A.M. No. RTJ-03-1793 - Lastimosa-Dalawampu vs. Yrastorza

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-03-1793)

Factual Background

The complaint traced several incidents that, according to complainant, reflected respondent judge’s discourtesy and impatience toward counsel and litigants appearing before his sala. The first incident occurred on January 14, 2002 during proceedings in Criminal Case No. CBU-58947, entitled People of the Philippines versus Gina and Bob Villaver. Complainant appeared as counsel for the accused. After the accused Bob Villaver was arraigned, complainant moved for the resetting of the pre-trial conference because the trial prosecutor assigned to Branch 14 was absent. Complainant alleged that while she was still explaining her motion, respondent judge repeatedly cut her off. Respondent judge allegedly told her, “If you cannot handle this case, Atty. Dalawampu, you better give this case to another lawyer.” When complainant responded that she could handle the case, respondent judge allegedly retorted: “Do not give me so many excuses, Atty. Dalawampu! I dont care who you are!” Complainant further stated that as she was about to leave, she heard respondent judge declare: “I dont care who you are. You can file one thousand administrative cases against me. I dont care.”

Complainant insisted that the episode was not isolated. She narrated a prior incident on October 11, 2000, when she appeared as a private prosecutor in Criminal Case CBU-49515. There, respondent judge allegedly scolded her for failing to file a pre-trial brief even though a pre-trial brief is not compulsory in criminal cases. Complainant also related that she could not attend the pre-trial conference on October 12, 2000 due to her attendance at a hearing before the Sandiganbayan in Manila. She nevertheless prepared and filed the pre-trial brief and informed the public prosecutor, Rustico Paderanga, of her obligation. Her client, Consuelo Aznar, was present during the pre-trial.

Despite complainant’s account, respondent judge allegedly ordered Consuelo Aznar to produce the original documents within five minutes, or the case would be dismissed. Complainant claimed the order was oppressive because the travel time from the court house to Consuelo Aznar’s house and back required at least thirty minutes, leaving insufficient time to comply.

Respondent Judge’s Position

In his Comment, respondent judge denied that his actions amounted to misconduct. He contended that complainant’s allegations were exaggerated. He asserted that his remark to complainant about letting another lawyer handle the case was prompted by complainant’s alleged failure to submit a pre-trial brief. As to his statement that he was not deterred by administrative cases, respondent judge explained that it was not directed necessarily at complainant but at the public.

Respondent judge further maintained that he did not intend to insult complainant or her clients, but instead wanted to expedite the proceedings.

Referral for Investigation and Procedural Developments

On August 6, 2003, the Court issued a Resolution referring the case to Associate Justice Marina Buzon for investigation, report, and recommendation. Before the first hearing before the investigating justice, complainant filed a motion to withdraw complaint, stating that in September 2003 she and respondent judge had settled their differences through a Bench and Bar dialogue, and that the pending complaint was obstructing their harmonious relationship.

After filing the motion to withdraw, complainant failed to appear during the investigation. At the hearing on October 21, 2003, respondent judge filed a motion to dismiss based on alleged lack of interest and failure to prosecute. On November 6, 2003, Justice Buzon submitted her report recommending dismissal, reasoning that complainant failed to prove the allegations in her complaint.

Legal Significance of Withdrawal by the Complainant

Prefatorily, the Supreme Court emphasized that mere desistance by a complainant does not automatically warrant the dismissal of an administrative complaint against a member of the bench and judiciary. The Court stressed that its interest in the administration of justice and the affairs of the judiciary is a matter of paramount concern that transcends the complainant’s withdrawal.

Thus, notwithstanding the recommended dismissal, the Supreme Court proceeded to resolve the case through the exercise of its power of administrative supervision.

Supreme Court’s Findings on Misconduct and Lack of Circumspection

The Supreme Court did not adopt the report’s dismissal recommendation. It held that respondent judge’s actions reflected a failure to exercise sufficient circumspection in dealing with complainant and that the conduct warranted administrative discipline.

The Court observed that as Atty. Lastimosa-Dalawampu was about to leave the courtroom on January 14, 2002, respondent judge—after berating her in public—uttered: “I dont care who you are. You can file one thousand administrative complaints against me. I dont care!” In his Comment, respondent judge admitted making the utterance, although he asserted it was not intended specifically for complainant but for the public. The Court held the utterance uncalled for regardless of intent. It found that the tenor of the statement could easily lead observers to conclude that the judge considered himself above the law, and that administrative complaints would be futile exercises.

The Court reasoned that remarks of that kind eroded the public’s confidence in the judiciary’s integrity. It viewed respondent judge’s statement as a derogation of his duty to be faithful to the law he swore to uphold, citing the Code of Judicial Conduct, particularly Canon 1, which requires a judge to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary and to embody competence, integrity, and independence.

The Court likewise found that respondent judge’s conduct while complainant was still explaining her side—namely, cutting her off and insulting her in open court—showed a manifest disregard of the duty to be patient, attentive, and courteous to lawyers. The Court reiterated that a judge should conduct proceedings with fitting dignity and decorum, and it rejected the justification that the judge’s behavior was meant only to hasten proceedings.

The Court also assessed respondent judge’s conduct toward complainant’s client, Consuelo Aznar, regarding the demand for original documents within five minutes under threat of dismissal. The Supreme Court found that respondent judge did not offer a sufficient explanation for the charge. It characterized the act as resembling judicial tyranny, noting that a judge should not be perceived as a petty tyrant holding imperious sway. It emphasized that the role of a judge in relation to those appearing before the court must be one of temperance, patience, and courtesy.

Disposition

Applying these standards, the Supreme Court reprimanded respondent Judge Raphael B. Yrastorza for discourtesy against complainant. It also warned that any repetition of similar acts woul

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-03-1793)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Atty. Gloria Lastimosa-Dalawampu filed a complaint for serious misconduct against Judge Raphael B. Yrastorza, Sr., the incumbent presiding judge of RTC Cebu City, Branch 14.
The complaint was filed with the Office of the Court Administrator.
The Court referred the case to Associate Justice Marina Buzon of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report, and recommendation.
Before the scheduled investigation hearings, the complainant filed a motion to withdraw complaint.
The complainant subsequently failed to appear at the investigation.
The respondent judge moved to dismiss due to lack of interest and failure to prosecute.
Justice Buzon submitted a report recommending dismissal for failure of the complainant to prove the allegations.
The Court did not follow the recommendation to dismiss and instead imposed disciplinary action.

Key Factual Allegations

The complaint arose from an incident on January 14, 2002 when the complainant appeared as counsel for the accused in Criminal Case No. CBU-58947, entitled People of the Philippines versus Gina and Bob Villaver.
After the accused, Bob Villaver, was arraigned, the complainant moved for the re-setting of the pre-trial conference because of the absence of the assigned trial prosecutor.
The complainant alleged that the respondent judge cut her off and told her that if she could not handle the case, she should give it to another lawyer.
The complainant further alleged that when she replied that she could handle the case, the respondent judge again cut her off and berated her in a manner that included the statement: “Do not give me so many excuses, Atty. Dalawampu! I dont care who you are!”
The complainant alleged that when she was about to leave the courtroom, she heard the respondent judge state: “I dont care who you are. You can file one thousand administrative cases against me.”
The complainant asserted the incident was part of a pattern, alleging a prior episode on October 11, 2000 where she was scolded for failure to file a pre-trial brief despite the non-compulsory nature of such brief in criminal cases.
The complainant stated that although she could not attend the October 12, 2000 pre-trial conference, she prepared and filed a pre-trial brief and informed the public prosecutor that she needed to attend a hearing before the Sandiganbayan in Manila.
The complainant alleged that she did not advise her client to bring originals because she indicated in the pre-trial brief that marking would be done during trial and that photocopies had already formed part of the record.
The complainant alleged that despite this, the respondent judge ordered Consuelo Aznar to produce the original documents within five minutes, failing which the case would be dismissed.
The complainant argued that the order was oppressive because the travel time between the court house and her client’s residence and back required at least 30 minutes.

Respondent’s Defenses and Comment

In his Comment, the respondent judge claimed the allegations were pure exaggerations.
The respondent judge explained that his remark about letting another lawyer handle the case was prompted by the complainant’s failure to submit a pre-trial brief.
The respondent judge claimed that his statement about not being deterred by administrative cases was not directed to the complainant but to the public.
The respondent judge maintained that he did not intend to insult the complainant or her clients and that he merely sought to expedite proceedings.

Investigation and Withdrawal Effects

The Court referred the matter to Justice Buzon for investigation, report, and recommendation.
Before the first hearing, the complainant filed a motion to withdraw alleging that in a Bench and Bar dialogue in September 2003, the complainant and respondent judge had already “ironed out their differences.”
The Court noted that the complainant thereafter did not appear during the investigation.
At the hearing on October 21, 2003, the respondent judge filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of interest and fail