Facts:
On 25 February 2005, Sheriff IV Camilo Bandivas (Sheriff
Bandivas) of the RTC retired from the service.
Lihaylihay alleged that Judge Canda asked Process Server Emmanuel
Tenefrancia (Tenefrancia) of the RTC to apply for the position vacated by
Sheriff Bandivas. To the dismay of Judge
Canda, a certain Jesus V. Alimpolo (Alimpolo) applied for the vacated
position. Judge Canda strongly opposed
Alimpolo’s application.
Judge Canda was of the impression that Lihaylihay was
assisting Alimpolo in his application for the position of Sheriff IV. On
5 January 2006, Judge Canda sent a text message to Lihaylihay stating, “Maayo
tingali modistansya ka anang mga tawhana kay basin masabit ka, pakiusap lang
ni.” Taking the text message as a
threat, Lihaylihay reported it to the police and requested that a blotter entry
be made. On 6 January 2006, Judge Canda
sent another text message stating, “For maliciously causing it to appear as
threatening in the police blotter of what is otherwise a very harmless text
message of appeal I consider the same as declaration of war, don’t worry you
will have your owned [sic] fair share of trouble in due time.”
In a letter dated 9 January 2006 and addressed to Executive
Judge Oscar D. Tomarong (Judge Tomarong) of the RTC, Judge Canda accused
Lihaylihay of
(1) actively supporting Alimpolo;
(2) using the facilities of
the RTC in preparing Alimpolo’s medical certificate;
(3) being at the beck and call of Alimpolo;
(4) blatantly disregarding the Code of Conduct for Court
Personnel;
(5) fraudulently scheming against the court;
(6) performing highly contemptuous acts;
(7) being unworthy of her position as Clerk III;
(8) failing to distance herself from Alimpolo;
(9) failing to stay neutral;
(10) having a distorted sense of values that deserves
disciplinary action;
(11) being arrogant, insolent and cocky; and
(12) disrespecting him.
In his 1st Indorsement dated 12 January 2006, Judge Tomarong
directed Lihaylihay to comment on Judge Canda’s 9 and 11 January 2006
letters. On 13 January 2006, before
Lihaylihay could comment on the letters, Judge Canda gave a copy of the 11
January 2006 letter to the desk editor of the Mindanao Observer and asked that
it be published in the newspaper.
The 11 January 2006 letter was published in the 15 January
2006 issue of the Mindanao Observer. The
front page headline read, “Huwes miprotesta batok sa seksi nga docket
clerk.” The text of the letter was printed
in the newspaper with the omission of words which were deemed unprintable.
In her comment dated 20 January 2006, Lihaylihay stated
that:
(1) She did not participate in Alimpolo’s application for
the position of Sheriff IV; (2) Judge Canda ridiculed, humiliated, and
besmirched her reputation by publishing in the newspaper the 11 January 2006
letter describing her as a GRO and a whore;
(3) Judge Canda’s text messages threatened her; and
(4) she followed the office dress code. Lihaylihay alleged that Judge Canda wanted
Tenefrancia to apply for the position of Sheriff IV so that Tenefrancia’s
position as process server would become vacant — Judge Canda’s son, Alejandro
Canda, was qualified for the position of process server.
Lihaylihay also alleged that, before the present case
started, Judge Canda sent her several indecent text messages stating, “You’re
sexy today,” “I missed your gorgeous face,” and “I missed your golden voice
when you sing.” Lihaylihay also alleged
that she was shocked and disgusted when Judge Canda invited her to go out of
town with him.
Lihaylihay filed a
complaint dated 20 January 2006 with the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA) charging Judge Canda of (1) bullying her; (2) ridiculing, humiliating,
and besmirching her reputation by publishing in the newspaper the 11 January
2006 letter describing her as a GRO and a whore; (3) sending her threatening
text messages; and (4) sending her indecent text messages. The case was docketed as MTJ-06-1659.
In its Report dated 24 August 2006, the OCA found that
Lihaylihay and Judge Canda failed to preserve the good image of the
judiciary. The OCA stated that:
This Office is disappointed, nay, ashamed of the actuations of the
complainant and respondent in this case. Their disgraceful behavior
adversely affects the good image of the judiciary. Their actuations
degraded the image of the courts before the eyes of the public.
In
the instant case, respondent, although not directly responsible for the
publication of her comment should have exercised prudence in dealing with the
media considering the interest generated by the publication of the complaint
against her by Judge Canda. She should have known that the media
would take advantage of the opportunity to sensationalize the case considering
the personalities involved.
Complainant
Judge Canda, on the other hand, should not have caused the publication of his
complaint against the respondent. As a judge, complainant should
have known that administrative proceedings before the Court are confidential in
nature in order to protect the respondent therein who may later turn out to be
innocent of the charges. The public airing of his complaint
unnecessarily exposed the Court to the eyes of the public. No
justifiable or unselfish purpose would be served by such media exposure of the
complaint already filed in Court and therefore covered by the mantle of
confidentiality, except to sensationalize the same and to defile the reputation
of the respondent.
Issue:
Whether Judge Canda is
liable for gross misconduct based on the allegations presented including the
threatening text messages he sent to Lihaylihay?
Held:
The Court answered in
the affirmative.
Judge Canda harassed and
publicly humiliated Lihaylihay: (1) he asked her to stay away from Alimpolo;
(2) when she reported the matter to the police, he took it as a “declaration of
war” and warned her that she will have her “fair share of trouble in due time”;
(3) indeed, three days after sending the threatening text message, he filed a
complaint with Judge Tomarong accusing her of several things, asking that she
be disciplined and removed from the service, and describing her as a “GRO,”
“undignified,” a “whore,” “disgusting,”
“repulsive,” and “pakialamera”; (4) two days after filing the first
complaint, he filed another complaint accusing her of violating office rules
and describing her as “offensive,” “demeaning,” “inappropriate,” a “GRO,”
“undignified,” “repulsive,” and a “whore”; (5)
still unsatisfied, he had his second complaint published in the newspaper; and
(6) when she published her comment in the newspaper, he filed a criminal case
for libel against her.
Judges are required to
be temperate in their language at all times. They must refrain from
inflammatory or vile language. They should be dignified in demeanor
and refined in speech, exhibit that temperament of utmost sobriety and
self-restraint, and be considerate, courteous, and civil to all persons. In Juan
de la Cruz v. Carretas, the Court held that:
A
judge should possess the virtue of gravitas. He
should be x x x dignified in demeanor, refined in speech and
virtuous in character. x x x [H]e
must exhibit that hallmark judicial temperament of utmost sobriety and
self-restraint. x x x
[A] judge must at all times be
temperate in his language. He must choose his words, written or
spoken, with utmost care and sufficient control. x x x
[A] judge should always keep his
passion guarded. He can never allow it to run loose and overcome his
reason. He descends to the level
of a sharp-tongued, ill-mannered petty tyrant
when he utters harsh words [or] snide
remarks x x x. As a result, he degrades the judicial office
and erodes public confidence in the judiciary. (Emphasis supplied)
In Re:
Anonymous Complaint dated February 18, 2005 of a “Court Personnel” against
Judge Francisco C. Gedorio, Jr., RTC, Branch 12, Ormoc City,[21]the
Court held that:
[A] judge x x x ought
to conduct himself in a manner befitting a gentleman and a high officer of the
court.
x
x x x
The
Court has repeatedly reminded members of the bench to conduct themselves
irreproachably, not only while in the discharge of official duties but also
in their personal behavior every day. x x x
It
bears stressing that as a dispenser of justice, respondent should
exercise judicial temperament at all times, avoiding vulgar and insulting
language. He must maintain composure and equanimity.
The
judicial office circumscribes the personal conduct of a judge and imposes a
number of restrictions. This is a price that judges have to pay for
accepting and occupying their exalted positions in the administration of
justice. Irresponsible or improper conduct on their part erodes
public confidence in the judiciary. Thus, it is their duty to avoid
any impression of impropriety in order to protect the image and integrity of the
judiciary. (Emphasis supplied)
Judge Canda’s acts of
(1) threatening Lihaylihay with her “fair share of trouble in due time”; (2)
filing administrative complaints and a criminal case to harass her; (3)
describing her as a “GRO,” “undignified,” a “whore,” “disgusting,” “repulsive,”
“pakialamera,” “offensive,” “demeaning,” and “inappropriate”; and (4)
publishing such foul remarks in the newspaper are very unbecoming a
judge. The image of the judiciary is reflected in the conduct of its
officials and Judge Canda subjected the judiciary to embarrassment.
The charges that
Judge Canda sent Lihaylihay indecent text messages and that he failed to pay
the required legal fees are unsubstantiated, thus, they must be
dismissed. In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the
burden of proving, by substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, the
allegations in the complaint. The Court cannot rely on mere
conjectures or suppositions.
_______________________
Full text of the case available at: http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/june2009/MTJ-06-1659.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment