AM 1092; (October, 1981) (Digest)
A.M. No. 1092-MJ. October 30, 1981. ATTY. ROMEO S. GEOCADIN, complainant, vs. HON. REMEGIO M. PEĂ‘A, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Atty. Romeo S. Geocadin filed administrative charges against respondent Municipal Judge Remegio M. Peña, including knowingly rendering unjust orders, partiality, and drunkenness. The case was referred for investigation to Executive Judge Ostervaldo Emilia. The investigation proceeded ex parte, as respondent judge, due to a severe and debilitating illness (massive cerebral infarction, pneumonia, and diabetes mellitus), was confined to a hospital and could not present his evidence. Judge Emilia’s report was thus based solely on complainant’s evidence.
The Investigator found prima facie evidence supporting several charges. Regarding unjust orders, it was found that respondent issued an order in August 1975 reconsidering and setting aside a final and executory July 1974 decision, after a writ of execution and a certificate of sale had already been issued. The motion for reconsideration that prompted this order was not under oath nor accompanied by an affidavit of merit. Further, two subsequent 1975 orders (denying complainant’s motion and directing his arrest) exhibited the distinctive drafting style of Atty. Jose Presquito, the opposing counsel in the case, whom respondent had admitted allowed to prepare orders for his signature. These orders were later annulled by higher courts.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Remegio M. Peña should be held administratively liable based on the ex parte investigation and the prima facie findings.
RULING
The Supreme Court did not impose the full weight of administrative sanction based on the ex parte report, but still found a basis for disciplinary action. The legal logic balances the prima facie evidence of misconduct against the respondent’s right to due process and his incapacitating medical condition. The Investigator’s report painted a picture of grave misconduct, including rendering unjust orders after finality, delegating the drafting of orders to an interested counsel demonstrating partiality, and engaging in drunkenness. These acts, if fully proven, are unbecoming of a judicial officer.
However, the Court emphasized the presumption of innocence in administrative proceedings. Since respondent was physically unable to present his evidence or explain his side due to serious illness, the findings, though based on admissions and strong circumstantial evidence, remained prima facie. The Court could not give the report full conclusive weight, as the admissions might have been mitigated by an explanation. Nevertheless, the prima facie evidence was sufficient to warrant a measure of discipline. Adopting the Investigator’s own recommendation for tempered justice, the Court considered respondent’s long service and dire health, imposing a penalty of reprimand and forfeiture of three months’ salary to be deducted from retirement benefits. This ruling underscores that while judicial misconduct warrants sanction, procedural fairness and humanitarian considerations are integral to administrative justice.