A.M. No. RTJ-95-1308 - Agpalasin vs. Agcaoili

Complainant, Evelyn Agpalasin, was engaged in selling nipa shingles.
On May 8, 1991, respondent, Judge Emerito M. Agcaoili, through his male employee, indicated his intention to purchase nipa shingles for constructing a poultry house within the Cagayan State University (CSU) compound in Tuguegarao, Cagayan.
The agreed order was for 5,500 nipa shingles at a discounted price, with additional orders later emerging.

Complainant, assisted by her employee Vicente Umengan, segregated 5,500 shingles after being informed of the quantity needed by respondent.
On May 10, 1991, respondent made an advance payment of P1,000.00 through P500.00 bills via RTC Branch 9 stenographer Violeta Bigayan.
On May 11, 1991, in respondent’s chambers, complainant was instructed to deliver the shingles to either Sixto Bumatay or Atty. Juan Antonio; this meeting allegedly involved introductions to Bumatay (then facing a robbery charge) and Atty. Antonio.

On May 13, 1991, the actual loading and shipment of the 5,500 shingles took place under circumstances involving interference by Atty. Antonio and Bumatay.
During transportation, inconsistencies arose regarding the payment:

A check issued by respondent (Metrobank Check) for P2,850.00 as balance payment was dishonored due to insufficient funds.
A subsequent check (Land Bank Check) was issued by respondent upon complainant’s report of the dishonor.

Another order was placed by respondent for an additional 2,300 shingles at a different rate, which involved further advance payment issuance and later complications regarding the actual delivery and freight arrangements.

After delivery, respondent alleged that complainant had shortchanged him by 200 shingles and initiated a case for estafa at the Municipal Trial Court of Aparri.
In response, complainant filed a counter-affidavit, not only denying the estafa charge but also accusing respondent of:

Falsification of his affidavit-complaint.
Malicious prosecution by incriminating an innocent person.
Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act for allowing a party with a pending criminal case to participate in transactions and for the illegal construction of a poultry house on government property.

The evidence, supported by various testimonies—including those of court employees, attorneys, and former judges—presented conflicting versions regarding who handled the freight arrangements and the responsibility for payments.

A three-man panel of deputized Ombudsman Prosecutors initially investigated the charges but later inhibited themselves due to an existing administrative complaint filed by Asst. Provincial Prosecutor Apolinario Carrao.
The case was then referred to the Office of the Ombudsman for further preliminary investigation.
The investigating body recognized that waiting for the termination of the pending criminal estafa case was necessary before determination on the alleged falsification of the affidavit-complaint, thereby referring the record to the Office of the Court Administrator for administrative action.

Testimonies concerning the actual meetings in respondent’s chambers on May 11, 1991 and the subsequent instructions for delivery.
Detailed narration of the sequence from loading, freight payment arrangements, to the delivery of the shingles at the CSU compound.
The dishonored Metrobank check and the subsequent replacement check indicating respondent’s irregular handling of payments.

Testimony asserting his strict policy against receiving favors and his claim of not being present during the alleged meeting on May 11, 1991.
Claims of an established protocol that prevented him from interacting with litigants or their lawyers in his chambers on non-working days.
Defense concerning the alleged illegal construction of the poultry house, relying on a memorandum of agreement between his wife and the CSU President, though the authenticity and timing of the document were heavily criticized by cross-examiners.

Testimony from Arsenia Casilian, complainant’s secretary, corroborating the sequence of events, emphasizing that the directive to deliver the shingles to either Bumatay or Atty. Antonio was consistent with earlier instructions.
Examination of documentary evidence such as the alleged reimbursement check and lease documents for the poultry house.

Whether respondent Judge Agcaoili’s actions in directing or allowing litigants (Sixto Bumatay and Atty. Antonio) to handle the shipment and payment for the nipa shingles amount to gross misconduct and a violation of judicial ethical standards.
Whether the evidence, particularly concerning the handling of the advance payment and subsequent issuance of reimbursement checks, demonstrates impropriety, favoritism, or a breach in the required standard of judicial conduct.
Whether the claim regarding the illegal construction of the poultry house within the government property of CSU, defended on the basis of a memorandum of agreement executed after the commencement of construction, can be considered valid.
To what extent does respondent’s behavior reflect a pattern of improper conduct, especially in light of previous cases (e.g., Chan vs. Agcaoili, Cortes vs. Agcaoili) where similar judicial ethical lapses were identified.