Co v. Calimag
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Jaime L. Co charged respondent Judge Demetrio D. Calimag, Jr. with serious misconduct and inefficiency. The charge stemmed from respondent's actions as Acting Presiding Judge of the RTC of Echague, Isabela. A complaint for legal separation was filed by Eva Co against her husband, Jaime L. Co, with a prayer for a temporary restraining order (TRO). Respondent judge, despite Judge Bonifacio Ong having already assumed office, took cognizance of the case and, in ex parte proceedings, issued a TRO enjoining complainant from incurring obligations and managing conjugal properties and business. Respondent set a summary hearing for the next day, which complainant failed to attend, leading to the extension of the TRO. Complainant filed a motion to suspend hearing and an objection to the TRO, while Eva Co filed a supplemental motion for preliminary injunction. Respondent required parties to submit affidavits/memoranda. Complainant alleged that respondent called him, demanding money for hospitalization, and that he gave P10,000.00 to respondent's employee, Norma Cariño, which was allegedly returned for being insufficient. Respondent later issued a writ of injunction and furnished a copy to Eva Co. Procedural History: The administrative complaint was filed by Jaime L. Co against Judge Demetrio D. Calimag, Jr. The Court Administrator issued a memorandum regarding the authority of an Acting Presiding Judge. The Investigating Justice recommended findings on the charges. The Petition: The complainant anchored his charge of serious misconduct on the respondent's alleged lack of authority to take cognizance of the case and an alleged extortion attempt. He also alleged denial of due process and bias in the issuance of the TRO and preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court reviewed these charges.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent judge had the authority to take cognizance of the legal separation case. Whether complainant was denied due process when respondent required parties to submit affidavits/counter-affidavits instead of conducting a trial-type hearing for the preliminary injunction. Whether respondent judge committed extortion. Whether respondent judge exhibited bias in issuing the TRO and preliminary injunction. Whether respondent judge was inefficient in office for failing to observe proper court procedure in issuing the writ of injunction.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the charges of serious misconduct and bias but found sufficient ground to support the charge of inefficiency in office. Respondent judge was fined P1,000.00 for inefficiency, with a warning against repetition of similar acts. All other charges were dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the authority to take cognizance of the case: The Court held that respondent judge, as Acting Presiding Judge, had the authority to take cognizance of newly filed cases even after a regular judge had assumed office, especially when the new judge was undergoing orientation and immersion. The Court Administrator's memorandum supported this, stating that an Acting Presiding Judge can act on cases. Therefore, the charge of misconduct due to lack of authority was dismissed. On denial of due process: The Court ruled that complainant was not denied due process. While Section 5 of Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure requires notice and hearing for preliminary injunctions, a trial-type hearing is not always essential. Due process requires an opportunity to be heard and for the court to consider evidence. Complainant had the opportunity to submit his counter-affidavit and memorandum, satisfying the due process requirement. Thus, the claim of denial of due process was rejected. On the charge of extortion: The Court found the charge of extortion to be unsubstantiated. The allegation was based solely on the testimony of Norma Cariño, an employee of the complainant and previously removed by the complainant's wife, making her testimony suspect and uncorroborated. The Court reiterated that accusations of bribery require a panoply of evidence, not just doubtful verbal testimony. Complainant failed to present proof of fingerprint analysis, entrapment, or clear records of the alleged bribe money. Consequently, the charge of extortion was given scant consideration and dismissed. On the charge of bias: The Court found no evidence of bias. The complainant's sole basis was the alleged request for money, which was already dismissed as unsubstantiated. There was no showing of animosity, close relationship, or personal interest by the respondent judge in the case. The issuance of a TRO based on the wife's allegations was not sufficient ground for disciplinary action, as judges are presumed to act regularly and in good faith. The charge of bias was dismissed. On inefficiency in office: The Court found respondent judge inefficient for failing to observe proper court procedure in issuing the writ of injunction on December 29, 1998. Instead of endorsing the writ to the clerk of court for proper recording in the general docket as required by Sec. 8, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, respondent personally furnished a copy to Eva Co immediately after signing it. This irregular act, bypassing the clerk of court, erodes the credibility of court records and creates the appearance of impropriety, violating Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Court emphasized the necessity of regulated and orderly handling of court records. Therefore, this charge was sustained, leading to the imposition of a fine.
Main Doctrine
While a judge is presumed to have acted regularly and in good faith, failure to observe proper court procedure, such as the regulated handling of court records and the issuance of orders without passing through the clerk of court for proper recording, constitutes inefficiency and may give rise to the appearance of impropriety, warranting disciplinary action.