TOPIC: Judicial Ethics; Qualities of an Ideal Judge

Jorda v. Bitas, A.M. No. RTJ-14-2376, Mar. 5, 2014

FACTS:
This administrative case rooted from a criminal case filed against Danilo Miralles for
Qualified Trafficking and a violation of Art. VI, Sec. 10 of R.A. 7610 presided by respondent Judge
Bitas. The Complainant, Prosecutor Jorda, alleges that during the hearing for the Petition for
Involuntary Commitment of the minor victim to the DSWD, respondent judge propounded
questions appearing to mitigate Miralles’ role in the crime charged. It was also found upon
investigation that the family members of respondent judge are close associates of Miralles. During
the hearing, Judge Bitas publicly humiliated complainant and exhibited anger and animosity
towards her for filing a motion for inhibition. Judge Bitas told her that he does not want to see her
face and that he does not want her to participate in the proceedings and refused to allow her to
do cross-examination. It was also made to appear that a hearing was held when in fact there was
none as it was merely inserted in the records of the case. Lastly, respondent judge granted bail
to the accused even without a motion to fix bail and no hearing was conducted thereon. Despite
the finding of probable cause, respondent judge did not issue a warrant of arrest against the
accused.

ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Bitas is guilty of grave abuse of authority and irregularity in the
performance of official duties, bias and partiality in violation of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct?

HELD: The Court ruled in the AFFIRMATIVE.

As a rule, not every error or mistake of a judge in the performance of his official duties
renders him liable in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption. This does not mean, however,
that a judge need not observe propriety, discreteness and due care in the performance of his
official functions.

As to the bail, based on the penalty prescribed by law, the grant of bail in this case is a
matter of discretion and only after evidence is submitted in a hearing which is indispensable before
a judge can properly determine whether the prosecution’s evidence is weak or strong. In this case,
the respondent judge deviated from the requirement of a hearing where there is an application for
bail and it was granted without neither a hearing or motion for application for bail. Respondent’s
act of fixing the accused’s bail and reducing the same motu proprio is not mere deficiency in
prudence, discretion and judgement on the part of the judge, but a patent disregard of well-known
rules. When an error is so gross and patent, such error produces an inference of bad faith, making
the judge liable for gross ignorance of the law.

As to the hearing for the petition for commitment to DSWD, the respondent judge’s
actuations in the court constitutes abuse of authority and manifest partiality to the accused. His
utterance of such words was improper and does not speak well of his stature as an officer of the
Court. His use of improper words is clearly insensitive, distasteful, and inexcusable. Complainant
cannot likewise be blamed for being suspicious of respondent’s bias to the accused following his
admission that his sister was a classmate of one Nora Miralles. Judges should be careful to avoid
anything that may tend to awaken the suspicion that their person, social or sundry relations could
influence their objectivity. Use of intemperate language is proscribed by Sec. 1, Canon 4 of the
New Code of Judicial Conduct thus: “Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of
impropriety in all the activities of a judge”.