A.M. No. RTJ-93-944, RTJ-93-959 - Capuno vs. Jaramillo

Complainants Rizalia Capuno and her daughter Thelma Villanueva filed a “Sinumpaang Salaysay” on August 28, 1992.
The complaint arose in connection with a writ of possession case initiated by Pedro Calara, Jr. against Rizalia Capuno.

After issuing the writ of possession, Judge Ausberto B. Jaramillo, Jr. summoned Rizalia Capuno via Sheriff Leonardo Ho to his sala.
In a meeting at his chamber, the judge allegedly demanded an upfront cash payment of P200,000 (with the caveat “if owned, all will be processed”) plus a postdated check of P150,000.
The judge’s instructions involved successive meetings: first on the day of the issuance and then a second time two days later to confirm compliance with the monetary demand.
When Thelma Villanueva and accompanying representative Gregorio Capistrano were unable to produce the demanded sums, the judge allegedly declared that no alternative relief was possible.

Prior to these incidents, evidence shows that Rizalia Capuno had been involved in a loan transaction dating back to 1987 with Pedro Calara, Jr., where a property was mortgaged and later extrajudicially foreclosed, with subsequent certification of sale issued on August 21, 1990.
The proceedings also revealed that after partial loan payments, the property changed hands, involving filings for writs of possession and other court actions taken by the respondent.
Testimonies from Thelma Villanueva and Gregorio Capistrano provided corroborative details of the meetings and the monetary demands, while respondent Judge Jaramillo denied any wrongful demand, claiming that the meetings were an effort to settle the parties’ differences.

Complainant Celia Pampolina, representing PSM Development Corporation and acting as executrix for the estate of Pastor S. Marino, alleged multiple irregularities in a probate proceeding concerning the guardianship of Pastor S. Marino’s estate.
The complaint charged the judge with violations under several laws and judicial ethical standards, including provisions of R.A. No. 3019, R.A. No. 6713, and pertinent articles of the Revised Penal Code.

The judge allegedly rendered a decision dismissing Sp. Proc. No. 849(92) for lack of merit and later ordered the surrender of a Mitsubishi Galant Super Saloon car from Jesus Azores, nephew of Pastor S. Marino, to the court.
After the vehicle was brought under court custody, the judge was accused of requesting a board resolution that would allow him personal use of the car during weekends, effectively placing the car at his disposal.
It was further alleged that he misused the funds appropriated by the corporation (P10,000 allocated for the car’s reconditioning) and that he personally supervised and even benefited from routine maintenance (battery recharge, tire inflation, and repainting).
The complaint also highlighted his use of an alias “E. Pilapil” during telephone conversations, which purportedly was a cover to discreetly secure exemptions from the Gun Ban and possibly extort money or favors from the complainant.
Irregular orders were issued by the judge appointing joint special administrators—Rosevelinda Calingasan and Antonio Azcarate—instead of the named executrix, without proper notice or hearing, thereby compromising due process.

The judge maintained that his actions in both the probate and related proceedings were proper and motivated by a desire to expedite settlement, denying that he ever demanded money or extorted favors.
In his testimony, he claimed that his meetings (some held at a public restaurant) were merely attempts at mediation, and that the use of the car was strictly for minor official purposes such as recharging the battery or inflating the tires, with the alleged expenses being charged to the corporate fund.
The investigation, however, revealed discrepancies in the witness testimonies and documentary evidence regarding his in-chamber meetings without counsel, the absence of proper record of transactions in his diary, and contradictory accounts concerning the presence or absence of Pedro Calara, Jr. in key meetings.

Whether Judge Jaramillo, by engaging in in-chamber sessions with litigants and demanding money in connection with the filing of a writ of possession, violated established judicial norms and ethical standards.
Whether such conduct undermined the integrity of the judicial process and constituted a breach of the Code of Judicial Conduct, particularly by appearing to take advantage of litigants in his court.

Whether the respondent’s actions in the probate proceedings—specifically the unauthorized use and personal benefit from a vehicle in custodia legis, along with the improper appointment of special administrators—amounted to misconduct and a corrupt practice.
Whether the use of an alias (“E. Pilapil”) to communicate with complainant Celia Pampolina and the handling of the convening of settlements in non-official settings compromised judicial impartiality and violated the ethical standards expected of a judge.