Facts:
Context and Parties
- Complainant: Leonardo Babatio, Municipal Mayor of Motiong, Samar.
- Respondent: Municipal Judge Jose Z. Tan of Motiong, Samar.
- Nature of the case: An administrative complaint under oath charging serious misconduct and abuse of authority by Judge Tan.
Charges and Specific Acts Alleged Against the Respondent
- Grave Coercion and Unprofessional Conduct
- On December 7, 1974, at approximately 9:00 AM at the basketball court of Motiong, Judge Tan allegedly forced Transito Bermejo, who was working at the damaged portion of the basketball court, to enter the municipal jail.
- The act was carried out without legal basis and against Bermejo’s consent, leading to physical resistance.
- Around August 6, 1974, during an incident at Motiong, Judge Tan allegedly displayed haughtiness by throwing a fish for sale, owned by Fernando Java, onto the ground.
- The act was purportedly committed simply because the fish vendor did not grant him the desired price or deal.
- On or about August 1, 1974, Judge Tan was accused of actively participating in partisan politics.
- It is alleged that he promoted the candidacy of Alfonsa Tan for barangay head, which allegedly led to the forced resignation of her stenographer and typist following her electoral defeat.
- The evidence for this charge was questioned on the grounds of likelihood and the circumstances of the election.
- On August 6, 1974, Judge Tan allegedly accosted Felix Rondina, a municipal janitor.
- He reportedly made a demeaning remark by referring to the municipal mayor in derogatory terms and challenging him to a fistfight, thereby overstepping judicial decorum.
- In a case against Glicerio B. Eufracio, Jr. for Grave Slander by Deed, Judge Tan allegedly exceeded his authority by preparing affidavits personally.
- This act was seen as interfering with the functions reserved for the Office of the Chief of Police.
- On July 4, 1975, in the Poblacion of Motiong, Judge Tan allegedly ordered the arrest of Guillermo Lagbo, Fernando Tan, and Basilio Lagbo without a warrant.
- The arrests were conducted arbitrarily, with the suspects incarcerated in the municipal jail before any formal complaints were filed.
Investigation and Findings
- Initial Referral and Investigation
- The case was referred to Judge Segundo Zosa of the Court of First Instance, Branch I, Catbalogan, Samar for investigation.
- Subsequent transfer of the investigation took place when Judge Zosa was reassigned; District Judge Wenceslao M. Polo assumed the investigation.
- The investigatory report detailed that out of six charges, five were fully substantiated against Judge Tan.
- For the charge of partisan politics, evidence was found wanting, with explanations provided rendered improbable given the circumstances.
- The declarations of complainant witnesses, including municipal officials and law enforcement personnel, were deemed credible.
- The defense presented by the respondent was found insufficient, characterized by weak recollections and lack of substantial proof.
- Specific attention was placed on the improper use of judicial power (e.g., preparing affidavits, ordering arrests without following legal protocols).
Consequences Proposed and Final Disposition
- Investigating Judge’s Recommendation
- Initially, the Investigating Judge recommended that despite serious misconduct, the respondent be reprimanded and admonished, noting that his transfer to Sta. Rita, Samar might suffice as a punitive measure.
- Deputy Court Administrator Arturo Buena dissented from the initial recommendation, advocating for the respondent’s separation from service.
- The majority opinion agreed with Deputy Court Administrator Buena.
- Judge Tan was found guilty of grave misconduct, with the acts constituting serious abuse of authority, thus undermining public confidence in the judiciary.
- The penalty imposed was separation from service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and pay, and disqualification from future appointments in any governmental position.
Issue:
Legal and Administrative Questions
- Whether the acts committed by Judge Tan amounted to grave misconduct and abuse of judicial authority.
- Whether his conduct, as evidenced by the multiple allegations—ranging from coercion and unprofessional behavior to usurpation of police functions—compromised the integrity of the judiciary.
- Whether the evidence presented by the complainant and his witnesses was sufficient to substantiate five out of six charges against the judge.
- Whether the mitigating explanation offered by Judge Tan for his conduct held any merit against the preponderance of available evidence.
- The appropriate administrative sanction for such misconduct: reprimand versus separation from service.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: