Title
Cabreana vs. Avelino
Case
A.M. No. 1733-CFI
Decision Date
Sep 30, 1981
Judge Avelino's biased conduct during an ocular inspection, including riding with the defendant and hostile remarks, led to a finding of serious misconduct and a fine.
Font Size:

Case Digest (A.M. No. 1733-CFI)

Facts:

  1. Background of the Case:

    • Complainants Ireneo Cabreana and Anna Rose Cabreana filed Civil Case No. R-15988 against T & E Tumakay Enterprises, owned by Teody O. Tumakay, seeking rescission of sale and damages for allegedly defective furniture.
    • The case was presided over by respondent Judge Celso Avelino of Branch XIII, Court of First Instance of Cebu.
  2. Motion for Ocular Inspection:

    • On August 4, 1977, the complainants filed a motion for an ocular inspection of the furniture, which was granted by Judge Avelino.
    • The complainants proposed the appointment of the clerk of court, Atty. Alejandro Grengia, as commissioner for the inspection.
  3. Incidents During Ocular Inspection:

    • The ocular inspection was conducted on August 31, 1977, at the complainants' residence in Estaca, Minglanilla, Cebu.
    • Judge Avelino rode in the car of defendant Tumakay to and from the inspection site.
    • During the inspection, Judge Avelino allegedly displayed hostility and rudeness toward the complainants while being friendly toward Tumakay.
    • The judge dismissed visible cracks in the furniture as mere "scratches" and refused to acknowledge defects pointed out by the complainants.
    • He also made sarcastic remarks, such as suggesting that the complainants wanted "the American way of making things," which was perceived as an insult to Anna Rose Cabreana, an American.
    • When the complainants pointed out evidence of wood borers (bokbok), the judge accused them of planting evidence.
  4. Complainants' Allegations:

    • The complainants accused Judge Avelino of serious misconduct, abuse of authority, prevarication, and oppression, claiming his actions were biased in favor of the defendant.
  5. Respondent Judge's Defense:

    • Judge Avelino denied the allegations of bias and misconduct, stating that his remarks during the inspection were necessary to record observations for the case.
    • He argued that his actions were part of his official duties and that the complaint lacked factual and legal basis.

Issue:

  1. Whether Judge Celso Avelino committed serious misconduct, abuse of authority, prevarication, and oppression during the ocular inspection.
  2. Whether the judge's behavior during the inspection demonstrated bias and partiality in favor of the defendant.
  3. Whether the judge's act of riding in the defendant's car compromised his impartiality and the integrity of the judicial process.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court found Judge Celso Avelino guilty of serious misconduct. The Court agreed with the findings of the Investigating Justice that the judge's behavior during the ocular inspection was biased, intolerant, and improper. The Court also condemned the judge's act of riding in the defendant's car, which created an appearance of impropriety.

The Court imposed a penalty of a fine equivalent to three months' salary and issued a warning that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.

Ratio:

  1. Judicial Conduct and Impartiality:

    • Judges must maintain the highest standards of conduct and impartiality. Their behavior must inspire public confidence in the judiciary.
    • Judge Avelino's hostile and sarcastic demeanor toward the complainants, coupled with his friendly attitude toward the defendant, demonstrated a lack of impartiality.
  2. Appearance of Impropriety:

    • By riding in the defendant's car, Judge Avelino exposed himself to suspicion and compromised the integrity of the judicial process. Judges must avoid any action that could create an appearance of bias or impropriety.
  3. Duty to Uphold Judicial Decorum:

    • Judges must exercise restraint, patience, and respect toward litigants and witnesses. Judge Avelino's brusque and impatient behavior during the inspection fell short of these standards.
  4. Consequences of Misconduct:

    • The Court emphasized that misconduct in the performance of official duties is particularly grave, as it undermines public trust in the judiciary. The penalty imposed reflects the seriousness of the judge's actions.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.