DR. JORGE P. ROYECA, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE PEDRO SAMSON C. ANIMAS, RESPONDENT.

In two (2) similar letters under oath, one sent to the President
of the Philippines and referred to Us and another directly sent to this Court
in September 1974, the complainant, Jorge P. Royeca, charged Judge Pedro Samson
C. Animas of the Court of First Instance of Southern Cotabato, Branch I,
General Santos City, with improper decorum, misconduct and/or having committed
acts unbecoming of a judge. Specifically, the respondent Judge is charged with acting in a
pugnacious and arrogant manner and in uttering to the complainant the following
words: “You are stupid.”
There are octopuses and crocodiles here and you are one.” and calling the
complainant “self-annointed local tyrant.”

The respondent submitted his comment in a second indorsement
dated December 4, 1974 wherein he denied having acted in an arrogant and
pugnacious manner and alleged that he uttered the words complained of without
personal allusion to the complainant.

The complainant filed a reply to the comment.

In the resolution of this Court dated March 9, 1976, the case was
referred to Justice Lorenzo Relova of the Court of Appeals for investigation,
report and recommen­dation.^[1]

The record shows that Justice Relova immediately set the hearing
of the investigation on May 3, 4, 6 and 7, 1976 at 1:30 o’clock in the
afternoon in the Court of Appeals. On
motion of the respondent and without objection of the complainant, the hearing
was re-set to June 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10 and 11, 1976, at the same time and place.

Before the hearing, the complainant filed an affidavit which
reads:

“1. That he is the
complainant in the above entitled case;

“2. That after a serious reflection and
deliberation of the circumstances which led to the filing of aforesaid
complaint, he has realized that the same was spawned by a minor
misunderstanding which was not attributable to anybody’s fault;

“3. That he is executing this affidavit asking
for the dismissal of this administrative case as he has lost his interest in
the prosecution of the case.”^[2]

On June 1, 1976, at the initial hearing of the case, both
complainant and respondent, notwithstanding due notice given them, failed to
appear. Respondent’s counsel, Atty.
Salvador H. Laurel, appeared and moved for the dismissal of the case on the
ground, among others, that the complain­ant has lost interest in the
prosecution of the case which is shown by his allegation in paragraph 3 of this
affidavit and his actual non-appearance at the hearing.

In his report and recommendation dated June 9, 1976, Justice
Relova recommended the dismissal of the case be­cause:

“Administrative actions are intended to improve and maintain
the high standards of public service, to secure faithful and efficient per­formance
of official functions, and to preserve the faith and confidence – not of
disgruntled litigants but – of the people in their government and its
officials. But then, if com­plainant
would not appear at the investigation, coupled with an affidavit of desistance,
the charge that the respondent berated and humi­liated the complainant cannot
be substantiated considering the denial by the respondent of the charge and the
fact that the proceedings during the alleged incident was not recorded by the
stenographer. There is, there­fore, no
other alternative for your investigator but to recommend the dismissal of this
administrative matter.”^[3]

The complaint arose from an incident in Civil Case No. 1445 where
complainant as plaintiff filed a motion to disqualify the respondent from
hearing the case and to transfer the case to Branch II of the Court of First
Instance of South Cotabato at Koronadal. The respondent considered the allegations of the motion as a slur and
assault on his integrity and required the complainant and his counsel to show
cause why they should not be cited for direct contempt. It was at the said hearing of the show cause
order where the acts complained of were allegedly committed. The res­pondent issued the Order of Direct
Contempt against the pe­titioner on September 6, 1974. On a petition for certiorari to this Court
by the complainant the said Direct Contempt Order was set aside in a decision
promulgated on May 3, 1976.^[4]
The pertinent portion of the decision reads:

“It is well to affirm finally that this Court was not
unmindful of the fact that whether rightly or wrongly, res­pondent Judge was
laboring under the sense of having been affronted not only by the motion for
inhibition but by previous in­cidents, there being obviously personality
differences. He must have been
strengthened in the belief that he had the right to feel offended with the
admission by petitioner and counsel that such motion contained language that
did cast reflection on his integrity. Had there been adherence, however, to the standard announced in Azucena
vs. Muñoz, of a judge being a cerebral man ‘who deliberately holds in check the
tug and pull of purely personal preferences and prejudices,’ perhaps he could
have disposed of the whole matter with an admonition. Moreover, from the standpoint of the conduct and demeanor
expected of a judge, he could have avoided resort to intemperate language which
only revealed his emotional state. He
did seek to im­press on this Court that the words com­plained of in the
challenged order, on their face vitriolic and scurrilous, were lifted out of
context. There is some plausibility to
such a view. None­theless, respondent
judge is well-advised to refrain in the future from resort to the language of
vilification. He may not be fully aware
of it, but to do so only detracts from the res­pect due a member of the
judiciary.”^[5]

The respondent has departed from the proper judicial decorum by
the use of such intemperate and insulting language as “polluted and stupid
mind”, “self-annointed local tyrant”, “dictator” and
“crocodiles and octopuses” although the last two words were allegedly
used out of context. These words have
no place in a judicial record.

The respondent’s choice of words is not proper. He should not resort to undignified
language.

WHEREFORE, the respondent, Judge Pedro Samson C. Animas,
is hereby admonished to refrain from using intem­perate and insulting language
in his future judicial actuations.

SO ORDERED.

Castro, C.J., Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio,
Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Santos, and
Guerrero, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 297.

^[2]
Rollo, p. 310.

^[3]
Rollo, pp. 328-329.

^[4]
Jorge P. Royeca vs. Hon. Pedro Samson Animas, etc., et al., 71 SCRA 1.

^[5]
Ibid., 71 SCRA 9.