Li v. Mijares
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Igmedio T. Li alleged that respondent Municipal Judge Jose H. Mijares demanded P80.00 from him, but only received P40.00 as a commissioner's fee for an ocular inspection of a parcel of land involved in a civil case. Procedural History: The allegation was made in the course of testimony before Hon. Natalio P. Amarga, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Northern Samar. Judge Amarga directed respondent Judge Mijares to explain why he should not be dealt with accordingly. Respondent Judge admitted receiving P40.00 as the complainant's share in the commissioner's fee for the Chief of Police, who was appointed to conduct an ocular inspection in a forcible entry case. The Petition: The administrative case arose from the complainant's allegations regarding the collection of a fee without issuing a receipt.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Municipal Judge improperly demanded and received a commissioner's fee without issuing a receipt. Whether the respondent Judge's conduct violated the Rules of Court and principles of judicial integrity.
Ruling
The respondent Municipal Judge Jose Mijares of San Roque, Northern Samar, is hereby reprimanded and admonished to be more careful and discreet in the performance of his duties.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of improper demand and receipt of fees without a receipt: The Court found that the respondent Judge demanded from the complainant the sum of P40.00, which he received in open court before the outcome of the case. Furthermore, he failed to issue a receipt for the amount received. These acts were found to be in violation of Section 13, Rule 33 and Section 15, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. The Court emphasized that the meaning of these provisions was made explicit in the case of Paredes vs. Bayona. The respondent Judge therefore acted improperly and unlawfully in the performance of his duties, giving the complainant reason to air his grievances. On the issue of violating principles of judicial integrity: The Court reiterated the principle that judges should not only be men of the highest integrity but should also at all times conduct themselves in such a manner as to be above suspicion. The respondent Judge failed to meet this standard through his actions, which were deemed improper and unlawful. The collection of fees without issuing a receipt and the demand for such fees before the case's resolution cast doubt on his conduct and integrity.
Main Doctrine
Judges must conduct themselves in a manner that is above suspicion and must issue receipts for fees collected in the performance of their duties, as failure to do so constitutes improper and unlawful conduct.