G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-98-1149. March 31, 1998.
Socorro Yulo-Tuvilla, complainant, vs. Judge Rolando V. Balgos, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Socorro Yulo-Tuvilla, a Negros Occidental Board Member, charged Judge Rolando V. Balgos of the MTC, Hinigaran, Negros Occidental, with Grave Abuse of Discretion and Improper Conduct. The complaint stemmed from a case involving the kidnapping and rape of a 14-year-old, Myra Gumban, allegedly by Norman Mapagay and others. Respondent judge issued warrants of arrest after a preliminary examination. Mapagay, through his counsel Atty. Manlapao, filed a motion to recall the warrant. Respondent judge heard and granted this motion without the private complainant present for identification. Complainant argued the judge should have inhibited himself because Atty. Manlapao was the lawyer for the judge’s family in a civil case pending before the RTC. Respondent judge claimed he recalled the warrant within his discretion, citing a reevaluation of evidence and Mapagay’s illness. He noted the civil case involving his family’s lawyer had been submitted for decision earlier and that Atty. Manlapao had appeared before him in other cases without prior objection. The investigating judge, Judge Rodolfo Layumas, found that while the motion was not acted upon with undue haste, respondent violated the Code of Judicial Conduct by not immediately inhibiting himself, creating an impression of special influence. The complainant later lost interest and failed to appear at the investigation hearings.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Rolando V. Balgos violated the Code of Judicial Conduct by failing to immediately inhibit himself from a case where the accused’s counsel was also his family’s lawyer in another pending case, thereby creating an appearance of impropriety.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court concurred with the investigating judge’s finding that respondent judge violated Rule 2.03, Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which prohibits a judge from allowing family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment and from conveying an impression that others are in a special position to influence the judge. By not immediately inhibiting himself upon knowing that the accused’s counsel was his family’s lawyer, respondent judge created an impression of possible influence, tarnishing the judiciary’s image. The Court emphasized that a judge’s conduct must be free from the appearance of impropriety. The fact that the complainant lost interest and that the judge later inhibited himself were not sufficient to excuse the violation. Accordingly, respondent Judge Rolando V. Balgos was REPRIMANDED and REMINDED of his duty to uphold public trust in the judiciary.