A.M. No. MTJ-09-1734
FLORENDA V. TOBIAS vs. JUDGE MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR.,
Presiding Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Court,
Valladolid-San Enrique-Pulupandan, Negros Occidental,
A.M. No. MTJ-09-1734
[Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-1933-MTJ]
January 19, 2011
This administrative case stemmed from the complaint filed by complainant Florenda V. Tobias against respondent Judge Manuel Q. Limsiaco, Jr., Presiding Judge of the Fourth Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Valladolid-San Enrique-Pulupandan, Negros Occidental. Complainant charged respondent with corruption for allegedly offering “package deals” to litigants who plan to file cases in his court.
In her verified Complaint[1] dated June 6, 2007, complainant alleged that respondent Judge Limsiaco, Jr. offers “package deals” for cases filed in the court where he presides. She stated that sometime in June 2006, she requested her sister, Lorna V. Vollmer, to inquire from the Fourth MCTC of Valladolid-San Enrique-Pulupandan, Negros Occidental about the requirements needed in filing an ejectment case. Court Stenographer Salvacion Fegidero[2] allegedly proposed to Vollmer that for the sum of P30,000.00, respondent would provide the lawyer, prepare the necessary pleadings, and ensure a favorable decision in the ejectment case which they contemplated to file against the spouses Raymundo and Francisca Batalla. Fegidero allegedly required them to pay the initial amount of P10,000.00 and the remaining balance would be paid in the course of the proceedings. It was made clear that they would not get any judicial relief from their squatter problem unless they accepted the package deal.
Further, complainant alleged that on June 23, 2006, Lorna Vollmer, accompanied by Salvacion Fegidero, delivered the amount of P10,000.00 to respondent at his residence. Subsequently, an ejectment case was filed in respondent’s court, entitled Reynold V. Tobias, represented by his Attorney–in-fact Lorna V. Vollmer v. Spouses Raymundo Batalla and Francisca Batalla, docketed as Civil Case No. 06-007-V.[3] Respondent allegedly assigned a certain Atty. Robert G. Juanillo to represent the complainant in the ejectment case. Complainant stated that respondent, however, immediately demanded for an additional payment of P10,000.00. She allegedly refused to give the additional amount and earned the ire of respondent. She asked her sister, Lorna Vollmer, to request Atty. Robert Juanillo to voluntarily withdraw as counsel,[4] which he did on April 16, 2007. Complainant also asked Vollmer to withdraw the case.[5] Respondent granted the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel on April 23, 2007 and the Motion to Withdraw Case on May 3, 2007.[6]
x x x.
The OCA found respondent’s acts, consisting of (1) advising Lorna Vollmer about the ejectment case she was about to file before his court; (2) recommending Atty. Robert Juanillo as counsel of the complainant in the ejectment case; and (3) helping complainant to prepare the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel, to be violative of the rules on integrity,[21] impartiality,[22] and propriety[23] contained in the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. The OCA recommended that the case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that respondent be found guilty of gross misconduct constituting violations of the New Code of Judicial Conduct and be fined in the amount of P20,000.00.
x x x.
The Court agrees with the findings of Investigating Judge Guanzon that complainant failed to prove by substantial evidence her allegation that respondent offers “package deals” to prospective litigants in his court.
However, the investigation revealed that respondent committed acts unbecoming of a judge, in particular, talking to a prospective litigant in his court, recommending a lawyer to the litigant, and preparing the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Atty. Robert Juanillo, which pleading was filed in his court and was acted upon by him. The conduct of a judge should be beyond reproach and reflective of the integrity of his office. Indeed, as stated by the OCA, the said acts of respondent violate Section 1 of Canon 2 (Integrity), Section 2 of Canon 3 (Impartiality), and Section 1 of Canon 4 (Propriety) of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary,[24] thus:
CANON 2
INTEGRITY
Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office but also to the personal demeanor of judges.
SECTION 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.
x x x x
CANON 3
IMPARTIALITY
Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made.
x x x x
SEC. 2. Judges shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the judge and of the judiciary.
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.
SEC. 2. As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must accept personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. In particular, judges shall conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.
The aforementioned acts of respondent constitute gross misconduct. “Misconduct” means a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, willful in character, improper or wrong behavior.[25] “Gross” has been defined as “out of all measure, beyond allowance; flagrant; shameful; such conduct as is not to be excused.”[26] Respondent’s act of preparing the Motion to Withdraw the Appearance of Atty. Juanillo as counsel of complainant is inexcusable. In so doing, respondent exhibited improper conduct that tarnished the integrity and impartiality of his court, considering that the said motion was filed in his own sala and was acted upon by him.
Gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct is a serious charge under Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.[27] Under Section 11, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, the sanctions against a respondent guilty of a serious charge may be any of the following:
1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations; Provided, however, That the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits;
2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or
3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.
In imposing the proper sanction against respondent, the Court takes note that respondent had been found guilty of grave misconduct in A.M. No. MTJ-03-1509[28] and was fined P20,000.00, with a warning against repetition of the same or similar act. Moreover, per verification from court records, respondent compulsorily retired from the service on May 17, 2009.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Manuel Q. Limsiaco, Jr., former Presiding Judge of the Fourth Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Valladolid-San Enrique-Pulupandan, Negros Occidental, is found GUILTY of gross misconduct for which he is FINED in the amount of Twenty-five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00). The Office of the Court Administrator is DIRECTED to deduct the fine of P25,000.00 from the retirement benefits due to Judge Limsiaco, Jr.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
