THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. MTJ-00-1262. April 6, 2000]
RODOLFO M.
TAPIRU, complainant, vs. JUDGE PINERA A. BIDEN, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
VITUG, J.:
On 24 February 1997, Rodolfo M. Tapiru filed
before the Office of the Court Administrator ("OCA") a complaint
against Judge Pinera Biden, Presiding Judge of the 6th Municipal Trial Court of
Kabugao, Apayao, charging the latter with arbitrary detention, grave
misconduct, and grave abuse of authority.
The antecedents of this administrative case
started when, on 10 October 1996, Orlando Laylay and Romero Bucnag were being
investigated by the Kabugao Police for the murder of one Dacusin Awisi. In the
course of the investigation, Laylay pointed to complainant's son, Richard
Tapiru, as being the assailant in the killing on 28 July 1996 of a certain
Mario Antonio Maglama. Upon the request of the police investigators, Juan
Tapiru, an uncle of Richard Tapiru, accompanied the latter to the police
station. On the same day, 10 October 1996, Chief of Police Marner Dacayon
requested for a judicial order for the protective custody of Richard Tapiru
which respondent judge forthwith granted even before any criminal case could be
filed. Complainant asserted that Richard Tapiru did not voluntarily appear
before the police but was arrested without warrant on 8 October 1996 or two
days before respondent issued his 10th October 1996 order
aforesaid. Richard Tapiru was allegedly forced to remain in custody until 31
December 1996.[1]
According to complainant, the above incident
was not the first time that respondent judge and his "cohorts" at the
Philippine National Police ("PNP") filed false charges against his
son.[2] In another case for "Alarms and Scandals"
against Richard Tapiru filed by PNP Cpl. Manuel Enciso, and lodged in the sala
of respondent judge, the latter wrote a letter pressuring the Tapirus to
enter into an amicable settlement with Cpl. Enciso.[3]
Complainant additionally charged respondent
Judge for having reportedly prevented the arrest of his own son, Hatcher Biden,
an accused in a case for attempted murder[4] and, likewise, for conducting adoption proceedings
despite his court's utter lack of jurisdiction thereover.[5]
In answer to the charges, respondent judge
explained that complainant's son, Richard Tapiru, was an incorrigible criminal,
with five criminal cases pending against him. Charges, including murder and
robbery, remained unresolved because of fear of witnesses for their lives.[6] Anent the charge for arbitrary detention, respondent
judge averred that, contrary to allegations, complainant's son was committed to
the court only on 10 October 1996, as so attested to by the arresting officers
themselves, on which date he issued an Order of Protective Custody.[7]
Respondent denied having pressured the
Tapirus to enter into a compromise agreement in the Alarms and Scandals case.
While he admitted having written a letter addressed to complainant, it was
because, he said, the Tapirus themselves pleaded for more time to settle the
case with complainant SPO4 Manuel Enciso. Suprema
Relative to the charge that he conducted
adoption proceedings in his court, respondent argued that the proceedings took
place in 1984 when the matter was supposedly still under the jurisdiction of
municipal courts. Juris
The case was referred to Honorable Quirino
M. Andaya, Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Luna-Kalinga, Apayao,
for investigation, report and recommendation. Following his investigation,
Judge Andaya submitted his findings; thus:[8]
1. Sworn affidavit
complaint dated February 24, 1997 relative to Criminal Case 40-K-89 entitled;
People vs. Richard Tapiru; Alarm and Scandal (Exh.'B'-P-2records). Scjuris
Relative to this
case, respondent judge wrote two (2) letters to complainant, Rodolfo dated
August 25, 1989 (see records pages 4, 5, 39 and 40). The gist of these letters
requires, complainant to appear before the office of respondent for the latter
to inquire the status of the alleged amicable settlement between Cpl. Manuel
Enciso, complainant, and Rodolfo's son, Richard, accused in the aforementioned
criminal case pending before the sala of herein respondent judge.
It is the
contention of complainant that these two (2) letters of respondent manifest an
unholy conspiracy between him (respondent judge) and Cpl. Enciso to extort money
from Rodolfo and his son for the dropping and/or dismissal of the case for they
(Rodolfo and son) never entered or talk to Cpl. Enciso for the settlement of
the case knowing that the same was filed merely to harass complainant and his
son.
This belief was
further bolstered when the case was eventually dismissed by respondent judge
without hearing the case on the merits. Jurissc
On this complaint,
respondent admitted to have written both letters (Exh.'2 and '3 for respondent)
but denied any evil design in writing said letters. If he (respondent) did it,
it was meant to help the parties come to terms for this was what Cpl. Enciso
informed respondent Judge(Exh.'4').
Perusal of the two
(2) letters could hardly be deduced any conspiracy between respondent and Cpl.
Enciso to solicit any consideration from complainant for the dismissal of the
case filed against respondent's son.
But the acts of
respondent in writing those two (2) letters are unprocedural. What should have
been done under the premises is to set the case for hearing and dispose the
same accordingly. Misjuris
2. That in
connection with the filing of Criminal Case No. 1-96 for Attempted Murder
against respondent's son, Hatcher, the former had been protecting and coddling
with his son which caused the long delay in the arrest of the accused.
(Exh.'A'-letter complaint).
On this complaint,
respondent denied having extended any protection for his son Hatcher, but did
not give any explanation for the long delay in the arrest of respondent's son.
A glimpse of the
factual backdrop of this case reveals that respondent's son is studying in one
of the colleges and universities in Tuguegarao, Cagayan, with no information
given to the court, hence the warrant of arrest was issued for execution by the
PNP Police Station of Kabugao, Apayao, where respondent and his son were
residing. Since respondent's, son is not in Kabugao but in Tuguegarao, Cagayan,
the warrant was returned to the court unexecuted by the reason that
respondent's son could not be located in Poblacion, Kabugao. This cause the
delay in the arrest of respondent's son. However, when the alias warrant of
arrest was issued and perhaps accused might have learned the issuance of the
warrant he voluntarily surface and brought to court for commitment leading to
the dismissal of the case upon motion of the prosecution based on the Affidavit
of Desistance executed by private complainant.
In a nutshell, the
delay in the arrest of respondent's son could not be attributed to respondent
although in a situation like this, in order to forestall any suspicion of
coddling by respondent he should have voluntarily brought his son to the bar of
justice and face the accusation. In this way, respondent could have saved the
image of the Judiciary in general from being tarnished and his reputation as
member of the bench. Jjlex
3. The act of
respondent in ordering the incarceration of complainant son, Richard, prior to
the filing and resolution of Criminal Case No.217-96 for murder by respondent.
We beg not to
discuss this considering the matter to be sub-judice in view of the pendency of
two (2) counts of Arbitrary Detention cases (Crim. Cases No. 1-97 & 2-97)
filed against respondent et.al., before this court.
4. The act of the
respondent in accepting adoption case (Exh. 'D-1' decision dated September 4
,1984) knowing that MCTCs or MTCs has no jurisdiction)
Anent this
complaint, respondent explained that he did it on good faith. At that time
(1984) he was not aware that under Batas Pambansa Blg.129 which reorganized the
entire judiciary of the Philippines the concurrent jurisdiction of the Justice
of the Peace (now MCTC's, MTCs and MeTCs) and the Court of First Instance (now
RTC) on adoption cases has been abolished.
It cannot be
gainsaid that respondent committed a serious blunder when it accepted and
decided the subject adoption case in 1984 for Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 has
become effective sometime in 1981. Newmiso
But on this score,
may respondent be punished for Grave Abuse of Authority or Misconduct as
complained of by Rodolfo Tapiru? The answer should rather be on the negative.
Why? Because grave abuse of authority or misconduct presupposes that respondent
knows his action to be wrong yet persists in doing the same.
But again, should
respondent be completely exonerated by the reason that the complaint is
misplaced? For the right complaint should have been gross ignorance of law.
To our honest
opinion, while severe punishment should not be exacted against respondent, the
failure of the latter to keep abreast of the law especially on the jurisdiction
of the court where he is presiding as a Judge reflects his lack of dexterity on
a "Not so difficult question of law" which could be the basis of good
faith. Plainly speaking, respondent committed gross ignorance on simple
jurisdiction of the court where he is sitting as a Judge.
The Investigating Judge ended his report
with the following recommendation:
"As a whole
respondent committed a single act of impropriety for writing the, aforesaid two
(2) letters instead of setting the case for hearing; simple act of misdemeanor
for not helping the authorities to bring his son to face the bar of justice and
forestall the so-called "Justice delayed, Justice denied" and for
gross ignorance of the jurisdiction of the first level courts after the passage
and effectivity of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.
Wherefore,
premises all considered, it is respectfully recommended that respondent be
reprimanded and fine for TWO THOUSAND (P2,000.00) Pesos, Philippine
Currency."
Except for suggesting an increase in the
recommended fine of P2,000.00, the OCA concurred with the assessment and
conclusions of the Investigating Judge.
The Court finds no cogent reason to depart
from the above evaluation and recommendations of the OCA. Acctmis
The assumption to office by a judge casts
upon him duties and restrictions peculiar to his exalted position.[9] He is the visible representation of law and of
justice.[10] His official conduct in and outside court is to be
held invariably free from impropriety or, even alone, an appearance thereof.[11] Respondent judge may not have been urged by ulterior
motives in writing to complainant concerning the compromise agreement in a case
pending before his court; nevertheless, being hardly, a normal thing to do, his
actuation can easily be misunderstood or can put to doubt even his own
impartiality on the matter before. him. If, indeed, there have been efforts
towards a compromise agreement, the judge could have made an official inquiry
thereof, not through a private letter, but in open court or in a court order
with copies thereof being furnished to all parties. It is not right for a judge
to discard the accepted rudiments of court procedures.[12] In order to avoid suspicions of wrongdoing, a
respect for traditional and prevailing rules must be observed and kept
constantly in mind. A judge should, in fine, administer his office with due
regard to the integrity of the judicial system. He must not be perceived as
being a repository of arbitrary power[13] but as one dispensing justice under the sanction of
the rule of law. Misact
In conducting adoption proceedings before
his court, respondent has revealed an ignorance of the law. It is inconceivable
for him to remain unaware of the scope of his jurisdiction, a good three years
from the enactment of the law defining that jurisdiction. A judge is called
upon to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and
procedural rules;[14] it is his duty to keep always abreast with law and
jurisprudence.[15]
The requirement that a judge be above
suspicion extends to the conduct of his private life. While respondent judge
may argue that he did not protect his son, Hatcher Biden, from arrest, his
actuation relative thereto must never serve to fuel suspicion over a misuse of
the prestige of his office to enhance personal interest. Sdjad
The investigating judge did right in
refraining from passing judgment on the charges of arbitrary detention of
complainant's son, Richard Tapiru, so as not to preempt under any degree or
circumstance the judgment, such as may be warranted, in Criminal Case No. 1-97
and Criminal Case 2-97 still pending against respondent. Sppedsc
WHEREFORE, respondent judge Pinera A. Tapiru is held liable
for simple act of impropriety, simple act of misdemeanor and gross ignorance of
the law, and he is hereby REPRIMANDED and ordered to pay a FINE in the
amount of Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00),with a warning that the commission
of similar conduct in the future will be dealt with severely. Calrsc
SO ORDERED.
Melo, (Chairman), Panganiban, Purisima, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.
[1] The foregoing facts appear as the findings of facts
made by Prosecutor Godofredo Guerrero, OIC Provincial Prosecutor, in his
Resolution in P.I. Cases Nos. 50-96 and 49-96 entitled "Richard Tapiru,
Complainant, vs. Judge Pinera Biden, et al., Respondents"
and "Romero Bucnag, Complainant, versus Judge Pinera Biden et. al.,
Respondents, for Arbitrary Detention, pp-608, RECORDS.
[2] Affidavit of Rodolfo Tapiru dated 25 February 1997,
RECORDS, p. 2.
[3] Letter of respondent Judge Biden to Complainant dated
12 October 1989 and 28 August 1989, RECORDS pp. 3-4.
[4] Affidavit of Rodolfo Tapiru dated April 1997,
RECORDS, p. 10.
[5] Affidavit of Rodolfo Tapiru dated 5 November 1997,
RECORDS p. 37. See respondent judge’s Decision on the Adoption Proceedings
entitled "In the Matter of the Adoption of Minor Child Jeanne Marie, Spec.
Pro No. 20-84-4.
[6] Sworn Letter of Judge Tapiru to the Court
Administrator, dated 23 June 1997.
[7] See statement of police inspector Marner B. Dacayon
dated 23 June 1997, RECORDS, pp. 18-19; Certificate of Prison Guard Zosimo
Zibal, dated 5 June 1997, RECORDS, P. 26.
[8] This portion of the report of Executive Judge Quirino
Andaya is reproduced in the Memorandum of Court Administrator Alfredo L.
Benipayo.
[9] Canons of Judicial Ethics, (Administrative Order No.
162, Department of Justice, 1 August 1946)
[10] Orban vs. Borja, 143 SCRA 634.
[11] Paguirigan vs. Clavano, G.R. Adm. Matter No.
537-C.J. 19 December 1975 4, 61 SCRA 411.
[12] Castillo v. Juan, G.R. No. 39516, 28 January
1975, 62 SCRA 124.
[13] Lea Chu vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 23687, 26
February 1968.
[14] Libarios vs. Dabalos, 199 SCRA 48; Cariaga vs.
Justo Guerrero, 23 SCRA 1061.
[15] Candia vs. Tagabucba, A.M. No. 528-MJ, 12
September 1977; Baja vs. Racasio, A.M. No. 561-MJ, 29 December 1976.