Vizcayno v. Dacanay
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Dr. Janos B. Vizcayno filed an administrative complaint against Judge Jasper Jesse G. Dacanay for Gross Ignorance of the Law, Abuse of Authority, Manifest Partiality, and Delay. The complaint stemmed from Civil Case No. 650-R, a forcible entry and damages case where Dr. Vizcayno was the defendant. On March 31, 2009, Judge Dacanay, allegedly fraternizing with the plaintiffs, conducted an ex-parte ocular inspection of the property subject of the case without notice to Dr. Vizcayno. Dr. Vizcayno learned of this through neighbors and subsequently filed a motion for inhibition. The motion was set for hearing on April 24, 2009, but Judge Dacanay proceeded with the hearing of the main case on May 29, 2009, ignoring the motion for inhibition. Procedural History: Dr. Vizcayno argued that the ex-parte ocular inspection violated due process and created an appearance of impropriety, violating Canon 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. Judge Dacanay, in his comment, claimed the inspection was for personal investigation to facilitate settlement and was done in good faith. He argued that administrative complaints should not be pursued simultaneously with judicial remedies and that the motion for inhibition was invalid due to the complainant's counsel's failure to indicate MCLE compliance. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that Judge Dacanay be found guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and be fined P25,000, in addition to an unpaid fine of P11,000 from a previous case. The Executive Judge Marilyn Lagura-Yap found Judge Dacanay liable for conduct prejudicial to the service but not gross ignorance of the law, recommending a reprimand with a warning. The OCA, however, revised the recommendation, proposing a fine of P25,000 plus the unpaid P11,000 fine. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine if Judge Dacanay should be held administratively liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for the ex-parte ocular inspection and for delay in resolving the motion for inhibition.
Issue(s)
Whether Judge Dacanay should be held administratively liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for conducting an ocular inspection without informing the parties. Whether Judge Dacanay should be held administratively liable for the delay in the resolution of the Motion for Inhibition.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the recommendation of the OCA. Judge Jasper Jesse G. Dacanay was found guilty of committing conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service in violation of Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. He was imposed a fine of P30,000, to be paid together with the previously imposed fine of P11,000 from A.M. No. MTJ-03-1480, within 15 days from notice. He was sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service: The Court held that Judge Dacanay's ex-parte ocular inspection on March 31, 2009, without notice to Dr. Vizcayno and his counsel, constituted conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Although the inspection was not necessarily attended with bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or corruption, it was precipitate and imprudent, especially since the pre-trial stage had not yet begun. The Court emphasized that such an act, even with good intentions, created an appearance of impropriety and diminished public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Judges are expected to be scrupulously careful to avoid anything that might suggest their objectivity could be influenced by personal, social, or sundry relations. The failure to inform all parties about the ocular inspection, despite issuing an order on the same day resetting the preliminary conference, further compounded the impropriety. The Court reiterated that an ocular inspection without the notice and presence of the parties is highly improper, as established in previous rulings like Adan v. Judge Abucejo-Luzano. On the issue of delay in the resolution of the motion for inhibition: The Court found no unreasonable delay on the part of Judge Dacanay. The motion for inhibition filed on April 13, 2009, was expunged from the records by Judge Dacanay's Order dated September 30, 2009, because the complainant's counsel failed to indicate the MCLE compliance number and date of issue, as required by Bar Matter No. 1922. This order could be considered a denial of the motion and was issued within the 90-day period to resolve a motion. Furthermore, the resolution of the subsequent motion for reconsideration filed on October 21, 2009, was arguably delayed due to the directive from the Office of the Court Administrator on November 9, 2009, for Judge Dacanay to comment on the administrative complaint. Although Judge Dacanay eventually inhibited himself on March 10, 2010, the Court found that his actions regarding the motion for inhibition were within the constitutional period for resolution, considering the procedural issues raised by the lack of MCLE compliance.
Main Doctrine
A judge's ex-parte ocular inspection without notice to the parties constitutes conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, even if not attended by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or corruption, as it creates an appearance of impropriety and diminishes public confidence in the judiciary. Failure to comply with MCLE requirements in a motion for inhibition may justify the expunction of the motion from the records.