GIL F. ECHANO AND CAYETANO LUKBAN, COMPLAINANTS, VS. HON. DELFIN VIR. SUÑGA, RESPONDENT.

Echano versus Suñga

The Case

This is an administrative case brought against Judge Delfin Vir. Suñga of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur, Branch One. The complainants are Attorneys Gil F. Echano and Cayetano Lukban, who charge the respondent judge with serious misconduct in office, with inducing a court stenographer to falsify a court record, and with acts highly prejudicial to the best interests and to the proper administration of justice. The charges arose from the proceedings in a civil case for lease of a rice mill and a bodega under receivership. The case matters because it fixes the standard of judicial decorum: a judge must keep his cool, and intemperate words spoken from the bench, even if not recorded, can be the subject of administrative sanction.

Procedural History

The case began as an administrative complaint filed directly with the Supreme Court against a judge of the Court of First Instance. There was no trial court below and no intermediate appellate court, because an administrative charge against a judge is heard by the Supreme Court itself. The respondent filed his comment, disputing the charges and explaining his conduct. The Supreme Court resolved the case in the exercise of its administrative supervision over judges, and admonished the respondent.

Facts

On February 10, 1977, the trial court heard a motion to lease a rice mill and a bodega which were under receivership. Attorney Echano opposed the motion. When the court considered the matter submitted, Echano insisted on speaking, saying that the leasing would become moot and academic, and that he had a right to speak. He added that the proceeding was already a dictatorship and a miscarriage of justice.

The court again said the case was submitted and called for a sheriff to take Echano away. When no sheriff came, Echano, described by the respondent as defiant, again insisted that he had a good argument to advance. It was then that the respondent uttered the words, buntalin kita dian, which translate as, I will box you there. Echano asked that the statement be placed on record.

The respondent did not deny the exchange. He explained that the words were uttered involuntarily, in a soft voice, without addressing anyone in particular, and in the present tense, so that they were not meant as a threat. He said the utterance relieved his emotional stress, and that he then no longer thought of punishing Echano for contempt. He admitted asking the stenographer not to record the statement, and he said the complainants were unable to obtain what they desired in the civil case.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of serious misconduct in office for uttering the words buntalin kita dian during the hearing.
• Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of inducing a court stenographer to falsify a court record when he asked that the statement not be recorded.
• Whether or not the charge of acts highly prejudicial to the best interests and to the proper administration of justice is appropriate in an administrative proceeding.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision. It applies the settled standard of judicial conduct, which the Court states in its own words:

The respondent did not comport himself in a manner that befits one who holds the exalted office of dispenser of justice which requires serenity and the ability to keep one's cool.

This standard bears on the first and second charges, because it measures whether the judge's conduct from the bench fell below what his office demands.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found that the respondent did not comport himself in a manner befitting one who holds the exalted office of dispenser of justice, which requires serenity and the ability to keep one's cool. The utterance from the bench was therefore a failure of judicial decorum. But the Court found the respondent's explanation to be extenuating, because the words were spoken under the stress of a defiant counsel and a courtroom in disorder.

On the second issue, the Court likewise found the respondent's explanation extenuating. He asked the stenographer not to record the statement, as any person might wish an irrelevant remark kept off the record, and the Court did not treat this as falsification.

On the third issue, the Court held that the specifications in this charge are not appropriate in an administrative proceeding. The proper venue to ventilate them is a judicial forum. The complainants' grievance was that they did not obtain what they desired in the civil case, and that grievance belongs in court, not in an administrative complaint against the judge.

Doctrine

A judge must comport himself in a manner that befits one who holds the exalted office of dispenser of justice, which requires serenity and the ability to keep one's cool. Intemperate words spoken from the bench, even if not recorded, may be the subject of administrative sanction. But where the judge's explanation is extenuating, as when the words were uttered involuntarily under the stress of a defiant counsel and a disorderly courtroom, the sanction may be reduced to admonition. And grievances over the outcome of a case are not appropriate in an administrative proceeding; the proper venue to ventilate them is a judicial forum.

Disposition

The respondent was admonished to be more prudent and restrained in his judicial behaviour, and a copy of the resolution was ordered placed in his personal file.

Remember This

Memorize the line: the office of dispenser of justice requires serenity and the ability to keep one's cool. Examiners use this case to test judicial decorum and the rule that grievances over the outcome of a case belong in a judicial forum, not in an administrative complaint.