A.M. No. MTJ-98-1169. January 29, 2002.
CITY GOVERNMENT OF TAGBILARAN, represented by the City Administrator and Special Counsel, complainant, vs. JUDGE AGAPITO HONTANOSAS, JR., Presiding Judge of Branch 1, MTCC of Tagbilaran City, respondent.

FACTS

The City Government of Tagbilaran, through City Administrator Arcadio Sarmiento and self-designated Special Counsel Atty. Victor De la Serna, filed an administrative complaint against Judge Agapito Hontanosas, Jr. The first charge alleged open defiance of a superior court’s order. The City had sought Judge Hontanosas’s inhibition in criminal cases against Barbara Ong for tax violations. After the Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued an order for his inhibition, the judge allegedly forced the fiscal to rest the prosecution’s case prematurely and subsequently acquitted Ong and all co-accused. The second charge accused the judge of habitual gambling, frequenting casinos in Cebu and cockpits in Bohol, which allegedly damaged public perception of the judiciary.
In his Answer, Judge Hontanosas defended his actions regarding the RTC order, arguing it was unlawful and merely advisory. He denied habitual casino gambling but admitted occasionally accompanying his wife to a casino and gambling “a little” at cockpits on Sundays and holidays. He also asserted that Atty. De la Serna lacked legal authority to represent the City and filed the complaint out of vengeance for the acquittals. Subsequently, both Atty. De la Serna and City Administrator Sarmiento manifested they were no longer interested in pursuing the case, deeming it “futile.”

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Agapito Hontanosas, Jr. is administratively liable for the charges against him.

RULING

The Court dismissed the first charge for open defiance for lack of merit. The Court found the RTC’s order concerning inhibition was issued in a petition for certiorari, a prohibited pleading under the applicable Summary Procedure rules. Therefore, the judge’s failure to comply with an invalid order could not constitute defiance. However, the Court found Judge Hontanosas administratively liable for the second charge. By his own admission, he gambled in cockpits, which violates Circular No. 4 (1980) and specific provisions of P.D. No. 1067-B, as well as the Canons of Judicial Ethics that prohibit conduct undermining public confidence in the judiciary. His admitted conduct, regardless of frequency, erodes judicial integrity. The Court imposed a fine of Twelve Thousand Pesos (P12,000) and issued a stern warning.
The Court emphasized that desistance by a complainant does not automatically result in dismissal, as the Court’s disciplinary power is exercised in the public interest. Furthermore, the Court required Atty. Victor De la Serna to show cause why he should not be disciplined for misconduct. The Court noted his apparent lack of authority to file the complaint as Special Counsel and found his manifestation implying futility before the Court to be a prima facie violation of his duties as a lawyer and officer of the court, potentially undermining the integrity of the judicial process.