Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-02-1443)
Facts:
This case involves a complaint for grave and serious misconduct filed by Josie Berin and Merly Alorro against Judge Felixberto P. Barte, who presides over the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) in Hamtic, Antique. The events leading to the complaint began in the last week of January 2001 when the respondent judge allegedly invited the complainants, both real estate agents, to his office. He requested their assistance in finding a vendor for a lot that the Manila Mission of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Inc. was interested in purchasing for a church site in Antique. The complainants successfully identified a vendor, Eleanor M. Checa-Santos, who owned a 4,000 square meter lot known as Lot 5555-B, located in Barrio Caridad, Hamtic, Antique. They informed Judge Barte about the lot, and he subsequently communicated that the Church was willing to pay P2.3 million for it. The judge allegedly agreed to pay the complainants a commission of P100,000 each if the sal...
Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-02-1443)
Facts:
Background of the Case:
- Complainants Josie Berin and Merly Alorro, real estate agents, filed a complaint against Judge Felixberto P. Barte, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Hamtic, Antique, for grave and serious misconduct.
Allegations by Complainants:
- In January 2001, Judge Barte allegedly invited the complainants to his office and asked them to find a vendor for a lot to be purchased by the Manila Mission of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Inc.
- Complainants identified Eleanor M. Checa-Santos as the vendor of a 4,000-square-meter lot in Barrio Caridad, Hamtic, Antique.
- Judge Barte reportedly informed them that the Church agreed to pay P2.3 million for the lot and promised each complainant a commission of P100,000.00.
- The complainants requested a written agreement, but Judge Barte refused, stating, “Do you have no trust in your Judge Barte?”
- The sale was consummated, and Judge Barte received the purchase price. However, he only paid each complainant P10,000.00, telling them to “take it or leave it.”
Defense of Respondent Judge:
- Judge Barte denied inviting the complainants to his office or discussing the Church’s desire to buy a lot.
- He claimed the Church had already purchased the lot on January 25, 2001, and paid 50% of the sale price, as evidenced by a Closing Certificate.
- He admitted giving complainants P7,000.00 and P12,000.00, respectively, as a gesture of goodwill, but denied any formal agreement to pay them P100,000.00 each.
- He argued that the transaction was unrelated to his official duties and thus could not be grounds for administrative liability.
Issue:
- Whether Judge Barte’s involvement in the real estate transaction constitutes a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
- Whether Judge Barte’s actions, even if unrelated to his official duties, reflect adversely on his integrity and impartiality as a judge.
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court found Judge Barte GUILTY of violating Canon 5, Rule 5.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
- He was fined P2,000.00 and admonished to be more discreet and prudent in his private dealings.
Ratio:
Violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct:
- Rule 5.02 prohibits judges from engaging in financial or business dealings that may reflect adversely on the court’s impartiality or interfere with judicial duties.
- By acting as a broker in the real estate transaction, Judge Barte increased the risk of disqualification in future cases involving the parties to the sale.
Appearance of Impropriety:
- Judges must not only be honest but must also appear to be so. Their conduct, both official and private, must be above suspicion.
- Judge Barte’s involvement in the transaction created an appearance of impropriety, undermining public confidence in the judiciary.
Abrogation of Article 14 of the Spanish Code of Commerce:
- While Article 14 of the Spanish Code of Commerce, which prohibited judges from engaging in commerce, was abrogated, the Code of Judicial Conduct fills this void by imposing similar restrictions.
First Offense and Penalty:
- Considering this was Judge Barte’s first offense, the Court imposed a fine of P2,000.00 and issued a stern warning against future violations.