In the case of ATTY. CORREA VS. JUDGE BELEN, AM No. RTJ - 2242, Aug. 6, 2010, the complainant Atty. Raul L. Correa charged respondent Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Calamba City, Laguna of Misconduct.
Complainant narrated that he was one of the Co-Administrators appointed by the court in Special Proceedings No. 660-01C, entitled “Intestate Estate of Hector Tan.” He revealed that during the hearing of the case, respondent Judge Belen disagreed with various items in the Administrator’s Report, including the audited Financial Report covering the said estate, and immediately ruled that they should be disallowed. Complainant added that respondent Judge Belen scolded their accountant, branded her as an incompetent, and threatened to sue her before the regulatory body overseeing all certified public accountants.
Complainant further claimed that, in the course of the proceedings, he was asked by respondent Judge Belen to stand up while the latter dictated his order on their Administrator’s Report. Respondent Judge Belen even rebuked him for some mistakes in managing the affairs of the estate, adding that it was regrettable “because Atty. Raul Correa is a U.P. Law Graduate and a Bar Topnotcher at that.” Complainant described the actuations and statements of respondent Judge Belen as uncalled for, a left-handed compliment, and a grave insult to his Alma Mater. Worse, the complainant stated that the respondent Judge Belen ousted complainant as co-administrator of the estate of Hector Tan.
Finding the respondent Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba City, Branch 36, GUILTY of Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge, the Supreme Court FINED him P10,000.00, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
Read the salient parts of the decision below, thus:
x x x.
Indeed, the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary exhorts members of the judiciary, in the discharge of their duties, to be models of propriety at all times. Canon 4 mandates –
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
SEC. 6. Judges, like any other citizen, are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly, but in exercising such rights, they shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.
The Code also calls upon judges to ensure equality of treatment to all before the courts. More specifically, Section 3, Canon 5 on Equality provides –
SEC. 3. Judges shall carry out judicial duties with appropriate consideration for all persons, such as the parties, witnesses, lawyers, court staff and judicial colleagues, without differentiation on any irrelevant ground, immaterial to the proper performance of such duties.
We join the OCA in noting that the incidents narrated by complainant were never denied by respondent Judge Belen, who merely offered his justification and asserted counter accusations against complainant.
Verily, we hold that respondent Judge Belen should be more circumspect in his language in the discharge of his duties. A judge is the visible representation of the law. Thus, he must behave, at all times, in such a manner that his conduct, official or otherwise, can withstand the most searching public scrutiny. The ethical principles and sense of propriety of a judge are essential to the preservation of the people’s faith in the judicial system.[2]
A judge must consistently be temperate in words and in actions. Respondent Judge Belen’s insulting statements, tending to project complainant’s ignorance of the laws and procedure, coming from his inconsiderate belief that the latter mishandled the cause of his client is obviously and clearly insensitive, distasteful, and inexcusable. Such abuse of power and authority could only invite disrespect from counsels and from the public. Patience is one virtue that members of the bench should practice at all times, and courtesy to everyone is always called for.
Conduct unbecoming of a judge is classified as a light offense under Section 10, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, penalized under Section 11 (c) thereof by any of the following: (1) a Fine of not less than P1,000.00 but not exceeding P10,000.00; (2) Censure; (3) Reprimand; and (4) Admonition with warning. Inasmuch as this is not respondent Judge Belen’s first offense, the penalty of fine of P10,000.00 is deemed appropriate.
