FRANCISCO M. LECAROZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. HON. SEGUNDO M. GARCIA, RESPONDENT.

This is a verified complaint^[1]
dated March 8, 1979, filed by Francisco Lecaroz,
Municipal Mayor of Santa Cruz, Marinduque, against
Municipal Judge Segundo Garcia of said municipality, for alleged
“misconduct or improprieties” committed by the latter as follows:

“1. The improper conduct of Judge Garcia in
soliciting for donations of office equipments (sic) from Marcopper
Mining Corporation, an entity which at some time or another may be a party in
litigation before Judge Garcia himself. 
As a matter of fact, at the time the office equipments (sic) were
donated and delivered, Mr. Cirilo Cachero,
the Personnel Officer of Marcopper Mining
Corporation, has a pending criminal case against him before the Municipal Court
of Santa Cruz for Perjury, docketed as Crim. Case No.
(78)-216 and said case is still pending disposition by Judge Garcia.  In the face of the instant situation, how can
the complainant in the Cachero case believe in the
‘cold impartiality’ of Judge Garcia?

“2. Without going through the propriety of making representations
with the office of the Mayor and/or office of the Municipal Treasurer in order
that the donated equipments (sic) can be issued for the use of his office,
Judge Garcia took it upon himself to accept delivery of the equipments (sic)
from Atty. Teodulo Gabor,
Jr., a Marcopper lawyer, and placed said equipments
(sic) inside his office where they are situated up to the present.  Such abject lack of decorum and courtesy
could hardly be expected from a man of the bench.”

In his comment^[2]
dated April 19, 1979, respondent Judge alleged that the office desk, swivel
chair and a long carriage typewritter donated by Marcopper Mining Corporation on November 17, 1978 to the
Municipality of Santa Cruz were physically received by former Mayor Percival
Morales, who allocated the same to the office of the respondent; that as they
were second hand, the same had to be refurbished or fixed, so that they were
actually delivered to the office of respondent only on January 17, 1979, and
were inventoried as properties of the Municipality of Santa Cruz on February
16, 1979 by Mrs. Virginia P. Garcia, property clerk, and Mr. Rufino Ney, Assistant Treasurer
and in-charge of office; that as stated in the Deed of Donation,^[3]
the Municipality of Santa Cruz, as donee, represented
by Mayor Percival Morales, “hereby receives and accepts this
DONATION” of the aforementioned office equipment, thus, negating the claim
of complainant that “there is no records the donee
accepted delivery of the properties and that no official or representative of
the municipality received and allocated them to the office of the Municipal
Judge”; that it is improper
for the complainant to demand the turn over within 72 hours of those equipment,
which are for the official use of the court, respondent not being in personal
custody thereof; and that pursuant to Section 7 of the Judiciary Act, as
amended, the complainant, as Executive Head, is even duty bound to provide the
municipal court with all the necessary office facilities.

Respondent further alleged that the complainant, choosing to be
fault-finding, also mentioned Criminal Case No. (78)-216, prejudging that the
complainant in that case cannot rely on his “cold impartiality”.  He explained
that the records of that case will speak for itself that Marcopper
is not a party to said case although the accused Cirilo
Cachero and complainant Reggie Ilagan
happen to be both employees of Marcopper.

Respondent furthermore averred that ulterior motives underlie the
accusation of herein complainant.  Thus,
pursuant to the letter of the Municipal Treasurer dated January 26, 1979,
informing herein respondent that a position for janitor was created under
Resolution No. 44, dated April 11, 1978, per Municipal Ordinance No. 1-78,
Supplemental Budget No. 1 of the General Fund (Item 109) with an appropriation
of P3,432.00 per annum as salary and that funds are available, respondent Judge
appointed one Ambrocio Revilla
to said position.  However, complainant
resented this appointment claiming that there was an error in the creation of
the position, but how could he claim any irregularity in the creation of the
position when he was not yet the Mayor at that time.  Just lately, complainant abolished the
position in question and instead created a similar position in the office of
the Mayor, the appointee there to be detailed in the office of respondent
Judge.  Another instance of harassment by
the complainant, respondent pointed out, is the former’s
refusal to sign the voucher for the reimbursement of the latter’s official
expenses for telegrams in spite of its supporting papers.

After a conscientious and thorough review of the records, We are of the considered view, and so hold, that the conduct
of respondent Judge cannot be allowed to pass without administrative sanction.

It clearly appears on record that the donation in question was
made thru respondent Judge’s personal intercession and solicitations, which
consist not merely of follow-up letters but also thru personal follow-ups.^[4]
On top of this, respondent Judge expressly admitted that the request or
solicitation made to the Marcopper Mining Corporation
is only one among more solicitations he had made, as he had likewise “sent
similar solicitations to Mr. Macario Rodil for another swivel chair, to the Consolidated Mines
and to Mr. Luis Tan Family for a dozen upholstered chairs, 3 long upholstered
benches, a long table for the courtroom and others.”^[5]
Ironically, the respondent Judge did not even bother to ask these things from
the Municipal Government on the lame excuse that “it has many, many more projects to make that will redound to the
benefit of the people of Sta. Cruz.”^[6]

Apparently, respondent Judge would claim justification for having
solicited directly office equipment and furniture not only from the Marcopper Mining Corporation but also from other
civic-spirited citizens and entities, not for personal gain but to refurnish
and improve the municipal court.  We do not, of course, denounce that
intention of respondent Judge for such is even commendable rather than
condemnable.  But the means by which he
set that intention in motion can not receive the imprimatur of approval of this
Court.  His conduct of soliciting for the
office equipment in question would show that he openly transgressed the
established norm for judicial behavior as contained in Paragraph 3 of the
Canons of Judicial Ethics, which provides that ” (a) judge’s official
conduct should be free from the 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.” Paragraph 29 of
the Canons of Judicial Ethics likewise provides that a judge “should not
accept any presents or favors from litigants or from lawyers practicing before
him.” Respondent Judge should have avoided giving ground for any
reasonable suspicion that he is utilizing the power or prestige of his office
or the influence of his name to solicit donations from private parties.  Marked attention and unusual hospitality on
the part of private parties to a judge engender misinterpretation of his motive
and should thus be avoided.  Judges, in
general, should refrain from pursuing such a course of conduct, which, in the
normal course of events reasonably to be expected, might bring their actuations
into conflict with the impartial performance of their official duties, which
present hazards to the proper
administrative of justice.

Under the circumstances, the act of respondent Judge discloses a
deficiency in the prudence, discretion and judgment that a member of the
judiciary must exercise in the performance of his functions, if the bench is to
command the respect due thereto.  In his
effort to furnish and equip well his office, respondent Judge should not lose
sight of the proper judicial norm.

WHEREFORE, respondent Judge is hereby ADMONISHED and enjoined to act with
proper judicial perspective, free from the appearance of impropriety, and his
personal behavior should be beyond reproach, with the warning that a repetition
of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more
severely.

Let this resolution be made a part of the personal record of the
respondent Judge.

SO ORDERED.

Aquino, Concepcion,
Jr., and Guerrero, JJ.,
concur.

Barredo, J., (Chairman), concur because it appears that at the time the
solicitation to Marcopper was made, two of its
employees had a case pending before respondent judge.

^[1]
pp. 1-3, rollo.

^[2]
pp. 19-22, rollo.

^[3]
pp. 12 & 12-A, ibid.

^[4]
p. 7, rollo.

^[5]
ibid.

^[6]
p. 8, rollo.