Sabitsana Jr vs Villamor

A.M. No. 90-474

October 4, 1991

Facts:
A supplemental charge was made by Atty Sabitsana Jr against Judge Villamor in his charge for
falsification of the monthly Certificates of Service in the court of Judge Villamor. Complainant
Sabitsana furnished the Court with an Affidavit of Judge Dulcisimo Pitao of the Municipal Trial
Court of Maripipi, Leyte, stating that Respondent had intervened for the accused in Criminal
Case No. 959 then pending with the said Municipal Court.

Issue:

Whether or not Judge Villamor violated Canon 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for
having undue interest in a pending criminal case

Ruling:

Yes, Judge Villamor violated Canon 1.

In this case, Respondent, as Executive Judge, designated Judge Pitao as Acting Judge of the
MCTC of Biliran Cabucgayon, Leyte, which was vacant, to allocate 2 session days a week in his
additional sala. Judge Pitao in his residence received a note from a woman, who was the wife
of the accused in the criminal case pending trial for a long time. The note requested that the
case be heard and decided, and if the court had no jurisdiction, to remand it to RTC. It also
spoke of Big Man Egane. Respondent asked Pitao whether he received the note, and warned
Pitao about Big Man Egane, who was backing the complainant in the case and that Pitao
should acquit the accused.

Pitao, however, convicted the accused of theft because the evidence was strong. Irked,
respondent Villamor directed Pitao to forward the records to his court and elevated the records
of the case to RTC over which respondent presides, and designated Judge de la Pena as Acting
Judge of the MCTC Biliran, Cabucgayon, Leyte replacing Pitao; and acquitted the accused in
the criminal case.

It was found in the investigation that respondent had sent the handwritten note through the
wife of the accused to Pitao. This act of sending his note to Pitao showed failure to exercise
due care, and had an appearance of impropriety. . It is true that the contents of the letter may
not have directly exhorted the addressee to decide the case in favor of one party but to have
the wife of the very accused deliver the letter to the municipal judge who will decide the case
and over whom he i respondent) exercised supervision and wielded a degree of moral
ascendancy as Executive Judge was simply a big letdown in the required circumspection and
high ideals expected of a judge. It is a truism that a judge's official conduct and his behavior in
the performance of judicial duties should be free from the appearance of impropriety. His
remark to Pitao of acquitting the accused was also improper and created an impression that he
was for the exoneration of the accused. It tended to influence the trial judge who was going to
decide the case, running afoul of the principle that judges are to promote justice by
administering it impartially.

Cardinal is the rule that a Judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in
all activities. The Canons mince no words in mandating that a Judge shall refrain from
influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another Court
(Canon 2, Rule 2.04). Interference by members of the bench in-pending suits with the end in
view of influencing the course or the result of litigation does not only subvert the
independence of the judiciary but also undermines the people's faith in its integrity and
impartiality.