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

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-04-1823)

Nature of the Administrative Complaint

Complainant charged the respondent judge with gross misconduct, grave abuse of judicial authority, gross bias and partiality, and gross violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics. The complaint focused on alleged favoritism toward Rogelio R. Santos, Sr., improper recognition of a non-lawyer as lead counsel, refusal to inhibit despite a close friendship and potential conflicts, preferential treatment in granting pleadings, and alleged delay in executing a Court of Appeals decision.

Core Factual Allegations

The core allegations were: (1) respondent allowed Santos, a non-lawyer, to appear and litigate personally despite having counsel of record; (2) respondent “appointed” or “recognized” Santos as lead counsel in Special Proceedings Case No. 516-AF; (3) the complainant’s motions (including a motion to expunge pleadings signed by Santos and a motion to inhibit the judge) were denied; (4) respondent compelled oppositors to secure counsel under threat of contempt and unduly favored Santos’s filings; (5) respondent failed or delayed in enforcing a Court of Appeals decision in Cadastral Case No. 384-AF; and (6) respondent had close personal and organizational ties to the Villa Benita subdivision and VBHA (of which he was alleged to be an incorporator, officer and adviser), creating a potential conflict and grounds for disqualification.

Procedural History and Key Dates

Complainant filed the administrative complaint on May 5, 2003. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) indorsed the complaint and required respondent’s comment (May 15, 2003). Respondent filed his Answer on June 27, 2003. The OCA issued a Report and Recommendation on November 21, 2003. The Supreme Court docketed the matter as a regular administrative case and required manifestations on January 21, 2004; memoranda were later filed by both parties. Respondent judge was compulsorily retired on May 16, 2003; the Court held retirement did not render the complaint moot. The Supreme Court rendered its resolution on August 28, 2006.

Respondent Judge’s Explanations

Respondent admitted allowing Santos to conduct his litigation personally, citing Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. He explained that he merely “recognized” Santos as lead counsel because Santos’s retained counsel were frequently absent, and he maintained that opposing counsel did not object substantively at the time, only suggesting lead counsel should be a member of the Bar. Respondent denied systematic favoritism, asserted he had ordered implementation and later a writ of execution in the cadastral case, and maintained he could fairly hear and decide the cases. He characterized his role with VBHA as nominal (signing incorporation documents at the request of VBHA’s president) and denied being a homeowner or landowner in the subdivision; he acknowledged limited favors extended to his son by officers of Fabern’s, Inc.

OCA Findings and Recommendation

The OCA recommended re-docketing the complaint as an administrative matter and proposed a P5,000 fine. The OCA found respondent administratively liable for recognizing a non-lawyer party as lead counsel despite the existence of counsels of record. The OCA did not find respondent responsible for the delay in executing the Court of Appeals decision, attributing delays to the parties. Regarding the judge’s VBHA connection and refusal to inhibit, the OCA treated inhibition as discretionary because the facts did not trigger mandatory disqualification rules.

Legal Standards Applied — Burden and Self-Representation

The Court reiterated that the complainant bears the burden of proving allegations by substantial evidence in administrative cases. It applied Section 34, Rule 138 (Rules of Court) to recognize a party’s right to conduct litigation personally. The Court emphasized that a party’s self-representation is not the unauthorized practice of law and that when a party represents himself he acts as a party, not as counsel. The Court also stressed the disjunctive nature of the Rule’s language: a party must choose either self-representation or representation by a duly authorized member of the Bar, and should not be allowed to shift form of representation during proceedings.

Court’s Analysis — Improper Recognition as Lead Counsel

While acknowledging Santos’s right to represent himself, the Court held that respondent judge erred in permitting Santos to litigate personally while counsels of record remained on the case and in recognizing Santos as “lead counsel.” That recognition improperly created the appearance that a non-lawyer was functioning as counsel. For orderly administration, the judge should have required Santos to elect between continued representation by his lawyers or full self-representation, and should not have conferred the title or role of lead counsel on a non-lawyer party.

Court’s Analysis — Disqualification and Inhibition

The Court agreed with the OCA that the three cases did not fall within the circumstances mandating automatic disqualification under Section 1, Rule 137; voluntary inhibition remained within the judge’s discretion and conscience. The Court noted the procedural requirement under Section 2, Rule 137 for asserting disqualification was not observed by complainant. The Court therefore did not find respondent’s refusal to inhibit a violation of mandatory disqualification rules.

Court’s Analysis — Judicial Conduct and Acceptance of Favors

The Court found respo

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-04-1823)

The Case

Administrative complaint filed by Arcely Y. Santos against Judge Ubaldino A. Lacurom, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Cabanatuan City, Branch 29, and pairing judge, Branch 30.
Complaint alleges gross misconduct, grave abuse of judicial authority, gross bias and partiality, and gross violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics.
Case reported at 531 Phil. 239, Third Division; A.M. No. RTJ-04-1823; Resolution dated August 28, 2006.
Complaint was filed on 5 May 2003. Respondent judge compulsorily retired on 16 May 2003; retirement did not render the administrative case moot.

The Facts — Parties, Cases, and Representation

The complaint arose from respondent judge’s alleged bias and partiality in favor of Rogelio R. Santos, Sr. (“Santos”), who had three pending cases before respondent judge’s sala:
- Special Proceedings Case No. 516-AF: "In re: Settlement of the Intestate Estate of Spouses Filomeno Santos, Sr. and Benita Rodriguez Santos, Rogelio R. Santos, Sr. (Petitioner) v. Romeo R. Santos et al. (Oppositors) v. Hermogenes Beltran (Intervenor)."
- Civil Case No. 3866: "Rogelio R. Santos, Sr. v. Juliet Lalida Berosa Y. Santos, et al." (Annulment of Contract).
- Cadastral Case No. 384-AF: "In re: Petition for Second Owner’s Copies of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 51132, etc., Fabern’s Incorporated v. Rogelio R. Santos, Sr."
Counsel of record for Santos:
- Atty. Noel J. Buenaventura represented Santos in all the cases.
- Atty. J.V. Bautista also represented Santos in Special Proceedings Case No. 516-AF.
Complainant alleged respondent judge allowed Santos, a non-lawyer, to appear in court and personally litigate his three cases despite the presence of counsel of record.
Chronology of complainant’s procedural objections:
- As early as 26 September 2002, complainant questioned the appearance of Santos as “counsel” in proceedings.
- On 11 November 2002, complainant filed a motion to expunge a pleading signed by Santos, contending a non-lawyer may not sign pleadings.
- Joint Resolution dated 7 February 2003 denied the motion and stated Santos was qualified to conduct his litigation personally.
- On 20 February 2003, complainant filed a motion for reconsideration, suggesting that if Santos intended to represent himself while also being represented by counsel, respondent judge should appoint a member of the Bar as lead counsel.
- On 28 February 2003, in Special Proceedings Case No. 516-AF, respondent judge issued an Order in which he “appointed” or “recognized” Santos as lead counsel for the petitioners.
Additional factual allegations by complainant:
- Complainant and other oppositors were allegedly not allowed to address the court directly and were compelled, under threat of contempt, to secure counsel.
- Respondent judge allegedly granted Santos’ pleadings with dispatch.
- Respondent judge allegedly unduly delayed execution of the Court of Appeals decision dated 28 April 2000 in Cadastral Case No. 384-AF.
- Complainant’s letter-request dated 16 March 2001 for respondent judge to inhibit himself was denied.
Allegations of personal interest and relationships:
- Complainant alleged respondent judge used his office to protect the interests of Santos, described as respondent judge’s “close friend,” in violation of Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
- Complainant alleged respondent judge was an incorporator, director, officer, and legal adviser of Villa Benita Homeowners Association (VBHA); that VBHA filed cases before the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) against Fabern’s Inc. and complainant; and that respondent judge had personal knowledge of facts of the HLURB cases.
- Complainant cited an earlier case, Civil Case No. 3074-AF ("Rogelio R. Santos v. Atty. Miguelito Ortiz and Ernest Linsangan"), in which respondent judge had inhibited himself because Santos was his “close friend,” and contrasted that to respondent judge’s refusal to inhibit himself in the present matters.

The OCA Indorsement and Pleadings

Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) indorsed the complaint on 15 May 2003, requiring respondent judge to comment and to show cause why he should not be sanctioned under Canon 9, Rule 9.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for possible assistance in unauthorized practice of law.
Respondent judge filed an Answer dated 27 June 2003.
Respondent judge admitted that he allowed Santos to litigate personally, citing Section 34, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Respondent judge explained he “recognized” Santos as lead counsel in Special Proceedings Case No. 516-AF because Santos’ counsel were often absent; alleged that complainant’s counsel did not object to the “appointment” but only suggested lead counsel be a member of the Bar.
Respondent judge contended that complainant was allowed to address the court directly, though not at length because she was represented by counsel.
Respondent judge denied allegations that he always granted Santos’ pleadings or that he was responsible for delay in enforcement of the Court of Appeals decision in Cadastral Case No. 384-AF; stated he ordered implementation on 25 September 2000 and issued a writ of execution on 25 October 2002.
Respondent judge denied he had bias and stated he could fairly hear and decide the cases; explained the reason for prior inhibition in Civil Case No. 3074-AF (friendship with Santos but not with respondents) and argued that in some matters his friendships with parties effectively “neutralized” bias.
Respondent judge admitted his son, Dr. Ferdinand Lacurom, received favors: Santos lent a portable bunker to Dr. Lacurom during construction; officers of Fabern’s Inc. facilitated cementing of the road in front of Dr. Lacurom’s house. Respondent judge denied receiving any favor from Santos.
Respondent judge admitted nominal participation in VBHA:
- Admitted being a “nominal” incorporator and adviser; stated Atty. Napoleon Reyes requested his agreement to be an incorporator “to lend a bit of prestige” to VBHA.
- Claimed his only participation was signing registration documents; denied attending VBHA meetings or knowledge of HLURB cases filed by VBH