A.M. No. RTJ-99-1508 - Cortes vs. Catral

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-99-1508)

Factual Background

Complainant alleged that on January 26, 1996 police investigators brought to Judge Segundo B. Catral applications for search warrants against persons operating proscribed video carrera machines and managing the games for one Julio “Bong” Decierto. Complainant asserted that Judge Catral, who had personal knowledge of Decierto’s illegal operations and was related to him as nephew, refused to act on the search-warrant applications and improperly referred the applicants to other judges, resulting in delay and the failure of the planned confiscation operation. Complainant further alleged a practice of channeling cases involving Decierto to Judge Catral’s sala because the respondent, as Executive Judge, controlled raffles. A separate complaint charged that a petition for letters of administration filed by Mrs. Lilia Lee was assigned to the respondent without raffle and was acted upon without required publication and notice to creditors and heirs.

Initial Complaints and Procedural Posture

Complainant filed two letter-complaints with the Supreme Court. The Court, after receiving the respondent’s comment, referred the matter to the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation. The Court of Appeals conducted hearings and issued a written report and recommendation finding respondent guilty of Grave Misconduct and proposing suspension without pay for at least six months. The Supreme Court thereafter reviewed the record, the Court of Appeals report, and the parties’ submissions.

Respondent’s Defense and Evidence

Judge Segundo B. Catral denied knowledge of the search-warrant applications and asserted that on January 26, 1996 he was in Buguey, Cagayan, inspecting the municipal trial court docket in his capacity as Executive Judge. He presented affidavits from his Clerk of Court, Marcelo C. Cabalbag, from Judge Herminio del Castillo, and from the latter’s clerk, Rogelio Ligsay, to corroborate his absence from the sala. He produced the testimony of SPO2 Jonathan W. Santos, a police investigator, who stated that the investigators were told at the hall of justice that the respondent was in Buguey and were directed to Vice Executive Judge Benedicto Paz, who refused to act on the applications because they had not been raffled. Concerning the letters-of-administration petition, Judge Catral submitted a certification and an Order showing compliance with Supreme Court Circular No. 36-96 and alleging that a special raffle and publication were carried out, supported by copies of newspaper clippings.

Complainant’s Rejoinder and Documentary Proofs

Complainant replied with documentary material purporting to show that Judge Segundo B. Catral actually handled multiple proceedings involving Julio “Bong” Decierto and associates. The reply cited orders dated August 23, 1996 and February 15, 1997 in Criminal Case No. 6563 granting motions involving Decierto as bondsman; an order dated February 21, 1997 in Criminal Case No. II-6563 denying issuance of a warrant of arrest against Decierto as premature; a Supreme Court resolution dated February 11, 1997 concerning transfer of venue in Criminal Case No. II-6563; and a letter dated April 30, 1997 requesting transmittal of the records to the Regional Trial Court of Manila in compliance with a Supreme Court resolution dated April 15, 1997. Complainant argued that these records substantially supported the allegation that the respondent presided over and acted in cases involving his nephew.

Court of Appeals Investigation and Recommendation

After hearing, Justice Jainal D. Rasul of the Court of Appeals concluded that respondent’s participation in cases involving his nephew Julio “Bong” Decierto was substantially supported by the record and that the respondent had failed to exercise the degree of care necessary for a judge in the prompt and impartial dispensation of justice. The Court of Appeals found that the respondent’s admitted relationship to Decierto and the community’s perception of tolerance of Decierto’s illegal activities undermined public confidence in the judiciary. On that basis the Court of Appeals found respondent guilty of Grave Misconduct and recommended suspension without pay for at least six months.

Supreme Court Review and Disposition

The Supreme Court carefully examined the evidence and the Court of Appeals report and upheld the finding of Grave Misconduct. The Court concluded that Judge Segundo B. Catral had acted improperly in connection with applications for orders of arrest and other motions in Criminal Case No. II-6563, in which his nephew Rodolfo “Bong” Decierto was charged with murder, and that he should have refrained from acting in matters involving his nephew and the nephew’s associates. The Court observed that the unfavorable community perception that the judge tolerated his nephew’s illegal activities was destructive of the judicial system’s image and that disqualification rules exist to prevent even unconscious bias from compromising impartial adjudication.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court relied principally on Section 1, Rule 137, Rules of Court, which disqualifies a judge from sitting in any case in which he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or in which he is pecuniarily interested, among other grounds. The Court reiterated jurisprudential principles, as stated in People vs. Serrano and earlier authority, that the purpose of disqualification is to assure the impossibility of rendering an impartial judgment and to guarantee the litigant’s right to a hearing before an impartial and disinterested tribunal. The Court emphasized that the duty to render justice is second only to the duty to render it in a manner that does not arouse suspicion as to the judge’s fairness and integrity. Applying these principles to the attendant facts, the Court found that the respondent’s actions and his relationshi

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-99-1508)

Parties and Posture

Flaviano B. Cortes was a private citizen and taxpayer who filed two letter-complaints against Judge Segundo B. Catral alleging Grave Misconduct (Dereliction of Duty, Abuse of Authority) and Gross Ignorance of the Law.
The complaints arose from allegations that respondent improperly handled applications for search warrants relating to alleged illegal video carrera operations and that he failed to raffle and publish a petition for letters of administration.
The case was docketed as A.M. No. RTJ-99-1508 and was decided by the Court en banc on December 15, 1999.

Key Facts

Police investigators from the Cagayan Provincial Command presented applications for search warrant on January 26, 1996 against several persons alleged to operate proscribed video carrera machines in Aparri, Cagayan.
Complainant alleged that Judge Catral, who had personal knowledge of his nephew Julio "Bong" Decierto's involvement, refused to act on the applications and referred the applicants to a municipal trial court judge, thereby delaying action.
The applicants were directed to Vice Executive Judge Benedicto Paz who stated that the applications should first be coursed through the Executive Judge, which allegedly frustrated the confiscation operation.
Complainant alleged that criminal cases involving Julio "Bong" Decierto were habitually raffled to Judge Catral because of the latter's position as Executive Judge.
In the second complaint, complainant alleged that Mrs. Lilia Lee's petition for letters of administration was assigned to Judge Catral without raffle and was immediately acted upon without publication and notice to creditors and heirs.
Respondent produced affidavits and a witness statement asserting he was in Buguey inspecting a municipal trial court docket on January 26, 1996 and therefore unavailable to receive the search-warrant applications.
Respondent produced a Certification (Annex "A"), an Order granting a special raffle (Annex "B"), and newspaper clippings showing publication to rebut the allegation of nonraffle and nonpublication.

Respondent's Contentions

Judge Segundo B. Catral denied knowledge of the search-warrant applications and asserted that he was physically absent from his sala on the relevant date due to official inspection duties in Buguey.
Respondent submitted affidavits of his Clerk of Court Marcelo C. Cabalbag, Judge Herminio del Castillo, and clerk Rogelio Ligsay to support his absence.
Respondent presented SPO2 Jonathan W. Santos as a witness who stated that court personnel told him the respondent was unavailable and directed him to Vice Executive Judge Paz.
Respondent denied the allegation that Mrs. Lee's petition was not raffled and submitted documentary proof of compliance with Supreme Court Circular No. 36-96 and Rules of Court publication requirements.
Respondent denied habitual favoritism in the assignment of cases involving Julio "Bong" Decierto and characterized the complainant as a blackmailer and Col. Galang as motivated by personal vindication.

Complainant's Evidence

Complainant, in his Reply, cited