DATU INOCENCIO C. SIAWAN vs. JUDGE AQUILINO A. INOPIQUEZ, JR. (A.M. No. MTJ-95-1056)

DATU INOCENCIO C. SIAWAN vs. JUDGE AQUILINO A. INOPIQUEZ, JR.
A.M. No. MTJ-95-1056
May 21, 2001

FACTS:

This is a complaint filed by Datu Inocencio Siawan against Judge Aquilino. A. Inopiquez, Jr. of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Kananga-Matag-ob, Leyte, for gross ignorance of the law, gross abuse of power, and misconduct in connection with the latter's handling of a criminal case (Crim. Case No. 584) and two election cases for inclusion of voters (Election Case Nos. 333 and 292.) .

In Crim. Case No. 584 entitled People of the Philippines vs. Julia Enriqua Seco . . ., the accused then was charged of Usurpation of Authority and Official Functions , involving, as the complaint states, a "paquiao" contract in which the accused Julia Seco allegedly signed as the Barangay Captain of Brgy. Cansuso, Matag-ob, Leyte; In the course of the proceedings after the prosecution had already presented its witnesses, the complaint was dismissed on the basis of an Affidavit of Desistance executed by complainant Restituto C. Pedrano. This Affidavit of Desistance is opposite to the earlier affidavit of the same complainant, which was made the basis of the Complaint. Prior to the issuance of the Affidavit of Desistance ,accused Seco had filed before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court a Motion for Inhibition of the Presiding Judge now respondent in this case .The meat of this motion for inhibition is that the father-in-law of the Presiding Judge, herein respondent, was conspicuously present in the proceedings during which time he gave consultation to the complainant. Without addressing the issues raised by accused Seco, respondent denied her motion for inhibition in his order, dated May 22, 1987. Apparently realizing that the motion for disqualification was meritorious, respondent, after partially hearing the case, dismissed it on the basis of an affidavit of desistance of the complainant, Restituto Pedrano. But, as Seco sued Pedrano for damages for filing the criminal case, respondent judge ordered the withdrawal of Pedrano's affidavit of desistance from the record and recalled his order dismissing the criminal case. Respondent then revived Criminal Case No. 584 only to dismiss it again, saying the complainant in the criminal case could always refile it. He then inhibited himself on the ground of delicadeza citing his relationship to counsel for the private prosecutor. When Criminal Case No. 1181 was filed against accused Seco, based on the same facts as Criminal Case No. 584, respondent, to whom the case was again assigned, issued an order, dated April 28, 1994, inhibiting himself, reiterating that he is related to the private prosecutor which was later denied by the RTC of Ormoc city and soon thereafter, respondent judge in an Order dated September 5, 1994 dismissed Criminal Case No. 1181. A Motion For Reconsideration re the Order of dismissal was filed by the private complainant. The respondent judge issued the Order of November 14, 1994 denying the motion for reconsideration complainant to which the respondent judge directed accused's counsel, to file comment to the motion; a second motion for reconsideration was again filed by the private complainant and the respondent in an Order dated December 23, 1994 directed anew the accused's counsel for another comment; Atty. Custodio Cañete complied and filed his comment dated December 26, 1994 and later a supplemental comment. Criminal Case No. 1181 was finally laid to rest on February 17, 1995 as per admission of complainant

(b)Election Case Nos. 333 was a petition for inclusion of a voter in the voter's list. Respondent judge admits that the petitioner, retired Judge Ponciano C. Inopiquez, Sr., is his uncle. Nonetheless, he justifies his failure to recuse himself on the ground that the petition of Ponciano C. Inopiquez, Sr. was meritorious.

(c) In Election Case No. 292, on the other hand, the seven petitioners, all surnamed Herbas, alleged that they were refused registration on February 1, 1992 at Brgy. San Sebastian, Matag-ob, Leyte by the Board of Election Inspectors; and that they have not voted for two consecutive elections.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent Judge Aquilino A. Inopiquez, Jr is guilty of grave abuse of authority and ignorance of the law for his mishandling of the 3 cases mentioned above. .

HELD:

Respondent Judge Aquilino A. Inopiquez, Jr. is hereby ORDERED to pay a fine of P20,000.00 for violation of Rule 137 of the Rules of Court and is SUSPENDED without pay for a period of three months for abuse of authority and ignorance of the law

(a) Complainant's counsel in Criminal Case No. 584 was Atty. Eusebio Otadoy, Jr. Respondent admits that he is related to Atty. Otadoy. Although respondent is not related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity to Atty Otadoy, the evidence shows that because of his relationship not only to Atty Otadoy but also to those helping the complainant, Restituto Pedrano, one of whom, Guillermo Laurente, is respondent's father-in-law, while the other one, Atty. Felix Sun, is his brother-in-law, respondent judge acted with obvious partiality for complainant in the criminal case.

It is obvious that respondent got entangled in his own maneuverings in his desire to favor and protect the complainant Restituto Pedrano and those helping the latter .Respondent could have recused himself from the moment his disqualification was sought by the accused Seco in Criminal Case No. 594. Respondent hung on to the case as long as he could until this case was filed against him. But then he realized that it was untenable for him to continue hearing the criminal case not only because of his relationship to Atty. Otadoy but also to Atty. Felix Sun and Edgardo Laurente, both of whom were his brothers-in-law, who were actively participating in the prosecution of the criminal case.

Indeed, although the disqualification of judges is limited only to cases where the judge is related to counsel within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity, the Rules nonetheless provide that a judge may, in the exercise of his discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case for other just and valid reasons. (Rule 137, §1 of the Rules of Court.)
It may also be added that a well-meaning judge may not just order the reopening of an already dismissed criminal case or direct the removal of a vital evidence on record without first going over the record of the case.
We are referring to the irregular actuations of respondent in the same Crim. Case No. 584 wherein he granted the motion of the private prosecutor to withdraw or detach the Affidavit of Desistance executed by the private complainant 1) without the approval of the private prosecutor; 2) despite the fact that the dismissal of the case was already final; and 3) stating in the order that the accused was not yet arraigned, when the truth is the prosecution has already rested when the case was dismissed on December 22, 1992

(b) Respondent judge's contention is without merit. Rule 137, §1 of the Rules of Court provides:

No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise, or in which he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree, computed according to the rules of civil law, or in which he has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he has presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review, without the written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the record.
A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons other than those mentioned above.
Similarly, Rule 3.12 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides:
A judge should take no part in a proceeding where the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. These cases include, among others, proceedings where:
. . . .
(d) the judge is related by consanguinity or affinity to a party litigant within the sixth degree or to counsel within the fourth degree;
. . . .
In every instance the judge shall indicate the legal reason for inhibition.

Under these provisions, respondent judge was disqualified from hearing the petition of his uncle and it was immaterial that the petition was meritorious. The purpose of the prohibition is to prevent not only a conflict of interest but also the appearance of impropriety on the part of a judge.

(c) The records show that neither of the petition in Election Case No. 333 and Election Case No. 292 named the board of election inspectors a party to the proceedings. Nor is there any showing that the board of election inspectors was ever notified of hearings to be conducted on such inclusion proceedings either by registered mail or by personal delivery, or by notice posted in a conspicuous place in the city hall or municipal building and in two other conspicuous places within the city or municipality at least 10 days prior to the day set for the hearing as required in paragraph (b) of the above provision.
The Omnibus Election Code provides:
Section 143. Common rules governing judicial proceedings in the matter of inclusion, exclusion, and correction of names of voters. --- (a) Outside of regular office hours, no petition for inclusion, exclusion, or correction of names of voters shall be received.
(b) Notices to the members of the board of election inspectors and to challenged voters shall state the place, day and hour in which such petition shall be heard, and such notice may be made by sending a copy thereof by registered mail or by personal delivery…
The failure of respondent to observe the requirements of the Election Code is inexcusable. As a judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court vested with the jurisdiction to hear and decide petitions for inclusion or exclusion of voters, he is expected to be familiar with these requirements because it can be assumed that these election cases were not the first cases he has decided.