Office of the Court Administrator v. De Guzman, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Office of the Court Administrator filed an administrative case against Judge Salvador P. De Guzman, Jr. for serious misconduct in connection with the lifting of the notice of lis pendens in Civil Case No. 91-1123. This case involved Norvic Incorporated (Norvic) against St. Michael International Institute of Technology (SMIIT) and St. Michael Institute Corporation (SMIRM) concerning the transfer of a property (Yakal property). Norvic, a principal stockholder of the registered owner (OSC), had a contract to sell the OSC shares and the Yakal property. Subsequently, OSC conveyed the property to SMIRM, and a new title was issued in SMIRM's name. Norvic filed a case for annulment of the deed of conveyance, alleging fraud, and caused the annotation of lis pendens on the new title. The motion to cancel the lis pendens was initially denied by Judge Cosico. After Judge Cosico's resignation, the case was re-raffled to respondent Judge De Guzman. SMIIT and SMIRM filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing Norvic was not the proper party to have the lis pendens annotated. Judge De Guzman reconsidered and ordered the cancellation of the lis pendens. Later, the parties reached a compromise settlement, and the case was dismissed. Procedural History: The administrative complaint against Judge De Guzman was based on the testimony of former Judge Manuel Cosico, who alleged that Judge De Guzman approached him twice, asking him to grant the motion to lift the notice of lis pendens and later to reconsider the denial. After Judge Cosico's resignation, the case was re-raffled to Judge De Guzman, who then cancelled the lis pendens. The administrative case underwent several assignments to different Justices for report and evaluation. Justice Salas found Judge De Guzman liable for influencing the outcome of the case by asking Judge Cosico to cancel the notice of lis pendens, recommending a reprimand. The Petition: The Office of the Court Administrator filed the administrative case against Judge De Guzman for serious misconduct, alleging he approached Judge Cosico to influence the lifting of the lis pendens and subsequently cancelled it himself after the case was re-raffled to his sala, showing keen personal interest to the prejudice of the administration of justice.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge De Guzman committed serious misconduct by influencing the outcome of Civil Case No. 91-1123. Whether respondent Judge De Guzman's act of lifting the notice of lis pendens was legally justified.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Judge De Guzman GUILTY OF SERIOUS MISCONDUCT for influencing the course of litigation in Civil Case No. No. 91-1123 in violation of Rule 2.04, Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. He was imposed a fine of ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) with a stern warning of a more severe penalty for repetition.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether respondent Judge De Guzman committed serious misconduct by influencing the outcome of Civil Case No. 91-1123: The Court found sufficient evidence to hold respondent Judge De Guzman guilty of serious misconduct for influencing the course of litigation. This was based on the credible testimony of former Judge Manuel Cosico, who stated that respondent Judge De Guzman approached him at least twice, asking him to cancel the notice of lis pendens in the case. The Court gave credence to Judge Cosico's testimony, finding it improbable that he would lie before a panel including the Chief Justice. The Court noted that while both judges admitted to being on friendly terms and discussing matters of law, the specific act of asking for a favor regarding the lis pendens was believed. The Court emphasized that judges are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that enhances respect and confidence in the judicial system and should avoid the appearance of impropriety. The act of interference by respondent Judge De Guzman tarnished the integrity and independence of the judiciary and subverted public faith in the judicial process, violating Rule 2.04 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which prohibits influencing the outcome of litigation pending before another court or judge. On the issue of whether respondent Judge De Guzman's act of lifting the notice of lis pendens was legally justified: The Court found no clear and convincing evidence that respondent Judge De Guzman was motivated by personal or financial interest in lifting the notice of lis pendens. The Court noted that the explanation offered by the respondent and the circumstances warranted a conclusion that he acted in good faith. The Court pointed out that if the respondent had a financial interest or desired to favor someone, he might have ruled against lifting the lis pendens, considering his relationship with Atty. Santos. Furthermore, the case was re-raffled to his sala, and he attempted to inhibit but was asked by the parties to stay and help settle the case. The cancellation of the lis pendens was issued after a thorough study of the merits of the motion and opposition. The Court agreed with the respondent's reasoning that Norvic Incorporated was not the proper party to have the lis pendens annotated because it was neither the previous nor the present registered owner of the property. The Court reiterated the well-settled rule that a stockholder is not the owner of corporate property and thus lacks the personality to cause the annotation of lis pendens on property owned by the corporation. Therefore, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty, corruption, or bad faith, the act of lifting the lis pendens was considered a judicial act not subject to disciplinary action.
Main Doctrine
A judge is guilty of serious misconduct for influencing the outcome of litigation pending before another court or judge, in violation of Rule 2.04, Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, even if the order lifting the notice of lis pendens was legally justified on its merits.