A.M. No. RTJ-03-1813 - Seludo vs. Fineza

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-03-1813)

Factual Background

Atty. Antonio D. Seludo acted as counsel for accused in Criminal Case No. C-58093 before Judge Antonio J. Fineza. The respondent first set promulgation of decision for November 18, 2002, which did not proceed because the respondent was hospitalized. The promulgation was later reset to 8:30 a.m. on November 27, 2002. Complainant discovered a calendar conflict with a previously set hearing of Criminal Case Nos. 178462-64 before Judge Edwin B. Ramizo and instructed his secretary to notify respondent’s office that he could not attend the promulgation. Thereafter, complainant received an Order of Arrest that commanded any officer of the law to arrest him and keep him in jail until the decision in Criminal Case No. C-58093 was promulgated. Upon arrest, complainant sought to obtain reconsideration from respondent but was at first refused audience; when complainant caught up with respondent near his car, complainant alleged that the respondent said in the presence of police officers, “kung gusto mo, pumunta ka sa harap ng kotse ko at sasagasaan na lang kita.” Complainant spent the night in detention, was brought to court the next day for promulgation, and was released after the decision was read that afternoon.

Administrative Charges and Allegations

Complainant lodged an administrative complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator alleging that respondent committed (1) gross ignorance of the law, (2) oppression in office, (3) grave abuse of authority, and (4) conduct unbecoming of a judge. The complaint rested on the issuance of the arrest order for counsel’s alleged failure to appear at the scheduled promulgation and on the alleged insulting and threatening language used by the respondent in his Comment and during the encounter at his car.

Respondent’s Position and Denial

In his Comment, Judge Antonio J. Fineza denied the material allegations, characterized the complainant as a “fact fabricator,” a “congenital liar,” and an “Indian,” and asserted that the incarceration was ordered to prevent delay in the promulgation. The respondent maintained that the complainant had missed a prior scheduled promulgation and that the arrest order had been issued pursuant to the court’s power to secure the attendance of persons at court proceedings.

Report and Recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator

The Office of the Court Administrator reported adversely to the respondent, concluding that the arrest of the complainant was illegal and oppressive and that it violated the complainant’s constitutional right to due process because he was not given the opportunity to be heard. The OCA observed that the arrest amounted to arbitrary detention as defined under Article 124 of the Revised Penal Code inasmuch as the order was issued for a person who was not committing a crime. The OCA also found the respondent’s language in his Comment intemperate and incompatible with judicial dignity. The OCA recommended that the respondent be fined PHP 20,000 for the enumerated violations, including breaches of Rule 8.01, Canon 8, and Rule 10.03, Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Court’s Legal Analysis on Procedural Authority

The Court examined the provisions invoked by the respondent and found them inapplicable. The Court held that Section 14, Rule 119 — which concerns bail to secure appearance of a material witness — could not justify detention of counsel because a lawyer is not a material witness within the meaning of the rule. The Court also found that Section 6, Rule 120 — governing promulgation of judgment — did not require the physical presence of counsel at promulgation and expressly provided procedures for promulgation in the absence of an accused or his counsel. The Court concluded that the respondent lacked legal authority to incarcerate the complainant for failure to appear at promulgation.

Court’s Legal Analysis on Due Process and Judicial Conduct

The Court found that respondent failed to afford the complainant the elementary right to be heard and therefore violated due process. The Court held that respondent breached Rule 3.04, Canon 3, Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires a judge to be patient, attentive, and courteous to lawyers and others appearing before the court. The Court further concluded that respondent’s verbal descriptions of the complainant were inflammatory and violated Rule 8.01 and Rule 10.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility in his capacity as a lawyer. The Court agreed with the OCA that the appropriate course, if contempt was suspected, was for the respondent to have issued an order to show cause for indirect contempt and to reset promulgation rather than to order immediate incarceration.

Precedents and Respondent’s Disciplinary History

The Court noted prior administrative actions involving the respondent. In A.M. No. P-01-1522, the

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-03-1813)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Atty. Antonio D. Seludo filed an administrative complaint before the Office of the Court Administrator against Judge Antonio J. Fineza arising from proceedings in People of the Philippines v. Alfonso De Villar, Errol De Villar and Rodeo Lerio, Criminal Case No. C-58093.
The complaint alleged violations consisting of gross ignorance of the law, oppression in office, grave abuse of authority, and conduct unbecoming of a judge.
The Office of the Court Administrator issued an adverse report and recommended a fine of PHP 20,000.00 for the respondent.
The Court reviewed the administrative record and rendered a decision finding the respondent guilty of serious charges and imposing monetary penalties.

Key Facts

The respondent issued an order of arrest dated November 27, 2002, directing any officer of the law to arrest Atty. Seludo and keep him in jail until the decision in Criminal Case No. C-58093 was promulgated.
Atty. Seludo had been counsel in two separate matters and had received earlier notices setting promulgation on November 18 and November 27, 2002, the first of which did not push through because the respondent was confined in a hospital.
Atty. Seludo instructed his secretary to inform the respondent's office that he could not attend the November 27 promulgation because of a conflicting hearing before Judge Edwin B. Ramizo on Criminal Case Nos. 178462-64.
Upon arrest, Atty. Seludo sought to ask the respondent for reconsideration, and the respondent initially refused to see him but later, while at his car, allegedly told him in the presence of police officers, "kung gusto mo, pumunta ka sa harap ng kotse ko at sasagasaan na lang kita."
Atty. Seludo spent the night in jail and was brought to court the next day for the promulgation, during which a public prosecutor was fined and the decision was promulgated that afternoon, resulting in Atty. Seludo’s release.
Atty. Seludo claimed he missed only the November 27 promulgation due to the scheduling conflict and that his secretary had been told on November 18 that hearings were cancelled because of the respondent's hospitalization.
Judge Fineza denied the allegations, characterized the complainant as a "fact fabricator" and "congenital liar," and asserted that he ordered incarceration to avoid delay in promulgation.

Respondent's Contentions

Judge Fineza asserted that Section 14, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court authorized his action to secure appearance when he believed a witness or person would not testify when required.
Judge Fineza contended that the arrest was necessary to prevent delay in promulgating the decision.
Judge Fineza denied the reported car incident and stated he merely told Atty. Seludo, "umalis ka diyan at baka masagasaan iyong paa," because the latter was leaning on the car.
Judge Fineza described the complainant as a chronic fabricator and denied that he had committed any procedural or disciplinary violation warranting sanction.

OCA Findings

The Office of the Court Administrator found the arrest of Atty. Seludo illegal, oppressive, and violative of his constitutional right to due process because he was not given the opportunity to be heard.
The OCA concluded that the issuance of the arrest order amounted to arbitrary detention and referenced Article 124, Revised Penal Code in support of that characterization.
The OCA characterized the respondent's language in his comment as intemperate and improper and recommended disciplinary sa