Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba City, Branch 36, was found GUILTY of violation of Section 4 of Canon 1 and Section 1 of Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, and was FINED him P11,000, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely. (BELEN VS. JUDGE BELEN, AM No. RTJ-08-2139, Aug. 9, 2010)
Respondent judge wrote letters to government authorities and employees to secure public information regarding complainant’s piggery and poultry business; to inform addressees of the laws allegedly being violated by complainant; and to remind the addressees of their duties as government officials or employees and warn them of the possible legal effects of neglect of public duties. In writing these letters, respondent judge’s use of his personal stationery with letterhead indicating that he was the Presiding Judge of RTC of Calamba City, Branch 36, and stating that the letter was “from [his] chambers,” clearly manifests that respondent judge was trying to use the prestige of his office to influence said government officials and employees, and to achieve with prompt and ease the purpose for which those letters were written. In other words, respondent judge used said letterhead to promote his personal interest. This is violative of Section 4 of Canon 1 and Section 1 of Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, to wit:
CANON 1
INDEPENDENCE
x x x
SECTION. 4. Judges 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 the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.
CANON 4
PROPRIETY
Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all the activities of a judge.
SECTION 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.
x x x
Quoted below are the salient pronouncements of the Court:
x x x.
In Oktubre v. Velasco,[16] this Court held that respondent judge’s act of sending several letters bearing his sala’s letterhead, in connection with an apparent dispute in the administration of the estates of his relatives, clearly showed the judge’s intent to use the prestige of his judicial office, and hence, violative of Rule 2.03 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.[17] The Court considered respondent Judge Velasco’s excuse for using his sala’s letterhead, i.e., that he wanted to protect the interest of his maternal co-heirs in the subject properties, as flimsy, and emphasized that respondent judge had no business using his sala’s letterhead for private matters, as the same should be used only for official correspondence.[18]
Similarly, in Rosauro v. Kallos,[19] it was held that respondent judge’s use of his sala’s official stationery in his private correspondence with complainant and his counsel constitutes violation of Rule 2.03 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Court concluded that: “By using his sala’s stationery other than for official purposes, respondent Judge evidently used the prestige of his office to benefit Guerrero (and himself) in violation of Rule 2.03 of the Code.”[20]
In Ladignon v. Garong,[21] respondent judge’s act of using the official letterhead of his court and signing the same using the word “judge” in his letter-complaint to the First United Methodist Church in Michigan, USA, was held to be violative of Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Ethics and Rule 2.03 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Court held, thus:
We agree with the Report that what is involved here is the rule that “Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities”. (Canon 4, Section 1, New Code of Judicial Conduct) Indeed, members of the Judiciary should be beyond reproach and suspicion in their conduct, and should be free from any appearance of impropriety in the discharge of their official duties as well as in their personal behavior and everyday life. No position exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness on the individual than a seat in the Judiciary. x x x
x x x
x x x As the Report stated, [repondent judge’s] use of the letterhead and his designation as a Judge in a situation of potential dispute gave “the appearance that there is an implied or assured consent of the court to his cause.” This circumstance, to our mind, was what marked the respondent Judge’s use of his letterhead and title as improper. In other words, the respondent Judge’s transgression was not per se in the use of the letterhead, but in not being very careful and discerning in considering the circumstances surrounding the use of his letterhead and his title.
x x x
x x x the use of a letterhead should not be considered independently of the surrounding circumstances of the use - the underlying reason that marks the use with the element of “impropriety” or “appearance of impropriety”. In the present case, the respondent Judge crossed the line of propriety when he used his letterhead to report a complaint involving an alleged violation of church rules and, possibly, of Philippine laws. Coming from a judge with the letter addressed to a foreign reader, such report could indeed have conveyed the impression of official recognition or notice of the reported violation.
The same problem that the use of letterhead poses, occurs in the use of the title of “Judge” or “Justice” in the correspondence of a member of the Judiciary. While the use of the title is an official designation as well as an honor that an incumbent has earned, a line still has to be drawn based on the circumstances of the use of the appellation. While the title can be used for social and other identification purposes, it cannot be used with the intent to use the prestige of his judicial office to gainfully advance his personal, family or other pecuniary interests. Nor can the prestige of a judicial office be used or lent to advance the private interests of others, or to convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. (Canon 2, Rule 2.03 of the Code of Judicial Conduct) To do any of these is to cross into the prohibited field of impropriety.[22]
In view of the foregoing, we find respondent judge guilty of violation of Section 4 of Canon 1 and Section 1 of Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.
Section 11(B), in relation to Section 9(4) of Rule 140, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC,[23] provides that violation of Supreme Court rules constitutes a less-serious charge punishable by any of the following sanctions:
1. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or
2. A fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.
We agree with the recommendation of the investigating justice and the OCA that respondent judge, for his transgression, be meted a penalty of fine amounting to P11,000, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
