36 - Macias v. Judge Araula (1982) Doctrine: • Avoidance of appearance of impropriety.

– A judge’s
official conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only
in the bench and in the performance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life, should be beyond
reproach. • Essential conduct. – He should be temperate, ... patient ... . • Judges, indeed, should be not
only men of highest integrity but they should also at all times conduct themselves in such a manner as to
be above suspicion. Facts: Lamberto Macias filed an administrative complaint against Judge Araula, a
judge in Southern Leyte, for serious infractions of the law, illegal and unethical participation in partisan
politics, and electioneering, when: 1. He delivered the political campaign speech in a rally sponsored by
the Kilusan ng Bagong Lipunan (KBL), urging his audience to vote for the KBL candidates (his wife was
the Chairman of KBL); and 2. He delivered again a political campaign speech at a KBL rally during which
he said, among others, “Let us unite in this election; it is useless to support the Pusyon Bisaya because it
is leaderless; President Marcos is still around to promote the welfare of the town of Dauin.” Macias
likewise asserted in the same complaint that the judge was guilty of serious infractions of the law,
oppression, and grave misconduct, when: 1. Two days after the elections in which the KBL candidates
lost in Dauin, aggrieved and enraged by the people’s repudiation oh his political leadership and of his
wife’s leadership in Dauin, he made a round in the public market, in the company of members of his
family and goons, threatened, coerced, and physically ejected licit market vendors who were identified
as Pusyon Bisaya followers, overturning and throwing out tables and market equipment, warning and
challenging Pusyon followers in the market, and telling them to get out and that they can no longer sell
goods in the market because they are Pusyon; and 2. In the same occasion, he, together with his three
sons and goons, challenged Douglas Enriquez and his brother Atty. Enriquez, a Pusyon coordinator in
Dauin, to a fist fight (raised clenched fists and shouted, “You are brave, you challenge me!”); and when
Douglas ran to his brother Rudy, Judge Araula, his sons, and his goons followed him, and while there, his
sons tore Douglas’ collar, slapped him, and threw a lighted cigarette upon the face of Rudy. At this time,
the judge was drunk. Issue: 1. W/N Judge Araula is guilty Held/Ratio: 1. NO (except for #2 in the second
paragraph). [The case was long and most of them focused on the findings of fact of the investigating
judge.] The investigating judge found the witness as regards the events in the market place to be not
credible, as she often changed her testimonies. The witnesses presented for the first two charges were
also overturned by witnesses offered by Judge Araula. The Court also considered it mitigating that Judge
Araula was enraged, since the complainants supposedly went to the city hall with brooms and made fun
of them (Pusyon swept the elections, hence the brooms). Also, most of the complained acts were done
by his sons, not by him, and there was insufficient evidence to prove that he was drunk. Nevertheless,
the Court found the last allegation sufficient for a reprimand and stern admonition that a repetition of
similar acts would be dealt with more severely (see doctrines).