G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-07-1689 March 13, 2009
PERLA BURIAS, Complainant, vs. JUDGE MIRAFE B. VALENCIA, MTC-Irosin, Sorsogon, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Perla Burias charged respondent Judge Mirafe B. Valencia with gross misconduct. The undisputed facts are that respondent borrowed money from complainant on several occasions (₱5,000, ₱2,500, ₱15,000, and ₱3,000), evidenced by promissory notes and handwritten notes. Complainant later filed a forcible entry case (Civil Case No. 590) in another MTC, but the presiding judge inhibited herself, and respondent eventually took over the case. While the case was pending before her, respondent issued a pre-trial order, received position papers, and later issued an order requiring the defendant to submit additional documents. Complainant alleged that respondent endorsed a check that was later dishonored, and that in March 2007, respondent verbally demanded ₱50,000 and the writing off of her ₱30,500 debt in exchange for a favorable decision. Complainant refused and claimed respondent later threatened to release an unfavorable draft decision. Respondent, in her comment, admitted the loans but explained they were related to copra transactions. She denied demanding money for a favorable judgment and flaunting draft decisions, justifying her order in the civil case as a clarificatory procedure allowed by the rules.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Mirafe B. Valencia is administratively liable for gross misconduct, specifically for borrowing money from a party-litigant and for the alleged delay in resolving a case.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administrarily liable for misconduct. The Supreme Court found respondent guilty of borrowing money from a party-litigant, which is a violation of Rule 5.02 and Rule 5.04, Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. This act is patently inappropriate as it creates an impression that could reflect adversely on the court’s impartiality. The Court emphasized that a judge’s conduct must always be beyond reproach to maintain public faith in the judiciary. Regarding the charge of delay in resolving the civil case and the propriety of her orders (including the denial of the motion for inhibition and the clarificatory order), the Court, agreeing with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), deemed these as judicial matters not proper for administrative treatment, with any aggrieved party advised to seek the appropriate legal remedy. However, the Court noted that the clarificatory order was issued beyond the period prescribed by the Rules. Since respondent had already retired from service, the imposable penalty under Section 11, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court for this serious charge was a fine. Respondent was meted a FINE of ₱20,000.00.