EN BANC

[A.M. No. RTJ-97-1375. October 16, 1997]

ATTY. ROMULO B. MACALINTAL, complainant, vs. JU !" AN!"LITO C. T"#, Re$%o&'( Tr%'( Co)rt, Br'&c* +7, Ro,'r%o, B't'&$',, respondent. "CI-ION
PER CURIAM.

In a letter, dated 01 April 1996, Atty. Romulo B. Macalintal related to the Court the actuations o !ud"e An"elito C. #eh, E$ecuti%e !ud"e and the &residin" !ud"e o the Re"ional #rial Court, Branch '(, Rosario, Batan"as, relati%e to Election Case No. R)9*) 001. It +ould appear that !ud"e #eh issued a resolution ad%erse to the client o Atty. Macalintal in the a orenum,ered election case. Atty. Macalintal -uestioned the resolution, via a petition or certiorari, ,e ore the Commission on Elections ./C0ME1EC/2. 3hile the case +as pendin" at the C0ME1EC, !ud"e #eh acti%ely participated in the proceedin"s ,y ilin" his comment on the petition and, still later, an ur"ent mani estation. Complainant la+yer orth+ith iled a motion to pre%ent respondent !ud"e rom urther actin" on Election Case No. R)9*)001. Instead o actin" on the motion or inhi,ition, !ud"e #eh hired his o+n la+yer and iled his ans+er ,e ore his o+n court, +ith the prayer4

"1. That Judgment be rendered dismissing the Motion for Inhibition for lack of sufficient factual and legal basis; "2. Ordering the movant to pa the undersigned respondent in the amount of !1""#"""."" as attorne $s fees and e%penses for litigation; "&. 'ost of this suit. "(espondent respectfull pra s for such other reliefs and remedies as ma be deemed )ust and e*uitable in the premises."
+1,

In its resolution o 19 Au"ust 1996, the Court re-uired respondent to comment on the letter)complaint. In his comment, dated 50 6eptem,er 1996, respondent !ud"e admitted that he had iled his o+n pleadin"s +ith the C0ME1EC out o respect and in de erence to the order o 16 No%em,er 199* o the C0ME1EC En Banc re-uirin" respondents to comment on the petition. #he ur"ent mani estation he iled +as meant to recti y the assertion o

complainant that he had erroneously cited 6ection ', Rule 7*, o the 0mni,us Election Code. Attached to his comment ,e ore this Court +as his resolution, dated 71 !uly 1996, +here respondent !ud"e, rulin" on the motion or inhi,ition, held4

"-./(/0O(/# in vie1 of all the foregoing considerations# this 'ourt hereb rendered this resolution on the pending incidents to 1it2 "1. The protestee$s unverified Motion to 3ismiss and Motion to 4trike Out Opposition are hereb 3/5I/3 for lack of sufficient legal and factual basis; "2. The Motion for Inhibition is like1ise 3/5I/3 for lack of sufficient legal and factual basis; "&. 6nd for compelling the respondent Judge to engage the services of counsel 1ho prepared the 6ns1er to the Motion for Inhibition# the !rotestee$s counsel# 6tt . (omulo 7. Macalintal is hereb ordered to pa !1""#"""."" as 6ttorne $s 0ees and litigation e%penses incident to his Motion for Inhibition. "4O O(3/(/3."
+2,

In its resolution, dated 15 March 199(, the Court resol%ed to4

"8a9 DIRECT Judge 6ngelito Teh to ACT on the motion for inhibition in accordance 1ith the procedure prescribed in 4ection 2# (ule 1&: of the (ules of 'ourt; "8b9 TREAT the letter dated 6pril 1# 1;;< of complainant as an administrative complaint against Judge 6ngelito Teh and docket accordingl ; "8c9 CONSIDER the comment dated 4eptember 2"# 1;;< of Judge Teh filed in compliance 1ith the resolution of 6ugust 1;# 1;;< as comment on the complaint; and "8d9 re*uire the parties to MANIFEST 1ithin fifteen 81=9 da s from notice hereof 1hether the are 1illing to submit this case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings alread filed herein."
+&,

In his mani estation, dated 59 April 199(, respondent !ud"e e$pressed his +illin"ness to su,mit the case or resolution on the ,asis o his comment +hich he repleaded and reproduced. 8e also made his o,ser%ation that the complaint o Atty. Macalintal had not ,een under oath. In his compliance, dated 59 April 199(, complainant in ormed the Court that his letter o 01 April 1996 +as not intended as an administrati%e complaint ,ut that he +as lea%in" the matter o treatin" it as such to the discretion o this Court in the e$ercise o its administrati%e control and super%ision o%er the mem,ers o the :udiciary. 8e li;e+ise

mani ested his +illin"ness to su,mit the case or resolution on the ,asis o the pleadin"s already iled. 8e, in passin", in ormed the Court that the resolution o 71 !uly 1996 issued ,y respondent :ud"e +as ound ,y the C0ME1EC to ,e /irrational./ 3hile Rule 190 o the Rules o Court re-uires that complaints a"ainst !ud"es should ,e s+orn to, the Court deems it proper to dispense +ith the re-uirement since the letter o Atty. Macalintal, upon the recommendation o the 0 ice o the Court Administrator, has hereto ore ,een treated as an administrati%e complaint and considerin", urther, that respondent !ud"e, in his comment, practically admitted all pertinent alle"ations o complainant. <nder the doctrine o res ipsa loquitur, the Court may impose its authority upon errin" :ud"es +hose actuations, on their ace, +ould sho+ "ross incompetence, i"norance o the la+ or misconduct.
=9>

6ection *, Rule 6*, o the Rules o Court pro%ides4

=*>

"4ec. =. 3efendants and costs in certain cases. > -hen the petition filed related to the acts or omissions of a court or )udge# the petitioner shall )oin# as parties defendant 1ith such court or )udge# the person or persons interested in sustaining the proceedings in the court; and it shall be the dut of such person or persons to appear and defend# both in his or their o1n behalf and in behalf of the court or )udge affected b the proceedings# and costs a1arded in such proceedings in favor of the petitioner shall be against the person or persons in interest onl # and not against the court or )udge."
E%idently, the acti%e participation o respondent :ud"e, ,ein" merely a nominal or ormal party in the certiorari proceedin"s, is not called or. In #ur-ue?a vs. 8ernando, the Court has e$plained4
=6>

=(>

"% % % 8?9nder 4ection = of (ule <= of the (ules of 'ourt# a )udge 1hose order is challenged in an appellate court does not have to file an ans1er or take active part in the proceeding unless e%pressl directed b order of this 'ourt. It is the dut of the private respondent to appear and defend# both in his@her behalf and in behalf of the 'ourt or )udge 1hose order or decision is at issue. The )udge should maintain a detached attitude from the case and should not 1aste his time b taking an active part in a proceeding 1hich relates to official actuations in a case but should appl himself to his principal task of hearing and ad)udicating the cases in his court. .e is merel a nominal part to the case and has no personal interest nor personalit therein."
+A,

Respondent@s olly did not stop there. 3hen complainant iled a motion or respondent@s inhi,ition in Election Case No. R)9*)001, the latter, instead o actin" thereon in accordance +ith 6ection 5, Rule 17(, o the Rules o Court, hired his o+n la+yer, iled his ans+er to the motion and orth+ith denied the same, orderin", at the same time, Atty. Macalintal to pay &100,000.00 ,y +ay o attorney@s ees and liti"ation e$penses / or compellin" the respondent !ud"e to en"a"e the ser%ices o counsel +ho prepared the Ans+er to the Motion or Inhi,ition./ Respondent !ud"e, in ine, acted ,oth as a party liti"ant and as a :ud"e ,e ore his o+n court.

In the Court@s resolution o 15 March 199(, respondent +as directed to act on the motion or inhi,ition in accordance +ith the procedure prescri,ed in 6ection 5, Rule 17(, o the Rules o Court. Respondent !ud"e either misunderstood or chose to misunderstand the directi%e or, in his order, dated 1( April 199(, he "ranted the motion or inhi,ition /in compliance +ith the resolution/ o the Court. Clearly, the Court, in its resolution o 15 March 199(, merely re-uired respondent !ud"e to act on the motion or inhi,ition in accordance +ith the Rules, i.e., /to either proceed +ith the trial, or +ithdra+ there rom, in accordance +ith his determination o the -uestion o his dis-uali ication./ Certainly, he +as not directed ,y the Court either to "rant or deny the motion.
=9>

Respondent :ud"e should ,e reminded that decisions o courts need not only ,e :ust ,ut must ,e percei%ed to ,e :ust and completely ree rom suspicion or dou,t ,oth in its airness and inte"rity. !ud"es, ,ein" the %isi,le representation o the la+ and, most importantly, o :ustice, should ,e the em,odiment o independence, competence, and inte"rity. 0nce a"ain, the Court +ould also +ish to say that a mem,er o the ,ench must continuously ;eep himsel a,reast o le"al and :urisprudential de%elopments and sho+ ac-uaintance +ith statutes, procedural rules and authorities doctrines. Not or a moment, indeed, does the learnin" process in la+ cease.
=10> =11> =15> =17>

In the case ,e ore us, respondent@s "ross de%iation rom the accepta,le norm or :ud"es is clearly mani est. In Castaos vs. Escao, Jr., the Court has had occasion to state4
=19>

"-hen the inefficienc springs from a failure to consider so basic and elemental a rule# a la1 or a principle in the discharge of his duties# a )udge is either too incompetent and undeserving of the position and title he holds or he is too vicious that the oversight or omission 1as deliberatel done in bad faith and in grave abuse of )udicial authorit . In both instances# the )udge$s dismissal is in order. 6fter all# faith in the administration of )ustice e%ists onl if ever part >litigant is assured that occupants of the bench cannot )ustl be accused of deficienc in their grasp of legal principles."
+1=,

/#"R"0OR", indin" respondent !ud"e An"elito C. #eh "uilty o "ross i"norance o the la+, the Court here,y dismisses him rom the ser%ice +ith or eiture o all ,ene its and +ith pre:udice to re)employment in any other ,ranch, instrumentality or a"ency o the "o%ernment, includin" "o%ernment)o+ned and controlled corporations. !ud"e C. #eh is here,y en:oined upon his receipt hereo to cease and desist rom per ormin" any and all acts pertainin" to his o ice. #his decision is immediately e$ecutory. 1et a copy o this decision ,e attached to the records o !ud"e An"elito C. #eh +ith this Court. -O OR "R" .

Narvasa, C.J., Davide Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, apunan, Mendo!a, "rancisco, #ermosisima, Jr., Pangani$an, and%orres, Jr., JJ., concur. Regalado, J., on lea%e.

=1>

Rollo, p. 11. Rollo, p. 65. Rollo, p. '1. Consolidated Ban; and #rust Corporation vs. Capistrano, 1*9 6CRA 9(. #he amended rule states4

=5>

=7>

=9>

=*>

/6EC. *. Respondents and costs in certain cases. ) 3hen the petition iled relates to the acts or omissions o a :ud"e, court, -uasi):udicial a"ency, tri,unal, corporation, ,oard, o icer or person, the petitioner shall :oin, as pri%ate respondent or respondents +ith such pu,lic respondent or respondents, the person or persons interested in sustainin" the proceedin"s in the courtA and it shall ,e the duty o such pri%ate respondents to appear and de end, ,oth in his or their o+n ,ehal and in ,ehal o the pu,lic respondent or respondents a ected ,y the proceedin"s, and the costs a+arded in such proceedin"s in a%or o the petitioner shall ,e a"ainst the pri%ate respondents only, and not a"ainst the :ud"e, court, -uasi):udicial a"ency, tri,unal, corporation, ,oard, o icer or person impleaded as pu,lic respondent or respondents. /<nless other+ise speci ically directed ,y the court +here the petition is pendin", the pu,lic respondents shall not appear in or ile an ans+er or comment to the petition or any pleadin" therein. I the case is ele%ated to a hi"her court ,y either party, the pu,lic respondents shall ,e included therein as nominal parties. 8o+e%er, unless other+ise speci ically directed ,y the court, they shall not appear or participate in the proceedin"s therein./
=6>

Repu,lic vs. CBI o 1anao del Norte, Branch II, *7 6CRA 71(A #aroma vs. 6ayo, 6( 6CRA *0'. 9( 6CRA 9'7. At pp. 990)991. /6EC. 5. 0,:ection that :ud"e dis-uali ied, ho+ made and e ect. ) I it ,e claimed that an o icial is dis-uali ied rom sittin" as a,o%e pro%ided, the party o,:ectin" to his competency may, in +ritin", ile +ith the o icial his o,:ection, statin" the "rounds there or, and the o icial shall there upon proceed +ith the trial or +ithdra+, there rom in accordance +ith his determination o the -uestion o his dis-uali ication. 8is decision shall ,e orth+ith made in +ritin" and iled +ith the other papers in the case, ,ut no appeal or stay shall ,e allo+ed rom, or ,y reason o , his decision in a%or o his o+n competency, until a ter inal :ud"ment in the case/ 6ee Cuery o E$ecuti%e !ud"e Estella #. Estrada, 1** 6CRA (5. Dil vs. 6on, 591 6CRA 96(. 3in"arts vs. Me:ia, 595 6CRA 976. Chin vs. Dustilo, 59( 6CRA 1(*. 5*1 6CRA 1(9. At p. 199.

=(>

='>

=9>

=10>

=11>

=15>

=17>

=19>

=1*>