may be given to Ana's gripe that she did not receive gentle treatment from the respondent when, in an abrasive, if not coercive manner, he seemingly pressured her to settle the claim of Atty. Gorduiz. The Court observed that a judge is expected to practice courtesy and civility and to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. It is possible that the respondent, 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, and the complainant, if of a sensitive nature, might have felt bullied when he repeatedly asked her to compromise. With respect to giving due course to the complaint for estafa, the respondent followed the procedure for preliminary examination under section 87 of the Judiciary Law and was not obligated to notify the accused. However, considering the small amount involved and the fact, well-known to the bench and bar, that 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 was due merely to a misunderstanding or whether she could pay the amount due to her lawyer. He should not have been precipitate in issuing the warrant of arrest.

On the second issue, the Court held that 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.

Doctrine

A municipal judge may be disciplined under Section 97 of the Judiciary Law if he has not been performing his duties properly or is unfit for office. A judge is expected to practice courtesy and civility and to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety under the Canons of Judicial Ethics. Abrasive, coercive, or loud behavior that pressures a party to settle a claim, even without proof of venality, may warrant admonition. A judge should not be precipitate in issuing a warrant of arrest, especially where the amount involved is small and the case appears to be a lawyer's fee dispute using the court as a collection agency. The Court may admonish a judge without imposing suspension where there is no conclusive evidence of grave dereliction of duty.

Disposition

The complaint for suspension was dismissed, and the respondent judge was admonished to be more prudent and circumspect in the discharge of his duties, with a copy of the decision attached to his personal record.

Remember This

A judge may be admonished, even without suspension, for abrasive and coercive conduct that creates the appearance of impropriety and for being precipitate in issuing a warrant of arrest in a fee dispute. Examiners use this case to test the standard of judicial conduct and the distinction between malfeasance and mere admonition.