OCA CIRCULAR NO. 60-2003, May 29, 2003

For the. information and guidance, of all concerned, quoted hereunder
is the decision of the Supreme Court En Bane in AM. No. P-03-1690
entitled “Judge Estrellita. M. Paas vs Edgar E. Almarves”, AM. No.
MTJ-01-1363 entitled “Edgar E. Almarves vs. Judge Estrellita M. Paas”
and A.M: No. 01-12-02-SC re: Use by Atty. Renerio G. Paas as an Office
in His Private Practice of his Profession the Office of His Wife, Pasay
City MeTC Judge Estrellita M. Paas, to wit:

“x x x
‘C. On the charges against Judge Paas and Atty. Paas:
By Judge Paas’ own admission in her January 24, 2002 Supplemental Affidavit,^[31]
she was aware that her husband Atty. Paas was using her office to
receive court, notices and orders in a case lodged in a Pasay court. As
the OCA puts it, “[w]while the same appears to be innocuous, it could be
interpreted as a subtle way of sending a message that Atty. Paas is the
husband of a judge in the same building and should^be given special
treatment by other judges or court personnel.^[32]

The following are instructive in the disposition of these charges against the judge and her spouse, Atty. Paas:

SC Administrative Circular No. 01-99, ‘Enchancing the Dignity of
Couits as Temples of Justice and Promoting Respect for their Officials
and Employers” reads:

As courts are temples of justice, their dignity and sanctity must,
at ail times be preserved and enhanced In inspiring public respect for
the justice system, court officials and employees must:

1. In general: (a) avoid committing any act which would constitute
   grounds for disciplinary action under, as the case may be. the Canons of
   Judicial Ethics, Code of Judicial Conduct; and Section 46, Chapter 7,
   Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987
   (Executive Order No. 292); and (b) faithfully comply with the norms of
   conduct and perform the duties prescribed in the Code of Conduct and
   Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (R.A. No. 6713);
2. Zealously guard the public trust character of their offices;

x x x

6. Never use their offices as a residence or for any other purpose than for court or judicial fanctions (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that ‘A judge should
avoid impropriety and tiie appearance of impropriety in all
activities.’ Specifically, Rule 2,03 thereof’ provides that:

Rule 2.03. A judge shall not allow family, social, or other
relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. The prestige of
judicial” office shall not be ‘ used or lent to advance the private
interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey die
impression that they are in a special position to influence the iudge.
(Emphasis supplied)

SC Circular No. 3-92,^[33] dated August 31, 1992 of this Court reads:

All Judges and court personnel are hereby reminded that the Halls of Justice may be used only for purposes directly related to the functioning and operation of the courts of justice, and may not be devoted to any other use, least of all as residential quarters of the judges or court personnel, or for carrying on therein any trade or profession.

Attention is drawn to AM No. RTJ-89-327 (Nellie Kelly Austria vs.
Judge Singuat Guerra), a case involving unauthorized and improper use
ofthe court’s premises for dwelling purposes by respondent and his
family, in which the Court, by Resolution dated October 17, 1991, found
respondent Judge guilty of irresponsible and improper conduct
prejudicial to the efficient administration of justice and best interest
of the service, and imposed on him the penalty of SEVERE CENSURE, the
Court declaring that such use of the court’s premises inevitably
degrades the honor and dignity of the court in addition to exposing
judicial records to danger of loss or damage. (Underscoring supplied.)

By allowing her husband to use the address of her court in pleadings
before other courts, Judge Paas indeed ‘allowed [him] to. ride on her
prestige for purposes of advancing his private interest, in violation
ofthe Code of Judicial Conduct^[34]
and of the above-stated Supreme Court circulars, which violation is
classified as a less serious charge under the Rules of Court^[35] and is punishable under the same Rule.^[36]

A judge’s official conduct should indeed be free from the appearance
of impropriety; and his behavior not only in the performance of judicial
duties, but also in his everyday life should be beyond reproach. This
is premised on the truism that a Judge’s official life cannot simply be.
detached or separated from his personal existence and that upon
a.Judge’s attributes depend, the public perception of the Judiciary.^[37]

On his part-, My. Paas was guilty of using a fraudulent misleading,
and deceptive address that had no purpose other than to try to impress
either the court in which his cases are lodged, or his client, that he
has close ties to a member of the judiciary, in violation of the
following rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

CANON 3-A LAWYER IN MAKING KNOWN HIS LEGAL SERVICES SHALL USE ONLY
TRUE, HONEST, FAIR. DIGNIFIED AND OBJECTIVE INFORMATION OR STATEMENT OF
FACTS.

Rule 3. 01 A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any false
“fraudulent,’misleading, deceptive, undignified, self-laudatory or
unfair statement or claim regarding his qualifications or legal
services.

CANON 10-A LAWYER OWES CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND GOOD FALTHTO THE COURT.

Rule 10.01. A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the
doing of any in Court, not shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be
misled by any article.

CANON 13-A A LAWYER SHALL REPLY UPONT HE MERITS OF HIS CAUSE AND
REFRAIN FROM ANY IMPROPRIETY WHICH TENDS TO INFLUENCE OR OWES THE
APPEARANCE OF INFLUENCING THE COURT.

CANON 15-A LAWYER SHALL. OBSERVE CANDOR, FAIRNESS AND LOYALTY IN ALL HIS DEALINGS AND TRANSACTIONS WITH HIS CLIENTS.

Rule 15.06. A lawyer shall not state or imply that he is able to influence any public official, tribunal or legislative body.

The need for relying on the merits of a lawyer’s case, instead of
banking on his relationship with a member of the bench which tends to
influence or give the appearance of influencing the court, cannot be
overemphasized. It is unprofessional and dishonorable, to say the least,
to misuse a public office to enhance a lawyer’s prestige. Public
confidence in law and lawyers may be eroded by such reprehensible and
improper conduct.

This Court does not subscribe to the proffered excuse that expediency
and a desire to ensure receipt of court orders and notices prompted
Atty. Paas and Judge Paas to allow him to have his court notices sent to
office of Judge Paas, especially given the fact that for his other
cases, Atty. Paas used his office address but there is no showing that
he failed to receive the notices sent to that address. While a lawyer
should make the accessary arrangements to ensure that he is properly
informed or any com! action, these should not violate his lawyer’s oath
or the Code of Professional Responsibility, nor provide an opportunity
for a member of the judiciary to breach Ms or her responsibilities under
Supreme Court circulars and the Code of Judicial Conduct.

WHEREFORE, this Court finds:

(1) xxx

(2) xxx

(3) xxx

(a) xxx
(b)Atty. Renerio Paas GUILTY OF SIMPLE MISCONDUCT and is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of THREE (3) MONTHS, with warningthat repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

This Decision shall take effect immediately.

x x x”

May 29, 2003.

^[33] See Bautista vs. Consuelo, Jr, A. M. No. P-94-1043, February 28, 1996, 254 SCRA 148, 157.

^[34] OCA Recommendation, AM No. 01-12-02-SCRollo at 38

^[35] Rule 140, Sec. 4 (4).
This was amended on September 11,2001 by AM No. 01-8-10-SC. “Discipline
of Judges of Regular and Special Courts and Justices of the Court of
Appeals and Saridiganbayan”

^[36] Rule 140, Sec. 10B  

^[37] Balderama vs. Judge Alagar, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1449, January 18, 2002, at 11 (citations omitted)