A.M. No. 801-CFI - FEBRUARY 1979 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE A.M. No. 801-CFIFebruary 2, 1979 Jorge P. Royeca vs. Pedro Samson C. Animas G.R. No. L-25601February 2, 1979 Luisa V. Vda. De Guison vs. Philippine Constabulary Chief G.R. No. L-32792February 2, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Dionisio Bastasa, et al. G.R. No. L-49112February 2, 1979 Leovillo C. Agustin vs. Hon. Romeo F. Edu, et al. G.R. No. L-42608February 6, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Gavino J. Tampus G.R. No. L-46942February 6, 1979 Romula Mabale, et al. vs. Hon. Simplicio Apalisok, et al. G.R. No. L-49705-09February 8, 1979 Tomatic Aratuc, et al. vs. Commission on Elections, et al. G.R. No. L-19937February 19, 1979 Associacion De Agricultures De Talisay-Silay, Inc. vs. Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc. G.R. No. L-41430February 19, 1979 Angel Bautista vs. Matilde Lim, et al. G.R. No. L-49818February 20, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Lucas M. Ramos G.R. No. L-41684February 21, 1979 Antonio Cruz vs. Onofre Villaluz G.R. No. L-26096February 27, 1979 Director of Lands vs. Silveretra Ababa, et al. G.R. No. L-37737February 27, 1979 Maximo Nocnoc vs. Isidro A. Vera G.R. No. L-38837February 27, 1979 Jose S. Dineros vs. Marciano C. Roque G.R. No. L-44063February 27, 1979 Victoriano F. Corales vs. Employees Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-46306February 27, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Mariano C. Castañeda, Jr. G.R. No. L-46582February 27, 1979 Pogong Soliweg vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-48315February 27, 1979 Atty. Dominador B. Borje vs. Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, Branch II, et al. A.M. No. 1769February 28, 1979 Cresencio Garcia vs. al berto Asilo A.M. No. 1641February 28, 1979 Rodolfo Paa vs. Valentin C. Remigio A.M. No. 1582February 28, 1979 Enedena Agawa Vda. De Oribiana vs. Fidencio H. Gerio A.M. No. P-1687February 28, 1979 Angel Manalili vs. Danilo Viesca G.R. No. L-24392February 28, 1979 Anacleto Ondap vs. Bonifacio Abugaa G.R. No. L-25316February 28, 1979 Mla. Railroad Co., Credit Union Inc. vs. Mla. Railroad Co. G.R. No. L-27343February 28, 1979 Manuel G. Singsong, Et. al vs. Isabela Sawmill, Et. al . G.R. No. L-27856-57February 28, 1979 Rustico Pascual vs. Court of Industrial Relations G.R. No. L-29857February 28, 1979 Legaspi Oil Company, Inc. vs. Doroteo L. Serrano G.R. No. L-31481, L-31482 and L-31483February 28, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Sarip G.R. No. L-33063February 28, 1979 Catalino Catindig vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-39367February 28, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Remigio A. Conchada G.R. No. L-41107February 28, 1979 Amanda L. Dela Cruz vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-41819February 28, 1979 People of the Philippines vs. Winston P. Manlapaz G.R. No. L-42455February 28, 1979 Ernesto Cercado vs. De Dios Transportation Co. G.R. No. L-42774February 28, 1979 Manila Times Publishing Co., Inc. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-43006February 28, 1979 Bibiana Caoili vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-43555February 28, 1979 Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage Sys. vs. Workmen's Compensation Com. G.R. No. L-43748February 28, 1979 Hartford Fire Insurance Co. vs. E. Razon, Inc. G.R. No. L-43854February 28, 1979 Gliceria Lasarte vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-44353February 28, 1979 Martha Feranil vs. Gumersindo Arcilla G.R. No. L-44884February 28, 1979 Benjamin Jaranilla, Jr. vs. Midpantao L. Adil G.R. No. L-45270February 28, 1979 Luis T. Peggy, Et. al . vs. Lauro L. Tapucar G.R. No. L-45633February 28, 1979 Elizabeth Papilota, Et. al . vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-48219February 28, 1979 Manuel J. C. Reyes vs. Leonor Ines-Luciano G.R. No. L-49375February 28, 1979 Leopoldo Salcedo vs. Filemon H. Mendoza The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Jorge P. Royeca vs. Pedro Samson C. Animas Luisa V. Vda. De Guison vs. Philippine Constabulary Chief People of the Philippines vs. Dionisio Bastasa, et al. Leovillo C. Agustin vs. Hon. Romeo F. Edu, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Gavino J. Tampus Romula Mabale, et al. vs. Hon. Simplicio Apalisok, et al. Tomatic Aratuc, et al. vs. Commission on Elections, et al. Associacion De Agricultures De Talisay-Silay, Inc. vs. Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc. Angel Bautista vs. Matilde Lim, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Lucas M. Ramos Antonio Cruz vs. Onofre Villaluz Director of Lands vs. Silveretra Ababa, et al. Maximo Nocnoc vs. Isidro A. Vera Jose S. Dineros vs. Marciano C. Roque Victoriano F. Corales vs. Employees Compensation Commission People of the Philippines vs. Mariano C. Castañeda, Jr. Pogong Soliweg vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission Atty. Dominador B. Borje vs. Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, Branch II, et al. Cresencio Garcia vs. al berto Asilo Rodolfo Paa vs. Valentin C. Remigio Enedena Agawa Vda. De Oribiana vs. Fidencio H. Gerio Angel Manalili vs. Danilo Viesca Anacleto Ondap vs. Bonifacio Abugaa Mla. Railroad Co., Credit Union Inc. vs. Mla. Railroad Co. Manuel G. Singsong, Et. al vs. Isabela Sawmill, Et. al . Rustico Pascual vs. Court of Industrial Relations Legaspi Oil Company, Inc. vs. Doroteo L. Serrano People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Sarip Catalino Catindig vs. Court of Appeals People of the Philippines vs. Remigio A. Conchada Amanda L. Dela Cruz vs. Court of Appeals People of the Philippines vs. Winston P. Manlapaz Ernesto Cercado vs. De Dios Transportation Co. Manila Times Publishing Co., Inc. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission Bibiana Caoili vs. Republic of the Philippines Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage Sys. vs. Workmen's Compensation Com. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. vs. E. Razon, Inc. Gliceria Lasarte vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission Martha Feranil vs. Gumersindo Arcilla Benjamin Jaranilla, Jr. vs. Midpantao L. Adil Luis T. Peggy, Et. al . vs. Lauro L. Tapucar Elizabeth Papilota, Et. al . vs. Court of Appeals Manuel J. C. Reyes vs. Leonor Ines-Luciano Leopoldo Salcedo vs. Filemon H. Mendoza The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.
Manila
EN BANC
A.M. No. 801-CFI February 2, 1979
DR. JORGE P. ROYECA,complainant,
vs.
JUDGE PEDRO SAMSON C. ANIMAS,respondent.
FERNANDEZ,J.:
In two (2) similar letters under oath, one sent to the president of the Philippines and referred to Us and another directly sent to this Court in September 1974, the complaint Jorge P. Royeca charged Judge Pedro Samson C. Animas of the Court of First Instance of Southern Cotabato, Branch I, General Santos City, with improper decorum misconduct and/or having committed acts unbecoming of a judge. Specifically, the respondent Judge is charged with acting in a pugnacious and arrogant manner and in uttering to the complainant the following words: "You are stupid." "There are octopuses and crocodiles here and you are one" and the complainant "self-annointed local tyrant."
The respondent submitted his comment in a second indorsement dated December 4, 1974 wherein he dried having acted in an arrogant and pugnacious manner and alleged that he uttered the words complained of without personal allusion to the complainant.
The complainant filed a reply to the comment.
In the resolution of this Court dated March 9, 1976, the case was referred to Justice Lorenzo Relova of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation.1
The record shows that Justice Relova immediately set the hearing of the investigation on May 3, 4, 6 and 7, 1976 at 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon in the Court of Appeals. On motion of the respondent and without objection of the complainant, the hearing was re-set to June 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10 and 11, 1976, at the time and place.
Before the hearing, the complainant filed an affidavit which reads:
1. That he is the complainant in the above entitled case;
2. That after a serious reflection and deliberation of the circumstances which led to the filing of aforesaid complaint, he has realized that the same was spawned by a minor misunderstanding which was not attributable to anybody's fault;
3. That he is executing this affidavit asking for the dismissal of this administrative case as he has lost his interest in the prosecution of the case.2
On June 1, 1976, at the initial hearing of the case, both complainant and respondent, notwithstanding due notice given them, failed to appear. Respondent's counsel, Atty. Salvador H. Laurel, appeared and moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground, among others, that the complainant has lost interest in the prosecution of the case which is shown by his allegation in paragraph 3 of this affidavit and his actual non-appearance at the hearing.
In his report and recommendation dated June 9, 1976, Justice Relova recommended the dismissal of the case because:
Administrative actions are intended to improve and maintain the high standards of public service, to secure faithful and efficient performance of official functions, and to preserve the faith and confidence — not of disgruntled litigants but — of the people in their government and its officials. But then, if complainant would not appear at the investigation, coupled with an affidavit of desistance, the charge that the respondent berated and humiliated the complaint cannot be substantiated considering the denial by the respondent of the charge and the fact that the proceedings during the alleged incident was not recorded by the stenographer. There is, therefore, no other alternative for your investigator but to recommend the dismissal of this administrative matter.3
The complaint arose from an incident in Civil Case No. 1445 where complainant as plaintiff filed a motion to disqualify the respondent from hearing the case and to transfer the case to Branch II of the Court of First Instance of South Cotabato at Koronadal. The respondent considered the allegations of the motion as a slur and assault on his integrity and required the complainant and his counsel to show cause why they should not be cited for direct contempt. It was at the said hearing of the show cause order where the acts complained of were allegedly committed. The respondent issued the Order of Direct Contempt against the petitioner on September 6, 1974. On a petition for certiorari to this Court by the complainant the said Direct Contempt Order was set aside in a decision promulgated on May 3, 1976.4The pertinent portion of the decision reads:
It is well to affirm finally that this Court was not unmindful of the fact that whether rightly or wrongly, respondent Judge was laboring under the sense of having been affronted not only by the motion for inhibition but by previous incidents, there being obviously personality differences. He must have been strengthened in the belief that he had the right to feel offended with the admission by petitioner and counsel that such motion contained language that did cast reflection on his integrity. Had there been adherence, however, to the standard announced inAzucena vs. Muñoz,of a judge being a cerebral man "who deliberately holds in cheek the tug and pull of purely personal preferences and prejudices," perhaps he could have disposed of the whole matter with an admonition. Moreover, from the standpoint of the conduct and demeanor expected of a judge, he could have avoided resort to intemperate which only revealed his emotional state. He did seek to impress on this Court that the words complied of in the challenged order, on their face vitriolic and scurrilous were lifted out of context. There is some plausibility to such a view. Nonetheless, respondent judge is well-advised to refrain in the future from resort to the language of vilification He may not be fully aware of it, but to do so only detracts from the respect due a member of the judiciary.5
The respondent has departed from the proper judicial decorum by the use of such intemperate and insulting language as "polluted and stupid man", "self-annointed local tyrant", "dictator" and "crocodiles and octopuses" although the last two words were allegedly used out of context. These words have no place in a judicial record.
The respondent's choice of words is not proper. He should not resort to undignified language.ℒαwρhi৷
WHEREFORE,the respondent, Judge Pedro Samson C. Animas, is hereby admonished to refrain from using intemperate and insulting language in his future judicial actuations.
SO ORDERED.
Castro, C.J., Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Santos and Guerrero, JJ., concur.
Footnotes