Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-04-1823)
Facts:
Arcely Y. Santos v. Judge Ubaldino A. Lacurom, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1823, August 28, 2006, Supreme Court Third Division, Carpio, J., writing for the Court. Complainant Arcely Y. Santos filed an administrative complaint against Judge Ubaldino A. Lacurom, then Presiding Judge, RTC Cabanatuan City, Branch 29 and pairing judge, Branch 30, accusing him of gross misconduct, grave abuse of judicial authority, gross bias and partiality, and violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct for allegedly favoring Rogelio R. Santos, Sr. ("Santos"), a non-lawyer who had three matters pending before respondent judge’s sala.The factual core: Santos personally appeared and litigated before the RTC despite being represented by counsel (Atty. Noel J. Buenaventura and, in one case, Atty. J.V. Bautista). Complainant challenged Santos’s signature on pleadings and moved to expunge; respondent judge denied the motion and, in an Order dated 28 February 2003 in Special Proceedings Case No. 516‑AF, “recognized” or even “appointed” Santos as lead counsel. Complainant also alleged that respondent judge denied her direct addresses in court, compelled oppositors to retain counsel under threat of contempt, and routinely granted Santos’s pleadings with dispatch. Complainant further alleged undue delay in execution of a Court of Appeals decision in Cadastral Case No. 384‑AF and asserted that respondent judge refused to inhibit himself despite being a “close friend” of Santos and an incorporator/director/adviser of Villa Benita Homeowners Association (VBHA), which had interests related to the cases.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) indorsed the complaint and required respondent judge’s comment; the OCA recommended re‑docketing the matter as administrative and a P5,000 fine in its 21 November 2003 report, finding respondent judge liable for recognizing Santos as lead counsel but not for delay in execution. The Court docketed the case as a regular administrative matter (Resolution, 21 January 2004), ordered the parties to indicate whether they would submit on the records, and received memoranda from both parties. Respondent judge admitted permitting Santos to litigate personally (citing Section 34, Rule 138, Rules of Court), explained his actions as prompted by absent counsel and insisted he could fairly hear the cases; he also acknowledged a favor received by his son from officers of Fabern’s, Inc., but denied personal interest in the subdivision.
Respondent judge compulsorily retired on 16 May 2003; the Court noted retirement did not render the administrative complaint moot (citin...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did complainant sustain by substantial evidence the administrative charges against respondent judge?
- Did respondent judge’s allowing a party to litigate personally while represented by counsel and recognizing that party as “lead counsel” violate the Rules of Court or judicial ethics?
- Was respondent judge required to inhibit himself from the cases involving Santos?
- Did respondent judge’s acceptance of a favor conferred on his son and his close friendship with Santos constitute a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct?
- What penalty, if any, is...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)