This case underscores the importance of maintaining impartiality and integrity within the judiciary. The Supreme Court decision addresses allegations of gross violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and grave misconduct against a judge and a court clerk. The Court emphasizes that absent fraud, dishonesty, or corruption, judges are not subject to disciplinary action for acts in their judicial capacity, stressing the need for substantial evidence to prove any malfeasance. The decision protects judicial independence while holding court personnel accountable to ethical standards, and reaffirms the high standard for ethical behavior and the crucial role of substantial evidence in administrative proceedings against judicial officers and staff.

Fairness on Trial: When Favoritism Claims Challenge Judicial Impartiality

This consolidated administrative case brings to light serious accusations against Executive Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda and former Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Edgar Allan Morante of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 275, Las Piñas City. The charges include gross violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and grave misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The complaints originated from two sources: Atty. Racquel Crisologo-Lara, Clerk of Court VI, and Ever Emporium, Inc., represented by counsel Atty. Dale Michael T. Villaflor. The allegations against Judge Maceda and Atty. Morante strike at the heart of judicial integrity, raising questions about the impartiality and ethical standards expected of those who serve in the judiciary.

At the core of Atty. Crisologo-Lara’s allegations is the claim that Atty. Morante attempted to manipulate the raffle of cases to ensure that a particular case, LRC Case No. LP-01-0070, was assigned to Branch 275. According to Atty. Crisologo-Lara, Atty. Morante wanted to favor his former law professor, who was handling the case. She also alleges that Atty. Morante offered her money to influence the raffle process. Judge Maceda allegedly knew about the irregular assignment of the case. The Court’s inquiry began with evaluating whether the regular raffle procedure could have been bypassed. In assessing such claims, it considered evidence such as the Minutes of Raffle, in which Atty. Crisologo-Lara was herself a signatory.

The second set of charges, brought by Ever Emporium, Inc., accuses Judge Maceda of bias and impropriety in handling a case involving the company and Allied Banking Corporation. Ever Emporium alleged that Judge Maceda knowingly disregarded a previously issued writ of preliminary injunction when he issued a writ of possession in favor of Allied Bank. This raised serious questions about his respect for established legal procedures. They further contended that Judge Maceda exhibited undue inclination towards Allied Bank, pointing to the expedited issuance of an order allowing the force opening of padlocked premises.

In his defense, Judge Maceda denied the allegations of impropriety, asserting that he had acted within the bounds of his judicial discretion and in accordance with established legal principles. Judge Maceda insisted that the issuance of the writ of possession was a ministerial duty under Section 7 & 8 of Act 3135, pertaining to ex parte proceedings, and that the pendency of other cases, such as the annulment of mortgage and foreclosure, did not preclude its issuance, citing Marcelo Steel Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 54 SCRA 89. He emphasized that the proceeding for a writ is ex-parte despite a plenary case, and that an injunction shouldn’t bar it. Furthermore, the issuance of the break-open order was essential to implement the main writ, a practice within his judicial prerogative.

After a thorough investigation, the Investigating Justice recommended the dismissal of both complaints, a recommendation with which the Supreme Court concurred. In its decision, the Court emphasized the importance of upholding judicial independence and protecting judges from unwarranted disciplinary actions. The Court stressed that absent evidence of fraud, dishonesty, or corruption, judges should not be held liable for errors in their judicial capacity, as long as they act in good faith. In other words, only errors that are tainted with fraud or demonstrate deliberate injustice are to be administratively sanctioned.

Moreover, the Court found that Atty. Crisologo-Lara’s allegations lacked substantial evidence, and the inconsistencies in her testimony cast doubt on the credibility of her claims. Despite the dismissal of the charges against Judge Maceda, the Court took note of a separate case in which Atty. Morante was found guilty of grave and serious misconduct for extorting money from a party litigant, resulting in his dismissal from the service. This action underscores the Court’s commitment to maintaining ethical standards within the judiciary and holding court personnel accountable for misconduct.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Judge Maceda and Atty. Morante violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and committed grave misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The complaints alleged manipulation of case raffles and biased actions favoring one party over another.
What did Atty. Crisologo-Lara accuse Atty. Morante of doing?	Atty. Crisologo-Lara accused Atty. Morante of attempting to manipulate the raffle of cases to ensure that LRC Case No. LP-01-0070 was assigned to Branch 275. She also claimed that Atty. Morante offered her money to influence the raffle process.
What was Ever Emporium, Inc.’s primary complaint against Judge Maceda?	Ever Emporium, Inc. alleged that Judge Maceda exhibited bias and impropriety by issuing a writ of possession in favor of Allied Bank. They believed the judge disregarded a previously issued writ of preliminary injunction, demonstrating undue inclination towards Allied Bank.
How did Judge Maceda defend his actions in issuing the writ of possession?	Judge Maceda argued that he was performing a ministerial duty as dictated by Section 7 & 8 of Act 3135 regarding ex parte proceedings. He said that the pendency of annulment cases was not a bar to issuing a writ.
What standard of proof does the Court require in administrative proceedings against judges?	The Court requires substantial evidence to prove malfeasance, meaning that amount of relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Mere suspicion or speculation is insufficient.
What was the outcome of the administrative complaints against Judge Maceda and Atty. Morante?	The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaints against both Judge Maceda and Atty. Morante for lack of merit. However, the Court noted that Atty. Morante had been found guilty of separate misconduct charges in another case.
Why was the motion to withdraw the letter-complaint by Ever Emporium important?	The motion revealed their “misappreciation of facts” that led to the filing, impacting the case significantly. This undermined their credibility and called into question the evidence supporting the allegations against Judge Maceda.
How did the Court weigh the credibility of Atty. Crisologo-Lara’s testimony?	The Court deemed her testimony unsubstantiated and inconsistent, casting doubt on her claims. Her fear of Judge Maceda’s statement was not enough evidence, and her account clashed with others’ records, leading to a discounting of her claims.

The resolution of this case reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to upholding justice while ensuring that members of the bench and bar are protected from baseless accusations. It is a reminder that due process and ethical behavior are fundamental to maintaining public trust and confidence in the legal system.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: EVER EMPORIUM, INC. COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA, EXECUTIVE JUDGE, RTC BRANCH 275, LAS PIÑAS CITY, AND ATTY. EDGAR ALLAN MORANTE, BRANCH CLERK OF COURT, RESPONDENTS. – A.M. No. RTJ-04-1881 – October 14, 2004