Wednesday, May 23, 2012

When a judge engages in business....- A.M. No. MTJ-08-1711

A.M. No. MTJ-08-1711

"x x x.



Rulings of the Court

There is no evidence in these cases that Judge Molato engaged in a private business, unduly mixing it up with his official work as judge.  Complainants were themselves unsure of the nature of Judge Molato’s involvement in Lucky Corporation. They seem to connect him to it by the mere fact that the president of that corporation happens to be his wife. 

It is unmistakable from complainants’ testimonies that Judge Molato never used the fact of his being a judge to entice them into putting money into Lucky Corporation. Juliana Luarca said that she had decided to invest in that company even before she met the judge.[14]  She and her husband in fact admitted that they met Judge Molato for the first time when they went to Nilalina’s residence to give their P1M investment.[15] They were the ones who requested the judge to receive the money after they learned that his wife, Nilalina, was not around to personally receive it.[16] 

Agbay, on the other hand, said that her previous good experience with Victory Investor and Lending Corporation, a company that Nilalina also managed, made her decide to likewise invest money into Lucky Corporation.[17] 

Further, as it turned out, complainants’ previous claim that Judge Molato forced them to accept land titles as security for the repayment of their investments had turned out to be false.  They eventually admitted that it was Nilalina who made them accept those land titles. [18] 

Section 4 of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees[19] lays down the norms of conduct which every public official and employee shall observe in the discharge and execution of their official duties, specifically providing that they shall at all times respect the rights of others, and refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, and public interest.  Thus, any conduct contrary to these standards would qualify as conduct unbecoming of a government employee.[20] 

Absent any showing that Judge Molato defrauded complainants of their money or committed acts that detract from the dignity of his position, the mere fact that the corporation of which his wife was the president had difficulties meeting its obligations does not per se make him lacking in moral integrity and of questionable character as would make him liable for conduct unbecoming a judge.

Of course, there is evidence that the corporation’s Board of Directors issued Resolution 1-2000[21] that authorized Judge Molato and three other persons to serve as the company’s alternate bank signatories, with their signatures appearing on the document.  But complainants presented no evidence that Judge Molato in fact performed such function for Lucky Corporation.  The complainants presented no company withdrawal slips or checks where his signature appears.  No evidence has been adduced that he was a stockholder of that corporation, proof that he engaged in private business without the Supreme Court’s consent, or served as one of its corporate or line officers. 

Still, Judge Molato is to be reprimanded for agreeing to serve as one of Lucky Corporation’s alternate bank signatories even if he may not have performed such service for the corporation.  He has no business agreeing to the performance of such service. His offense constitutes a violation of Administrative Circular 5 which in essence prohibits public officials from performing or agreeing to perform functions or services outside of their official functions for the reason that the entire time of the officials and employees of the judiciary shall be devoted to their official work to ensure the efficient and speedy administration of justice.[22]   

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Judge Ireneo B. Molato of the Municipal Trial Court, Bongabong, Oriental Mindoro, GUILTY of violation of Administrative Circular 5, dated October 4, 1988, and REPRIMANDS him for it.  He is also warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely. Let this Decision be noted in the personal record of the respondent.  No costs.

SO ORDERED. 

x x x."