AM RTJ 01 1665; (November, 2001) (Digest)
A.M. No. RTJ-01-1665. November 29, 2001. ROSAURO M. MIRANDA, complainant, vs. JUDGE CESAR A. MANGROBANG, SR., respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Rosauro M. Miranda, chairman of Macamir Realty, filed an administrative complaint against Judge Cesar A. Mangrobang, Sr., Presiding Judge of the RTC, Branch 22, Cavite City, for conduct prejudicial to the judiciary. The complaint stemmed from a construction contract between Macamir Realty and O.B. Jovenir Construction. Miranda alleged that Judge Mangrobang engaged in business and private law practice by acting as a director, vice-president, and legal counsel for O.B. Jovenir, using his judicial office to advance the corporation’s interests. He specifically cited the judge’s active participation in several corporate meetings where he discussed matters like transferring property titles and solving legal problems.
In his defense, Judge Mangrobang denied being an officer or counsel for the corporation, asserting it was his son who held those positions. He admitted attending one or two meetings but only as an observer at his son’s request. The Office of the Court Administrator initially recommended a fine, but the case was referred to an Investigating Justice of the Court of Appeals. After proceedings, including an inhibition, the Investigating Justice recommended a stern warning.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Cesar A. Mangrobang, Sr. is administratively liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the judiciary.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found Judge Mangrobang administratively liable. While evidence like the Articles of Incorporation did not list him as a corporate officer, the minutes of meetings submitted by the complainant convincingly showed his active participation in business discussions concerning O.B. Jovenir’s dealings with Macamir Realty. His presence and interventions in these meetings, where he made assurances about construction timelines and offered to solicit help from associates for legal issues, demonstrated improper conduct.
The Court ruled that this behavior violated Canon 2, Rule 2.03 and Canon 5, Rule 5.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. A judge must avoid not only impropriety but also the appearance of impropriety and must refrain from financial or business dealings that could reflect adversely on the court’s impartiality or increase involvement with persons likely to engage in litigation. By involving himself in the corporate affairs of a party to a contract, Judge Mangrobang lent the prestige of his judicial office to advance private interests, creating an impression of undue influence. However, the Court dismissed the other charges regarding alleged intercession with other judges for lack of substantiating evidence. Considering the circumstances and following precedent, the proper penalty was reprimand. Judge Mangrobang was REPRIMANDED and warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.