FACTS:
Complainant Purita T.
Lim charges respondent Judge Demetrio D. Calimag, Jr., Presiding
Judge of Branch 35 of the Regional Trial Court of Santiago City, Isabela,
with conduct unbecoming a judge, maltreatment and failure to pay his
obligation.
Respondent Judge owed complainant
two different amounts in November 1996: one was for the construction materials
he bought from her hardware store on credit; and the other, which was covered
by the acknowledgement receipt dated 14 November 1996, was a cash loan in the
amount of P30,000. On the third week of January 1997, the complainant
called up respondent’s office to remind him of his obligation to pay; however,
she was informed by one of his staff members that respondent had left for the United
States. When she personally went to see respondent at his office, he shouted
very loudly at her in this wise: “Ginugulo mo angmga tauhan ko,”
“namatayan lang kami at wala pa akong pera,”
and “babayaran din kita huwag kang mag-alala.” Despite
repeated demands by her, respondent refused and failed to pay his obligation. The
first has almost been paid already, but the second has not yet been paid at
all. However, in December 1997, complainant’s employee accidentally bumped the
rear portion of his “Isuzu” pick-up vehicle. He spent P20,000, more or
less, for the repair of his vehicle. Complainant assured him that she would
shoulder the expenses for the repair of his vehicle upon submission of the
documents required by the insurer. Upon his instruction, Noel Tomas submitted
the required documents to complainant. Since then complainant never made any
personal demand for the payment of the unpaid portion of his obligation to her.
He unilaterally adjudged that complainant was civilly liable for either the
civil aspect of a criminal case or for a quasi-delict. Hence, he presumed the offsetting of their
mutual obligations.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent
judge is guilty of the charges.
HELD: YES.
We do not, therefore, hesitate to
rule that respondent deliberately and willfully failed to pay a just and lawful
debt in favor of complainant. In so doing, he diminished the honor and
integrity of his office and stained the image of the Judiciary. He thus
violated (1) Canon 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, which mandates that “[a]
judge’s official conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety, and
his personal behavior, not only upon the bench and in the performance of
official duties, but also in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach”; and
(2) Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which provides that “[a] judge
should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.”
Indeed, it has been said that a magistrate of the law must comport himself at
all times in such a manner that his conduct, official or otherwise, can bear
the most searching scrutiny of the public that looks up to him as an epitome of
integrity and justice. The ethical principles and sense of propriety of a judge
are essential to the preservation of the faith of the people in the Judiciary.
(Alfonso vs. Juanson, 228 SCRA 239, 254-255 [1993], citing Dia-Añonuevo vs. Bercacio,
68 SCRA 81 [1975]). Public confidence in the Judiciary is eroded by
irresponsible or improper conduct of judges (In re: Judge Benjamin H. Viray,
202 SCRA 628, 634 [1991]).
And now on the penalty to be
imposed on respondent in this case. Under Section 8, paragraph 6 of Rule 140 of
the Rules of Court, “[w]illful failure to pay a just debt” is classified
as a serious charge. Section 11 thereof authorizes the imposition of the
penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all or part of the
benefits as this Court may determine except accrued leave credits, as well as
disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office,
including government-owned or -controlled corporations. Dismissal of respondent
from the service is therefore in order. He should likewise be ordered to pay
his indebtedness to the complainant.
Comments
Post a Comment