(click the link)
"x x x.
RULING
While we agree with the findings of the Investigating Judge that respondent Judge cannot be held liable for gross misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a judge due to lack of evidence of malice on the part of respondent Judge, we, however, agree with the findings of the OCA that Judge Tabin is guilty of impropriety.
As found by the OCA, it was inappropriate for respondent judge to direct that a second test be conducted on complainant's driver when the first test resulted in a “negative.” Respondent judge cannot interfere in the conduct of the investigation. Inevitably, as a result of her interference, complainant suspected that she was influencing the outcome of the investigation as evidenced by complainant's alleged statement: “Itong ospital na ito, pwede palang impluwensyahan ng huwes.”
Even assuming that respondent Judge did not make public her position as a judge to the examining doctor or the investigating policeman, the fact that she knew that said police officer and the complainant had knowledge of her being a judge should have refrained her from further interfering in the investigation. She cannot act oblivious as to how and what the public will view her actions. She should have kept herself free from any appearance of impropriety and endeavored to distance herself from any act liable to create an impression of indecorum.
Likewise, respondent’s act of borrowing court records and accompanying her sister at the PMC under the guise of extending assistance to her sister manifested not only lack of maturity as a judge, but also a lack of understanding of her vital role as an impartial dispenser of justice. She may have the best intention devoid of any malicious motive but sadly her actions, however, spawned the impression that she was using her office to unduly influence or pressure the concerned people to conduct the medical examination as well as the investigation in their favor.
Indeed, while respondent Judge's concern over the safety of her nephew and the outcome of his criminal case is understandable, she should not have disregarded the rules on proper decorum at the expense of the integrity of the court. Although concern for family members is deeply ingrained in the Filipino culture, respondent, being a judge, should bear in mind that he is also called upon to serve the higher interest of preserving the integrity of the entire Judiciary. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires a judge to avoid not only impropriety but also the mere appearance of impropriety in all activities.[11]
To stress how the law frowns upon even any appearance of impropriety in a magistrate’s activities, it has often been held that a judge must be like Caesar’s wife - above suspicion and beyond reproach. Respondent’s act discloses a deficiency in prudence and discretion that a member of the Judiciary must exercise in the performance of his official functions and of his activities as a private individual. It is never trite to caution respondent to be prudent and circumspect in both speech and action, keeping in mind that her conduct in and outside the courtroom is always under constant observation.[12]
In a number of cases,[13] following the case of Rosauro v. Kallos,[14] we ruled that impropriety constitutes a light charge. Section 11 (C), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court provides the following sanctions if the respondent is found guilty of a light charge:
C. If the respondent is guilty of a light charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed:
1. A fine of not less than P1,000.00 but not exceeding P10,000.00 and/or;
2. Censure;
3. Reprimand;
4. Admonition with warning.
We have repeatedly reminded members of the Judiciary to be irreproachable in conduct and to be free from any appearance of impropriety in their personal behavior, not only in the discharge of their official duties, but also in their daily life. For no position exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness of an individual than a seat in the Judiciary. The imperative and sacred duty of each and everyone in the Judiciary is to maintain its good name and standing as a temple of justice. The Court condemns and would never countenance any conduct, act or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice which would violate the norm of public accountability or tend to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary, as in the case at bar.[15]
