A.M. No. MTJ-10-1772 - Vizcayno vs. Dacanay

Dr. Janos B. Vizcayno filed an administrative complaint against Judge Jasper Jesse G. Dacanay, the presiding judge of the 7th Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) in Liloan-Compostela, Cebu.
The complaint charged Judge Dacanay with Gross Ignorance of the Law, Abuse of Authority, Manifest Partiality, and Delay concerning Civil Case No. 650-R (a Deodito R. Pulido, et al. v. Janos B. Vizcayno).

On March 31, 2009, Judge Dacanay conducted an ex-parte ocular inspection of the property that was the subject matter of the civil case, without notifying Dr. Vizcayno or his counsel.
The inspection was carried out in the presence of the opposing litigants, which gave rise to allegations of manifest partiality and a violation of due process.
Dr. Vizcayno learned of the inspection indirectly through neighbors and subsequently filed a motion for the judge’s inhibition, requesting that he be disqualified from handling the case.

The motion for inhibition was scheduled for a hearing on April 24, 2009; however, Judge Dacanay opted to proceed with the hearing on May 29, 2009, despite the pending motion.
During the May 29 hearing, in a heated exchange, both the complainant and his counsel insisted on resolving the inhibition issue first, but Judge Dacanay ignored their insistence.
On March 10, 2010, after further developments and a series of communications, Judge Dacanay eventually inhibited himself from the case.
Dr. Vizcayno, through his counsels, filed a Verified Reply on December 14, 2009, challenging Judge Dacanay’s earlier comment and insisting on the expunction of said comment from the case records.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) had a previous finding in Cabahug v. Dacanay (A.M. No. MTJ-03-1480, September 10, 2003) where Judge Dacanay was imposed a fine of ₱11,000 which remained unpaid.
The earlier administrative matter serves as an aggravating factor in the present disciplinary action.

The OCA, after evaluating the complaint’s facts and evidentiary issues, recommended that the complaint be redocketed as a regular administrative case and referred to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court in Mandaue City.
In a Partial Report dated July 5, 2011, and a Final Report dated September 22, 2011, Executive Judge Marilyn Lagura-Yap concluded that while there was insufficient evidence of bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or corruption, Judge Dacanay’s conduct—specifically the unnotified ocular inspection—was imprudent and improper.
The recommendation was to find Judge Dacanay liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, not for gross ignorance of the law, and to impose a financial penalty along with a stern warning.

On February 27, 2012, the OCA affirmed the findings of Judge Lagura-Yap but increased the penalty in consideration of the previous unpaid fine.
Finally, the Supreme Court, in its decision dated December 5, 2012, affirmed the findings and imposed a combined fine (₱30,000 plus the earlier ₱11,000) on Judge Dacanay, while sternly warning against any repetition of such misconduct.

Whether Judge Dacanay should be held administratively liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service by conducting an ex-parte ocular inspection without notifying Dr. Vizcayno and his counsel.

The issue arises from the procedural violation of not informing the affected party of a critical inspection related to the pending civil case.
The appearance of partiality and impropriety, despite any good intentions, challenges the integrity of the judicial proceedings.

Whether Judge Dacanay should be held administratively liable for delay in resolving the Motion for Inhibition.

The determination considers whether the omission in the pleadings (failure to state the MCLE Compliance details) and the subsequent denial of the motion for inhibition by expunging it from the records contributed to unnecessary delay.
The analysis examines if such procedural delay was attributable to Judge Dacanay or if it was precipitated by the counsel’s non-compliance with Bar Matter No. 1922 requirements.