Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-10-1772)
Facts of the Case
On March 31, 2009, Judge Dacanay conducted an ex-parte ocular inspection of the property involved in the civil case without notifying Dr. Vizcayno. The inspection took place in the presence of the plaintiffs, leading Dr. Vizcayno to feel disadvantaged. He filed a motion for the judge to inhibit himself from the case, which was scheduled for a hearing on April 24, 2009. However, Judge Dacanay proceeded to hear the case on May 29, 2009, without resolving the motion for inhibition first. Dr. Vizcayno argued that this conduct violated his constitutional right to due process and the ethical standards outlined in Canon 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.
Respondent's Commentary
In response, Judge Dacanay claimed he conducted the ocular inspection solely for personal investigation purposes. He asserted that his intentions were good and emphasized that his actions did not demonstrate bias against Dr. Vizcayno. Judge Dacanay further contended that since the motion for inhibition was still in the preliminary stage, it was premature for Dr. Vizcayno and his counsel to assert bias against him. He referenced previous case law that indicates an administrative complaint cannot proceed concurrently with judicial remedies if the latter remain unresolved.
Evaluation of the Administrative Complaint
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that both parties present evidence regarding the alleged impropriety of Judge Dacanay. In a subsequent investigation, Executive Judge Marilyn Lagura-Yap concluded that although Judge Dacanay did not exhibit bad faith, conducting an ocular inspection without notifying all parties was imprudent and merited a finding of liability for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Analysis of Judicial Conduct
The principal issue examined is whether Judge Dacanay's actions amounted to conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The Court underscored that judges must avoid not only impropriety but also the appearance of impropriety in all activities. Given that Judge Dacanay conducted the ocular inspection in the presence of the plaintiffs without notice to the defendant or his counsel, it was ruled that his conduct lowered public confidence in the judiciary.
Delay in Motion for Inhibition
Regarding the alleged delay in handling the Motion for Inhibition, the Court found that Judge Dacanay’s actions were within the required timeframe mandated by the Constitution, as the motion failed to meet necessary requirements and was thus rightly expunged from court records. This indicated that no unreasonable delay could be attributed to him concerning the resolution of the motion.
Ruling and
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. MTJ-10-1772)
Case Overview
- Parties Involved: Dr. Janos B. Vizcayno (Complainant) vs. Judge Jasper Jesse G. Dacanay (Respondent).
- Court: Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Liloan-Compostela, Cebu.
- Case Number: A.M. No. MTJ-10-1772.
- Date of Decision: December 5, 2012.
- Nature of Complaint: Dr. Vizcayno filed an administrative complaint against Judge Dacanay for various alleged misconducts including Gross Ignorance of the Law, Abuse of Authority, Manifest Partiality, and Delay.
Background of the Case
- Dr. Vizcayno was the defendant in a civil case for forcible entry and damages (Civil Case No. 650-R).
- The complaint arose after Judge Dacanay conducted an ex-parte ocular inspection of the disputed property without notifying Dr. Vizcayno.
- The inspection occurred on March 31, 2009, in the presence of the plaintiffs, which Dr. Vizcayno learned about through neighbors.
Allegations Against Judge Dacanay
- Ex-parte Ocular Inspection: Conducted without notice to Dr. Vizcayno, violating due process.
- Failure to Resolve Motion for Inhibition: Dr. Vizcayno filed a motion to inhibit Judge Dacanay, which was ignored during a subsequent hearing.
- Impropriety: Judge Dacanay allegedly showed bias by socializing with the plaintiffs during the ocular inspection.
- Delay in Proceedings: Dr. Vizcayno claimed that Judge Dacanay did not act promptly on the motion for inhibition.
Judge Dacanay’s Defense
- Good Faith: Judge Dacanay argued that the ocular inspection was conducted in good faith to assess the property and facilitate an amicable settlement.
- Procedural Com