ANNA JANE D. LIHAYLIHAY, A.M. No. MTJ-06-1659
Clerk III, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 28, Liloy, Zamboanga
del Norte,
Complainant,
- versus -
JUDGE ALEJANDRO T. CANDA,
Municipal Circuit Trial Court,
Liloy-Tampilisan, Zamboanga del Norte,
Respondent.
Facts: On 25 February 2005, one Camilo Bandivas retired from
service as Sheriff IV. Lihaylihay alleged that Judge Canda asked Process Server
Emmanuel Tenefracia to apply for the position. A certain Jesus V. Alimpolo also
applied for the same position. Judge Canda was of the impression that
Lihaylihay was assisting Alimpolo in his application and so he sent an SMS to
the latter saying, “Maayo tingali modistansya ka anang mga tawhana kay basin
masabit ka, pakiusap lang ni.” Taking the text message as a threat, Lihaylihay reported it
to the police and requested that a blotter entry be made. On 6 January 2006, Judge Canda sent another text message stating, “For
maliciously causing it to appear as threatening in the police blotter of what
is otherwise a very harmless text message of appeal I consider the same as declaration of war, don’t worry you
will have your owned [sic] fair share of trouble in due time.
Judge Canda accused Lihaylihay with violation of reasonable office
rules and regulations. He also caused the publication of the letter to the desk
editor of the Mindanao Observer and asked that it be published in the
newspaper.
Lihaylihay denied the allegations of Judge Canda. She also filed a
complaint against Judge Canda or sexual harassment alleging that he sent text
message to Lihaylihay that were malicious. Deciding on lihaylihay’s case, the
Court admonished Lihaylihay for her irresponsible behavior. The Court in
judging the complaint against Judge Canda stated that he is liable for gross
misconduct.
Issue: Whether or not Judge Canda should be liable for gross
misconduct?
Held: Judge Canda harassed and publicly humiliated Lihaylihay: (1) he
asked her to stay away from Alimpolo; (2) when she reported the matter to the
police, he took it as a “declaration of war” and warned her that she will have
her “fair share of trouble in due time”; (3) indeed, three days after sending
the threatening text message, he filed a complaint with Judge Tomarong accusing
her of several things, asking that she be disciplined and removed from the
service, and describing her as a “GRO,” “undignified,” a
“whore,” “disgusting,” “repulsive,” and “pakialamera”; (4) two days
after filing the first complaint, he filed another complaint accusing her of
violating office rules and describing her as “offensive,” “demeaning,”
“inappropriate,” a “GRO,” “undignified,” “repulsive,” and a
“whore”; (5) still unsatisfied, he had
his second complaint published in the newspaper; and (6) when she published her
comment in the newspaper, he filed a criminal case for libel against
her.
Section
1, Canon 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary
states that “Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above
reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable
observer.” Section 2, Canon 2 of the Code states that “The
behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the people’s faith in the
integrity of the judiciary.” Section 2, Canon 4 of the Code
states that “As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges
must accept personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the
ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. In
particular,judges shall conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with
the dignity of the judicial office.” Section 6, Canon 4 of the
Code states that “Judges, like any other citizen, are entitled to freedom of
expression x x x, but in exercising such [right],
they shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the
dignity of the judicial office.” Section 6, Canon 6 of the Code
states that “Judges shall x x x be x x x dignified
and courteous.” Judge Canda violated these provisions.
Section
8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court classifies gross misconduct constituting
violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct as a serious offense. It
is punishable by (1) dismissal from the service, forfeiture of benefits, and
disqualification from reinstatement to any public office; (2) suspension from
office without salary and other benefits for more than three months but not
exceeding six months; or (3) a fine of more than P20,000 but not
exceeding P40,000.
The
Court notes that this is Judge Canda’s second offense. In Barbarona
v. Judge Canda] the Court fined him
for violation of Circular No. 1-90 and warned him that the repetition of
similar acts would be dealt with more severely. Considering the
gravity of Judge Canda’s offense and the fact that this is his second offense,
the Court fines him P40,000.
The
charges that Judge Canda sent Lihaylihay indecent text messages and that he
failed to pay the required legal fees are unsubstantiated, thus, they must be
dismissed. In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the
burden of proving, by substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, the
allegations in the complaint. The Court cannot rely on mere
conjectures or suppositions
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento