A.M. No. RTJ-04-1823 - Santos vs. Lacurom

Arcely Y. Santos filed an administrative complaint against Judge Ubaldino A. Lacurom, who served as Presiding Judge of RTC Cabanatuan City, Branch 29 and as Pairing Judge of Branch 30.
The complaint charged the judge with gross misconduct, grave abuse of judicial authority, gross bias and partiality, and gross violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics.

The complaint arose from the judge’s alleged bias in favor of Rogelio R. Santos, Sr.
Despite Santos being a non-lawyer, the judge allowed him to appear in court and even “appointed” him as lead counsel in Special Proceedings Case No. 516-AF, although Santos already had counsels of record.
Complainant noted that Santos’s dual appearance—as self-represented and simultaneously represented by his counsels—was contradictory to procedural norms.

The judge was accused of permitting Santos to litigate personally, even after the complainant’s repeated objections and motions—such as the motion to expunge a pleading signed by Santos.
Respondent judge also allegedly compelled the oppositors, including the complainant, to secure legal representation instead of permitting direct address to the court.
It was further alleged that the judge unduly delayed the execution of a Court of Appeals decision in Cadastral Case No. 384-AF and refused to inhibit himself to avoid the appearance of bias.

The complaint highlighted that the judge was an incorporator, a director, an officer, and a legal adviser of the Villa Benita Homeowners Association (VBHA), which was involved in cases against Fabern’s Inc.
The complainant asserted that this connection, combined with Santos’s pending cases concerning properties within the subdivision, created a situation of conflict of interest.
The judge’s failure to inhibit himself, despite previously doing so in a related case involving Santos, was emphasized as a potential violation of judicial ethics and relevant procedural rules.

Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Involvement and Subsequent Proceedings

The OCA, in its 1st Indorsement, required the judge to explain his actions regarding the appointment of Santos as lead counsel and other allegations.
The OCA’s later Report and Recommendation proposed that the complaint be re-docketed as an administrative matter and recommended a fine.
Subsequent submissions by both parties and the judge’s compulsory retirement on 16 May 2003 did not render the administrative complaint moot.

Whether the respondent judge’s decision to allow a non-lawyer to litigate personally and "recognize" him as lead counsel violated judicial procedures and the Code of Judicial Ethics.
Whether the conduct of the respondent judge, in permitting dual modes of representation (self-representation alongside counsel), contributed to gross bias and partiality in adjudicating the cases involving Santos.
Whether the judge’s refusal to inhibit himself from cases where he had a close friendship with Santos amounted to a violation of the mandatory or discretionary guidelines governing judicial disqualification.
Whether the alleged delay in executing the Court of Appeals’ decision in Cadastral Case No. 384-AF could be attributed to judicial misconduct or bias on the part of the respondent judge.
Whether the overall conduct of the respondent judge, particularly his involvement with VBHA and inconsistent practices regarding inhibition in similar cases, undermined the appearance of judicial impartiality and integrity.