A.M. No. MTJ-24-023 - Uy vs. Lorredo

Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-24-023)

Factual Background: Alleged Partiality and Intemperate Remarks

Tedwin alleged that Judge Lorredo actively participated in the criminal case hearings where Tedwin was a co-accused. According to Tedwin, the transcribed stenographer’s notes showed that Judge Lorredo made substantially more entries—questions, comments, and manifestations—than the prosecutor and defense counsel combined. Judge Lorredo’s entries reached 507, while the combined total of the prosecutor and defense counsel amounted to 356.

Tedwin further alleged that Judge Lorredo’s questions and statements were not merely clarificatory but were adversarial, intimidating, oppressive, and even cruel. In particular, during the presentation of Tedwin’s daughter, Trisha Uy (Trisha), Judge Lorredo asked whether Trisha was mentally retarded, whether she was under medication, or whether she was “downright stupid.” Tedwin asserted that these remarks were offensive, distasteful, and inexcusable, and were made at the expense of the integrity of the court.

Tedwin also alleged that Judge Lorredo directed remarks at Atty. Erly Ecal (Atty. Ecal), who was then newly engaged as counsel for Tedwin. According to Tedwin, Judge Lorredo repeatedly interrupted Atty. Ecal with questions, intimidated and oppressed her, and challenged her competency as a lawyer and her educational attainment, including a statement that Atty. Ecal was “Kulang ang aral.”

Finally, Tedwin pointed out that the Supreme Court had previously found Judge Lorredo administratively liable for failing to observe caution in his speech and conduct, and had admonished him to observe judicial temperament and avoid offensive or intemperate language.

Judicial Integrity Board Findings and Recommended Penalty

In its Report, the Judicial Integrity Board recommended that Judge Lorredo be found guilty of unbecoming conduct and be ordered to pay a fine of PHP 10,000.00, with a stern warning that any repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.

The Judicial Integrity Board agreed that Judge Lorredo was performing judicial functions by actively participating in the examination of witnesses, in line with the Judicial Affidavit Rule, and it observed that both Tedwin and Trisha gave evasive answers that required intervention. However, it still concluded that Judge Lorredo’s manner of questioning and intemperate language constituted unbecoming conduct of a judge. The Board noted that the remarks used—“stupid,” “mentally retarded,” and “on medication”—were unnecessary and inappropriate. It emphasized that judges, as visible representatives of law, should conduct themselves above suspicion and reproach.

The Board further noted that Judge Lorredo had already been sanctioned in a prior administrative case involving intemperate language, where he was ordered to pay a fine of PHP 5,000.00 for unbecoming conduct. In light of Rule 140, as amended by A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC, the Board recommended increasing the fine to PHP 10,000.00.

The Supreme Court’s Framing of the Sole Issue

The Supreme Court identified the sole issue as whether Judge Lorredo should be held administratively liable for the acts complained of.

The Parties’ Contentions

Judge Lorredo, in his Comment, denied that he acted improperly. He asserted that he was merely performing his duty as a judge to ask questions to determine guilt. He argued that, because the witnesses were very clever and evasive, he had to phrase his questions in a way that would lead to the truth. He further explained that he asked Trisha whether she was stupid, retarded, or under medication to prevent her from later claiming that these grounds had affected her testimony.

Applicable Standards Under the New Code of Judicial Conduct

The Supreme Court anchored its analysis on the general standards governing judicial behavior under the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. It cited that judges must ensure their conduct is above reproach and perceived as such by a reasonable observer (Canon 2, Section 1). It also stressed that judges must behave in a manner that reaffirms public faith in judicial integrity and that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done (Canon 2, Section 2). Additionally, the Court referenced the duty of judges to maintain and enhance public confidence in their impartiality and to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety (Canon 3, Section 2 and Canon 4, Section 1). It also emphasized the obligation to maintain order and decorum and to be patient, dignified, and courteous toward litigants, witnesses, lawyers, and others (Canon 6, Section 6), and to ensure that personal bias is not manifested in judicial duties (Canon 5, Section 2).

Legal Reasoning: Intemperate Language as Unbecoming Conduct

The Court held that Judge Lorredo failed to observe the conduct required of judges. It found that his use of the words “stupid,” “mentally retarded,” and “on medication” in examining a witness before his sala was inappropriate and unnecessary. The Court also held that Judge Lorredo’s insistence that Atty. Ecal was “Kulang ang aral” showed a degree of arrogance without place in court proceedings.

In reaching this conclusion, the Court relied on De la Cruz v. Judge Carretas, where it was held to be reprehensible for a judge to humiliate a lawyer, litigant, or witness, and where the Court underscored that judges must remain temperate in language and exercises sobriety and restraint. The Court reiterated that judges must maintain composure and avoid vulgar and insulting language even when confronted with boorish behavior from those appearing before them.

Thus, the Court affirmed that Judge Lorredo’s use of intemperate language amounted to unbecoming conduct of a judge. It also rejected the justification that the complainant and Trisha were evasive, since the judicial duty did not authorize the use of improper language.

Penalty Determination Under Rule 140 and Aggravating Circumstances

The Court recognized that under Section 16(a) of Rule 140, as further amended by A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC, unbecoming conduct was a light charge, normally subject to a fine ranging from PHP 1,000.00 to PHP 35,000.00, or censure, or reprimand.

However, the Court considered prior administrative liabilities of Judge Lorredo and treated the record of repeated violations as decisive. It reviewed two prior cases: Atty. Magno v. Judge Lorredo (2017) and Marcelino Espejon and Erickson Cabonita v. Hon. Jorge Emmanuel M. Lorredo (2022).

In Atty. Magno, Judge Lorredo was found administratively liable for unbecoming conduct and was fined PHP 5,000.00, with a stern warning that repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely. The Court noted that in that case he had made offensive and inexcusable statements during the preliminary conference and in pleadings submitted to the Court, including referring to the complainant as “petty, dull and slow thinking” and “pathological or compulsive liar.”

In Espejon, Judge Lorredo was fined PHP 40,000.00 for conducting a preliminary conference in an overbearing manner to resolve cases quickly and for the improper foisting of religious beliefs in the performance of judicial functions. He was also found guilty of unbecoming conduct and fined PHP 10,000.00 for inappropriate remarks made during proceedings and in the Comment filed before the Court. In that case, he was further suspended for 30 days for sexual harassment due to derogatory or degrading remarks and innuendoes about the complainants’ sexual orientation.

The Court held that even before the present complaint, Judge Lorredo had already been found liable once each for simple misconduct and sexual harassment, and twice for unbecoming conduct, with three separate fines totaling PHP 55,000.00 and a 30-day suspension. The Court also emphasized that in both Atty. Magno and Espejon, it had sternly warned him that repetition would be dealt with more severely.

Given Judge Lorredo’s persistence in committing similar offenses despite warnings and sanctions—including suspension and accumulated fines—the Court ruled that there was no other recourse than dismissal. The Court reasoned that dismissal was necessary to “protect and preserve the image and integrity of the entire judiciary,” stressing that the judicial service demanded the b

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. MTJ-24-023)

The case stemmed from a Complaint-Affidavit filed by Tedwin T. Uy against Presiding Judge Jorge Emmanuel M. Lorredo, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 26, Manila.
The complaint alleged partiality in the administration of justice, conduct unbecoming of a judge, and irregularity in the performance of official duties.
The Court resolved the matter in an En Banc per curiam decision.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Tedwin served as complainant, alleging misconduct by Judge Lorredo in the conduct of criminal case hearings.
Judge Lorredo acted as respondent and submitted a Comment to the complaint.
The Judicial Integrity Board submitted a Report recommending a finding of unbecoming conduct and the imposition of a fine with a warning.
The Court treated the sole issue as whether respondent should be held administratively liable for the acts complained of.

Key Factual Allegations

Tedwin alleged that Judge Lorredo actively participated in hearings of a criminal case where Tedwin was a co-accused.
The transcribed stenographer’s notes allegedly showed Judge Lorredo made more entries than both the prosecutor and the defense counsel combined.
Specifically, Judge Lorredo’s entries numbered to 507, while the combined entries of the prosecutor and defense counsel totaled 356.
Tedwin asserted that Judge Lorredo’s statements and questions were not merely clarificatory but were adversarial, intimidating, oppressive, and outright cruel.
During the presentation of Tedwin’s daughter, Trisha Uy, Judge Lorredo allegedly asked whether Trisha was mentally retarded, under medication, or “downright stupid.”
Tedwin characterized these remarks as offensive, distasteful, and inexcusable, made at the expense of the court’s integrity.
Tedwin also alleged that Judge Lorredo repeatedly interrupted his then newly minted lawyer, Atty. Erly Ecal, and intimidated her.
Tedwin claimed Judge Lorredo repeatedly questioned Atty. Ecal’s competency and educational attainment, including remarks that she was “Kulang ang aral.”
Tedwin pointed out that the Court had previously found Judge Lorredo administratively liable for failing to observe judicial temperament and avoid offensive or intemperate language.

Respondent’s Defenses

Judge Lorredo asserted that he was merely performing his duty by asking questions to determine the accused’s guilt.
He argued that the witnesses were very clever and evasive, and thus he phrased questions to elicit the truth.
He explained that he asked Trisha whether she was stupid, retarded, or under medication to prevent her from later claiming that such conditions affected her testimony.

Board Findings and Recommendations

The Judicial Integrity Board recommended that Judge Lorredo be found guilty of unbecoming conduct of a judge.
The Board recommended that Judge Lorredo be ordered to pay a fine of PHP 10,000.00, coupled with a stern warning against repetition of the same or similar acts.
The Board agreed that Judge Lorredo was exercising judicial functions by actively participating in the examination of witnesses as required by the Judicial Affidavit Rule.
The Board observed that both Tedwin and Trisha allegedly gave evasive answers, necessitating Judge Lorredo’s intervention.
Despite that necessity, the Board held that Judge Lorredo’s manner of asking questions and intemperate language amounted to unbecoming conduct.
The Board found the use of the words “stupid,” “mentally retarded,” and “on medication” to be unnecessary and inappropriate.
The Board noted that Judge Lorredo was previously sanctioned for using intemperate language and fined PHP 5,000.00, for which it recommended a higher fine in accordance with Rule 140, as amended by A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC.

Governing Standards of Judicial Conduct

The Court relied on the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary to define the general standard expected of judges.
Under Canon 2 (Integrity), the Court cited the requirement that judicial conduct be above reproach and be perceived as such by a reasonable observer.
Under Canon 2, Section 2, the Court stressed that behavior must reaffirm the people’s faith in judicial integrity and that justice must be seen to be done.
Under Canon 3 (Impartiality), the Court cited the duty to maintain and enhance public confidence in the judge’s and judiciary’s impartiality through conduct in and out of court.
Under Canon 4 (Propriety), the Court cited the duty to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
Under Canon 5 (Equality), the Court cited the prohibition against manifesting bias or prejudice by words or conduct on irrelevant grounds.
Under Canon 6 (Competence and Diligence), Section 6, the Court cited the duty to maintain order and decorum and to be patient, dignified, and courteous toward litigants, witnesses, lawyers, and others in an official capacity, and to require similar conduct from legal representatives and others subject to the judge’s influence or control.

Legal Issues Framed

The Court resolved the sole issue of whether respondent should be held administratively liable for his questioned conduct during hearings.
The Court treated the core determination as whether Judge Lorredo’s intemperate language and demeanor constituted unbecoming conduct of a judge.
The Court also treated the alleged evidentiary con