LACHICA v FLORDELIZA

DOCTRINE: Inebriated demeanor of a Judge is penalized.

Facts:
- One day, Dr. Amparo Lachica, the Municipal Health Officer of Jose Abad Santos, Davao
del Sur, was approached by Dina Masaglang and Norma Ruton, who were asking Dr.
Lachica to sign a death certificate. Dr. Lachica refused to sign saying that the attending
physician in Gen. Santos should be the one to sign.
- Later in the day, Dr. Lachica met the two again and the two told her that Judge Rolando
Flordeliza, MTC judge, was ordering her to sign the death certificate. Dr. Lachica again
refused.
- Later in the evening, at the Municipal Employees Night Party, Judge Flordeliza, who
was drunk, asked Dr. Lachica to sit beside him. Judge Flordeliza then said to Dr.
Lachica, in an angry manner, Bakit hindi mo pinirmahan and death certificate? Dr.
Lachica then tried to explain but to no avail, this is when Judge Flordeliza threatened to
bring an administrative complaint against Dr. Lachica.
Issue:
- W/n Judge Flordeliza should be administratively liable for his inebriated demeanor.
Held:

YES, Judge Flordeliza is fined 10,000 pesos. As noted by the Investigating Judge,
this is yet another occasion for reminding members, of the bench to conduct themselves
beyond reproach, not only in the discharge of their official duties, but in their private lives
as well.
Canons 1 and 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provide as follows:

Canon 1. A judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.

xxx xxx xxx

Canon 2. A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.

On the other hand, item 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics reads:

3. Avoidance of Appearance of Impropriety.

A judges official conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety, and his
personal behavior, not only upon the bench and in the performance of judicial duties, but
also in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach
- Based on the foregoing, the SC was convinced that the charge of misconduct against
the respondent judge was established by substantial evidence. Dr. Lachica presented
the testimony of certain witnesses confirming that Judge Flordeliza was indeed drinking
that night. There was also testimony debunking Judge Flordelizas excuse that he could
not have acted in such a manner because the mayor was sitting with them (the
 testimony proved that the mayor was not with them). The Court believed that Judge
Flordeliza did threaten Dr. Lachica in order to coerce the latter to sign the death
certificate.
- Also, his inebriated demeanor and incoherent behavior during the festivities, as attested
to by a witness, is reprehensible in a judge. Allowing himself to get intoxicated is not the
conduct expected of a judge.