SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. MTJ-00-1266. April 6,
2000]
PROSECUTOR
SALVADOR C. RUIZ, complainant, vs. JUDGE AGELIO L. BRINGAS, Municipal
Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Butuan City, respondent. Sppedâ
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
This concerns the complaint filed by
Prosecutor Salvador C. Ruiz against respondent Judge Agelio L. Bringas of the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Butuan City, charging him with
serious misconduct and inefficiency.
Complainant cites the following instances in
which respondent allegedly used intemperate language against lawyers appearing
before his court:
At the hearing held on August 19, 1998 in
Criminal Case No. 22445, entitle "The People of the Philippines vs. Manuel
Cenita y Cabanlit" (for falsification of a private document), the
following exchange took place between complainant and respondent after the
accused had pleaded guilty:
PROSECUTOR RUIZ:
Although the accused here is pleading
guilty to the charge, but his plea is conditional which is tantamount to a plea
of not guilty, Your Honor.
ATTY. CHAVEZ:
Anyway the amount is immaterial, Your
Honor, so I believe that is unconditional. The penalty is prision correccional
in its medium and minimum period and the maximum is TWO (2) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS
and ONE (1) DAY, the minimum should be FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY, Your
Honor.
PROSECUTOR RUIZ: Joä spped
We would like to take for the record
considering the plea of guilt of the accused here, we would like to request
that we be given until Friday to submit our recommendation.
COURT:
This is very clear, you will prolong
the agony of the accused.
PROSECUTOR RUIZ:
Or this afternoon, I will submit my
recommendation, Your Honor.
COURT:
Does the prosecution admit that you do
not know how to compute?
PROSECUTOR RUIZ:
Your Honor, we are only requesting
until Friday the defense has no right to recommend, Your Honor.
COURT:
Do you think the Court will just
accept that, it is this Court who will determine. You should have been ready
when you come to Court.
PROSECUTOR RUIZ:
But today's incident is only for
arraignment.
ATTY. CHAVEZ:
May I respectfully pray, Your Honor,
that the maximum should be TWO (2) YEARS, TWO (2) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY and
the minimum should be FOUR (4) MONTHS which is within the range.
PROSECUTOR RUIZ: Sppedä jo
This is the prerogative of the
prosecution not the defense. Well, for the record, the prosecution will not
recommend. I am praying that the prosecution be given until Friday to formally
make a written recommendation.
COURT:
Why would you tell the Court what to
do?
PROSECUTOR RUIZ:
No, that is not the import of my
manifestation.
COURT:
Put it on record that Prosecutor Ruiz
does not know how to compute. Put it on record also that Fiscal Ruiz took the
Bar three times.
PROSECUTOR RUIZ:
Put it on record also that the
Honorable presiding judge did not graduate from Ateneo.
COURT:
I will show you the record that I
graduated from Ateneo, Class 1963, you want me to show you the certificate?
PROSECUTOR RUIZ:
We are going beyond, Your Honor. This
is just the defense of the plight of the honor of the prosecution, I am just
praying that the prosecution be given until Friday to submit my recommendation.
Supposing the prosecution would
recommend that the accused be made to pay the civil aspect of the case.
We submit, Your Honor. Miso
COURT:
That is not your problem, that is the
problem of the Court.
What is your problem Fiscal Ruiz?
PROSECUTOR RUIZ:
We stand pat [on] our manifestation.
COURT:
Good?
What can you say about the request of
the prosecution Atty. Chavez?
ATTY. CHAVEZ:
Well, Your Honor, it is just a matter
of computation.
COURT:
Just give the prosecution until August
21, 1998, at 8:30 o'clock in the morning, so that he can confer properly in
their office just to compute the proper penalty.
PROSECUTOR RUIZ:
This is unfair.
COURT:
Call it unfair or whatever.
Call the next case. Nexâ old
In Criminal Case Nos. 17691 and 17692 for
slight physical injuries and direct assault, respectively, respondent issued an
order, dated June 3, 1998, in which, after noting that Prosecutor
Augustus L. Calo called up to say that he could not attend the hearing because
his foot was swollen, sarcastically commented: "At least, Prosecutor Calo
is better than Prosecutor [Hector B.] Salise who did not inform yesterday his
whereabouts, whether he is in hell or in purgatory."
According to complainant, respondent
"is fond of insulting and maligning both young lawyers and old including the
prosecutors who appear before him in the presence of party litigants and
lawyers. He berated new practicing lawyers like Atty. Clementino C. Rabor,
Atty. Roy Orlando Doyon. He insulted an old lawyer, Atty. Ismael Sanchez by
uttering to the latter ‘you go to hell.’ These incidents were just left
unnoticed by the aforementioned lawyers lest they would lose their cases
pending before respondent Judge."
Complainant points out that this is not the
first time that a complaint was filed against respondent. In A.M. No.
MTJ-95-1064, entitled "Cecilia T. Rosacena v. Judge Agelio L.
Bringas," decided on December 6, 1995, respondent was admonished "to
be more tolerant of people, to be discreet in issuing court statements, not to
be onion-skinned and to be kindly to women especially to those in the teaching
profession." In A.M. No. MTJ-89-255, entitled "Elias Ortega v. Judge
Agelio L. Bringas, Municipal Trial Court, Branch 1, Butuan City," decided
on July 3, 1990, respondent was fined P5,000.00 for oppression in ordering the
defendant in an unlawful detainer case imprisoned for contempt of court because
the latter refused to vacate the land when the writ of execution issued by
respondent has not even been served.
Complainant also claims that respondent
misrepresented himself as a graduate of the Ateneo Law School when the fact is
that respondent judge's name does not appear in the directory of the graduates
of that school from 1963 to 1965.
Finally, complainant says that respondent
has changed the name of his court from Municipal Trial Court in Cities to City
Trial Court, notwithstanding the fact that the Judiciary Reorganization Act of
1988 changed the name of previous City Trial Courts.
Complainant, therefore, prays that
administrative sanctions be imposed on respondent. Maniâ kx
Answering the charges against him,
respondent says that he made the remarks at the hearing in Criminal Case
No.22445 on August 19, 1998 in disgust at complainant's unpreparedness to
recommend the imposable penalty after the accused in the case had entered a
plea of guilty. He says that in his time as prosecutor, he was always ready to
submit his recommendation with respect to the penalty once the accused pleads
guilty. Respondent says: "It is indeed so depressing to witness a
prosecutor in a court room who is not well-prepared. Prosecutor Ruiz tears down
his dignity and creates disillusionment and what he did thus wears out the
patience of the court. He glooms the day for everyone." He cites the
following instances of complainant's alleged incompetence: filing a motion for
reconsideration of a judgment of acquittal; filing a complaint for slight
physical injuries when the same had already prescribed; filing a case for
trespass under Article 281 of the Revised Penal Code although he knew that the house
of the complainant was inhabited; and not being present in court when his case
was called.
Respondent claims in extenuation of his
conduct the fact that he had recently suffered a stroke which makes him
irritable. He denies, however, that he told a lawyer to go to hell and
justifies his statement in Criminal Case Nos. 17691-92 that Prosecutor Salise
did not even have the courtesy to tell respondent whether said prosecutor was
"in hell or in purgatory" on the ground that the accused and the prosecution
witnesses attended even though they came from far-flung areas.
This case was referred to the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA), which in its memorandum, dated February 28, 2000,
found:
In the matter at
hand, although the complainant may have used less than polite language in the
course of his argument during the hearing on 19 August 1998, respondent judge
should not be too quick in "returning the favor" to the complainant.
Moreover, the use of the phrase "whether he is in hell or in purgatory"
in referring to Prosecutor Salise in Criminal Cases No. 17691 and 17692 is
obviously uncalled for considering that it does not appear from the records
that Pros. Salise is the one in-charge of the cases.
In view of the
foregoing, we conclude that Judge Bringas should be found guilty of serious
misconduct. Had this been respondent judge's first and only offense, we would
have been willing to recommend a reprimand but as we looked into the records of
respondent judge, it is apparent that neither admonition nor fine could make
him change his attitude towards litigants and lawyers. Thus, we feel compelled
to recommend his suspension from office without pay for at least a month to see
to it that Judge Bringas will receive the right message which the Court sent
him in its resolution dated 3 July 1990 in MTJ-89-255 and in resolution dated 6
December 1995 in MTJ-95-1064. Maniksâ
Anent the charge
of changing the designation of his court from Municipal Trial Court in Cities
to "City Trial Court" [Rollo, p. 9], the same could lead to confusion
among litigants and lawyers as such designation is really not within the
provisions of Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. Hence, this practice must
be stopped and respondent judge should be admonished to be more circumspect in
his choice of words when referring to his court.
Regarding the
charge that respondent had misrepresented himself as a graduate of Ateneo Law
School, the same should be dismissed for being too trivial. Even assuming that
Judge Bringas indeed misrepresented on this aspect, the misrepresentation is
inconsequential as it will not in any way affect his qualification as a judge.
He is still a graduate of law and a prosecutor before he became a judge.
On the basis of these findings, the OCA
recommends that respondent judge be suspended from office without pay for one
(1) month and directed to refrain from using "City Trial Court" in
referring to his court.
The Court finds the recommendation to be
well-taken. The duty to maintain respect for the dignity of the court applies
to members of the bar and bench alike. A judge should be courteous both in his
conduct and in his language especially to those appearing before him. He can
hold counsels to a proper appreciation of their duties to the court, their
clients, and the public without being petty, arbitrary, overbearing, or
tyrannical. He should refrain from conduct that demeans his office and remember
always that courtesy begets courtesy. Above all, he must conduct himself in
such a manner that he gives no reason for reproach. (San Juan v. Bagalacsa, 283
SCRA 416 (1997)) As stated in Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge
should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all his
activities.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Agelio L. Bringas of the Municipal
Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Butuan City is hereby found guilty of conduct
unbecoming a member of the judiciary and is ordered SUSPENDED from office for
one (1) month without pay with WARNING that repetition of the same or similar
acts will be dealt with more severely. He is directed to stop referring to the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Butuan City as the "City Trial
Court" and to use instead its proper designation.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman), Quisumbing,
Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur. Manikanä