A.M. No. MTJ-04-1564 - People vs. Achas

On August 4, 2003, Atty. Alvin C. Go filed a verified administrative complaint against Judge Rio Concepcion Achas of the MTCC, Branch 2, Ozamis City.
The complaint charged the judge with immorality, gross misconduct, dishonesty, and violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Atty. Go alleged that although Judge Achas was married to Atty. Angeles Roa-Achas (from whom he has been separated for 13 years), he allegedly cohabited with Ma. Paz Gendrada Go—a woman who is also an agent for a bonding company—and that they lived together at an apartment in Clarin, Misamis Occidental.
It was further claimed that the judge allegedly used his position to solicit party litigants to become clients for his aparamour, as well as facilitating questionable transactions including posting bail bonds with falsified certifications.

The background of the controversy also involved Civil Case No. 1510-MTCC (Janeas Castor and Coco Oil Mill Corporation v. Constancio Uy).
The respondent issued a judgment in favor of the plaintiff on March 10, 2003, to which the defendant-appellant, Constancio Uy, filed an appeal on April 8, 2003, by posting a supersedeas bond of P290,000.00.
Instead of depositing the bond with the Clerk of Court—as required by Section 19, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court—the judge received the bond and issued an informal acknowledgment receipt.
Certification from the Cashier of the MTCC revealed that as of mid-July 2003, no official deposit or receipt for the P290,000.00 was made, heightening the charge of handling the funds contrary to prescribed procedure.

Atty. Go also alleged that Judge Achas maintained a flock of fighting cocks and participated in cockfights and derbies, further tarnishing the dignified image expected of a judge.
The respondent, in his Comment, admitted to being married and separated from his spouse but refuted the claim of cohabitation—explaining that he had engaged the services of Ma. Paz Gendrada Go as a nurse due to his health issues.
Further, while the judge admitted to receiving the P290,000.00 for safekeeping, he denied any intention of using the funds for personal benefit, asserting that the retention was simply for the purpose of fulfilling the court’s procedural prerogative.

Atty. Go filed an Ex Parte Motion with the RTC of Ozamis City, seeking the remittance of the supersedeas bond to the Clerk of Court.
Later, in his Reply dated October 7, 2003, Atty. Go critiqued the respondent’s answer as evasive and irrelevant, particularly emphasizing that the complaint pertained to the civil case and not the criminal cases against Atty. Henry Oaminal, thereby suggesting an attempt to mislead the Court Administrator.
The matter was re-docketed as a regular administrative case and referred for investigation and recommendation to Executive Judge Salome P. Dungog.

In her Report and Recommendation dated October 29, 2004, Executive Judge Dungog noted that the complainant failed to appear at consecutive hearings, which was interpreted as a lack of interest in pursuing the case.
Despite the non-appearance of the complainant, the investigation revealed that the respondent had indeed retained the P290,000.00 bond for an extended period and only deposited it following an order from the RTC, Branch 35.
The findings also highlighted that the misconduct regarding the bond’s deposit violated Section 19, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court and Supreme Court Circular No. 50-95, as well as Circular No. 13-92 regarding immediate deposit of such fiduciary collections.

Whether the allegations that Judge Achas cohabited with Ma. Paz Gendrada Go, thereby engaging in an immoral relationship, were sufficiently supported by evidence.
Whether the absence of corroborative affidavits meeting the requirements of Rule 140, Section 1, undermined the charge of immorality.

Whether the judge’s retention of the P290,000.00 supersedeas bond, instead of timely depositing it with the Clerk of Court, amounted to gross misconduct and dishonesty.
Whether the delay in transmission and the manner in which the funds were handled contravened Section 19, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court and relevant Supreme Court circulars.

Whether the complainant, as the party burdened with proving the misconduct, failed to offer sufficient evidence to justify the disciplinary action.
Whether the non-appearance of the complainant at the hearings could be interpreted as a withdrawal or loss of interest, thereby affecting the prosecution of the administrative case.

Whether the sanction imposed should range from dismissal or suspension to a monetary fine, given the gravity of the violations.
Whether the respondent’s eventual compliance (depositing the bond after an order) mitigated the misconduct enough to avoid harsher penalties such as removal from service.