Sevilleja v. Laggui
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Marco Francisco Sevilleja was proclaimed winner in the local election for Mayor of Sta. Teresita, Cagayan. His rival, Romeo Garcia, filed an election protest. Complainant filed a motion to inhibit respondent Judge Antonio N. Laggui on the ground that the wife of the protestant, Mrs. Lolita Garcia, was respondent Judge's legal researcher. Respondent Judge granted the inhibition for "delicadeza" and "peace of mind" of the protestee. Procedural History: The case was re-raffled to another branch. Subsequently, Judge Agcaoili rendered a decision declaring Romeo Garcia as the duly elected mayor. Complainant filed a notice of appeal, while Garcia filed a motion for execution pending appeal. Due to the absence of Judge Agcaoili, respondent Judge, as Executive Judge, issued an Order holding in abeyance the transmittal of records to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) pending resolution of the motion for execution pending appeal. When respondent Judge was designated acting presiding judge of the branch where the case was pending, he granted the motion for execution pending appeal, and a writ of execution was issued. Complainant's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Complainant filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge for gross misconduct.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge committed gross misconduct by acting on an election case from which he had previously inhibited himself. Whether respondent Judge's designation as acting presiding judge of the branch where the case was raffled lifted his prior inhibition. Whether complainant was guilty of forum-shopping.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Judge Antonio N. Laggui guilty of gross misconduct and fined him P5,000.00 with a stern warning. The Court affirmed the recommendation of the Court Administrator. The COMELEC had previously set aside and annulled the orders of respondent Judge granting execution pending appeal and denied the motion for reconsideration, reinstating the complainant to his position. This ruling was affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of gross misconduct: The Court held that respondent Judge committed gross misconduct. Having previously inhibited himself from the election case on the ground of delicadeza due to his legal researcher being the wife of a party, he should have refrained from acting on the case even when designated as acting presiding judge of the branch where it was raffled. This action created an impression of impropriety and undermined the appearance of impartiality required of a judge. The Court emphasized that people's confidence in the judicial system is founded not only on legal knowledge but also on the highest standards of integrity and moral uprightness. A judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial. On whether the designation as acting presiding judge lifted the inhibition: The Court ruled that the designation of respondent Judge as acting presiding judge of RTC-Branch 8 did not automatically lift his previous inhibition from the election case. The administrative order designating him presupposes that the judge has not inhibited himself in the cases assigned to that branch. To hold otherwise would be an absurdity. The fact that the legal researcher was assigned to a different branch (RTC-Branch 10) did not cure the defect, as Mrs. Lolita Garcia remained respondent judge's legal researcher in RTC-Branch 10, and the election case was the same case from which he had inhibited himself. On the issue of forum-shopping: The Court dismissed respondent Judge's argument that complainant was guilty of forum-shopping. Citing the case of PNB-Republic Bank vs. Court of Appeals, the Court reiterated that a case pending before the Ombudsman cannot be considered for purposes of determining forum-shopping because the Ombudsman's power is investigative, and its resolution does not constitute a final judgment. The Ombudsman's duty is to file the appropriate case before the Sandiganbayan.
Main Doctrine
A judge who has voluntarily inhibited himself from a case must refrain from acting on said case even when designated as acting presiding judge of the branch where the case is raffled, to avoid the appearance of impropriety and preserve the integrity of the judiciary.