Yu v. Leanda (Ret.)
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Loreto T. Yu, Municipal Mayor of Alanglang, Leyte, charged respondent Judge Mateo M. Leanda with making special arrangements with a protestant in an election case pending before the respondent's court and with discourtesy during a hearing. The complainant alleged that the respondent instructed a court stenographer, Ramon Cortel, to assist in drafting the decision in Election Case No. 95-05-58 ("Ricardo Salazar v. Loreto T. Yu") for a daily fee, allegedly to be paid by the protestant, Ricardo Salazar. Cortel rendered secretarial services on several evenings and an early morning, for which the respondent gave him P800.00, instructing him to collect the balance from Salazar. The respondent later asked Cortel to refund the P800.00, of which Cortel returned P600.00 immediately and the remaining P200.00 later. Procedural History: The complainant filed a petition for inhibition against the respondent, which was denied. A motion for reconsideration of the denial was set for hearing. During the hearing, retired Judge Alimangohan called the respondent's attention to the omission of the motion from the court calendar. The respondent allegedly shouted at Judge Alimangohan and the stenographer on duty. The respondent retired during the pendency of the administrative case. The case was referred to an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals for investigation. The Petition: The complainant charged the respondent with making special arrangements with a protestant in an election case and with discourtesy during a hearing.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed an act of impropriety by making special arrangements with a protestant in an election case pending before his court. Whether the respondent judge was guilty of discourtesy during a hearing.
Ruling
The respondent Judge Mateo M. Leanda, now retired, is ordered to pay a FINE of P10,000.00, to be deducted from whatever retirement benefits are due him, for committing an act of impropriety. The charge of discourtesy is dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the charge of making special arrangements with a protestant in an election case: The Court found that there was no dispute that the respondent gave the stenographer, Cortel, P800.00 as remuneration for secretarial services in drafting the decision. The controversy lay in the identity of the payor. The complainant asserted that the respondent told Cortel that the protestant, Salazar, would shoulder the expense, which was supported by Cortel's letter and testimony. The respondent, however, gave conflicting statements, claiming he borrowed the money from the Revision Committee Fund, or that it was from the Revision Fund contributed by litigants, or that it was payment for transcript of stenographic notes. The Court found the respondent's version to be conflicting and vague, while Cortel's testimony was consistent. The Revision Committee's work had been completed months prior, making Cortel's remuneration from that fund impossible. The Court concluded that the respondent's actuations engendered doubt on his impartiality and integrity, violating the Code of Judicial Conduct by failing to uphold the integrity and independency of the judiciary and avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. The Court cited the principle that a judge must not only be pure but beyond suspicion, as enunciated in Palang v. Zosa. On the charge of discourtesy: The Court found that the charge of discourtesy was based on the gratuitous allegation of retired Judge Alimangohan. Despite the alleged utterance in the presence of several people, no one, not even the complainant, corroborated Judge Alimangohan's testimony. Furthermore, the transcript of stenographic notes of the alleged remarks was not presented, with Judge Alimangohan offering the excuse that it was not recorded. The Court believed this charge was prompted by an intention to delay the disposition of the election case, as the complainant might have hoped it would convince the respondent to inhibit himself. Therefore, this charge was dismissed.
Main Doctrine
A judge must uphold the integrity and independency of the judiciary and avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. A judge's personal behavior, both in the performance of official duties and in private life, should be above suspicion.