ABUNDIO SIASICO, COMPLAINANT, VS. MUNICIPAL JUDGE FORTUNATO F. SALES, RESPONDENT.

Siasico versus Sales

The Case

This is an administrative proceeding against a municipal judge, brought not by a litigant but by the municipal mayor of the same town. Mayor Abundio Siasico of Siayan, Zamboanga del Norte, charged Municipal Judge Fortunato F. Sales with absenteeism, extortion, and misappropriation in three separate administrative complaints. The case matters for two reasons. First, it fixes the rule that a municipal judge must hold office and observe office hours at the regular place of business of the court, not at his residence. Second, it shows how the Supreme Court treats a magistrate whose private dealings betray a lack of honesty, even where the complainant later asks that the charge be dropped.

Procedural History

The absenteeism complaint began with a letter of Mayor Siasico to the Provincial Governor, which the Governor endorsed to the Secretary of Justice. The Secretary required Judge Sales to comment, and the matter was referred to the District Judge of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte sitting in Dipolog City for investigation, report, and recommendation. The records and the report of the Investigating Judge were then forwarded to the Supreme Court under the Constitution then in force, and the Court heard the case en banc.

The extortion complaint was likewise referred to an Investigating Judge, who rendered his report. The misappropriation complaint was also investigated, and upon receipt of that report the case was heard by the Court en banc, after which the parties filed their respective memoranda. All three matters were resolved in one decision.

Facts

Judge Sales took his oath as Municipal Judge of Siayan on June 2, 1969. He was given office space in the municipal building, which was then temporarily housed in a private house. In January 1972 the municipal government moved its offices, including his, to a newly built dispensary building. The Mayor provided him a suitable space to serve as courtroom and office at the same time, equipped with a table and a cabinet with keys for the records.

Noticing the frequent absences of national officials assigned to Siayan, the Mayor instructed the Chief of Police to record those absences in the police blotter. The Chief of Police reported specific dates of absence from January to June 1972, and noted that on scheduled hearing dates the parties appeared but the judge did not. Because of his absences, the Mayor himself had to administer oaths in connection with the filing of criminal complaints. The judge admitted transferring his office to his residence, about 200 meters from the municipal building, saying the records were not safe; he claimed he reported the transfer to the Executive Judge only on October 31, 1972, and no approval was ever given.

In the extortion complaint, several affiants swore that the judge demanded and received money, a carabao, chicken and eggs, and other sums from litigants in pending cases in exchange for favorable action. He denied the charges but admitted receiving 90 pesos and 15 pesos, which he said were for the services of a typist. At the hearing the complainant prayed for dismissal because his witnesses had turned hostile, and the judge offered no evidence. In the misappropriation complaint, Ines Bandivas deposited 18 cavans of corn and 1 and 1/2 cavans of palay with the judge at his residence. He claimed 15 cavans were stolen, but the Investigating Judge found the theft incredible and concluded that at least 3 cavans of corn and the palay were converted to his own use.

Issues

• Whether or not respondent Judge Sales is guilty of absenteeism for failing to observe office hours and hold office at the regular place of business of the municipal court.
• Whether or not the charge of extortion was established by the evidence.
• Whether or not respondent Judge Sales is guilty of misappropriating the cereals deposited with him.

Applicable Provisions

Section 74 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended, provides:

Courtroom and supplies. The Municipal Judge shall be provided with a room in the tribunal, or elsewhere in the center of population, suitable for holding court and shall be supplied with the necessary office supplies, furniture, lights and janitor service therefor.

This provision is the basis for the ruling that the judge must hold office in the room provided by the municipality, not in his own house.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court concurred with the Investigating Judge and found the respondent guilty of gross violation of the laws on observance of office hours in the regular place of business of the municipal court. The municipal court, the Court explained, is an essential integral unit of the local government, the place where justice is administered and where the judge performs functions other than holding trials. It is in the office provided by the Mayor, and not in his residence, where he is duty-bound to exercise his functions and be available to residents. His claim that the records were unsafe was rejected: if the cabinet had no lock, the simple remedy was to secure a key, and he never reported any loss to the Mayor or the Chief of Police. His explanations for his absences in March, May, and June were unsupported by any certificate of attendance or approved leave.

On the second issue, no evidence was adduced because the complainant asked for dismissal, and the Court considered the matter closed. The Investigating Judge's observation that the respondent had not rebutted the sworn statements, and had admitted receiving money supposedly for a typist, was taken as relevant to the penalty in the other cases.

On the third issue, the Court affirmed the findings of the Investigating Judge. As depositary, the respondent was obliged to keep the thing safely, with the diligence of a good father of a family, and to return it when required. That the deposit was gratuitous was beside the point. A magistrate must comport himself so that his conduct, official or otherwise, can bear the most searching scrutiny of the public.

Doctrine

A municipal judge must strictly observe office hours and hold office at the regular place of business of the court, as required by Section 74 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. Reasons of public policy, the preservation of the good image of the judiciary, and the avoidance of all appearances of impropriety demand this. A judge who keeps office in his house makes himself open to suspicion and possible criticism that his official actuations cannot bear public scrutiny.

A judge must at all times be honest, not only in the performance of his official duties but also in his relations with the community. One who occupies an exalted position in the administration of justice must pay a high price for the honor bestowed upon him, for his private as well as his official conduct must at all times be free from the appearance of impropriety.

Disposition

The Court found Judge Sales guilty as charged in the absenteeism and misappropriation complaints and ordered him removed from the service immediately upon finality of the decision, with prejudice to reinstatement in the government service and with forfeiture of retirement benefits; the extortion complaint was considered closed.

Remember This

The line to memorize is that a judge must hold office at the regular place of business of the court, not at his residence, and his private conduct must be free from the appearance of impropriety. Examiners use this case in administrative law and judicial ethics to test the rule on office hours and the standard of honesty required of magistrates.