Today is Monday, May 09, 2022

  Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive

Republic of the Philippines

SECOND DIVISION

A.M. No. RTJ-08-2119             June 30, 2008

ATTY. MELVIN D.C. MANE, complainant,

RESOLUTION

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

By letter-complaint dated May 19, 20061 which was received by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on May
26, 2006, Atty. Melvin D.C. Mane (complainant) charged Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen (respondent), Presiding
Judge of Branch 36, Regional Trial Court, Calamba City, of "demean[ing], humiliat[ing] and berat[ing]" him during the
hearing on February 27, 2006 of Civil Case No. 3514-2003-C, "Rural Bank of Cabuyao, Inc. v. Samuel Malabanan, et al"
in which he was counsel for the plaintiff.

To prove his claim, complainant cited the remarks made by respondent in the course of the proceedings conducted
on February 27, 2006 as transcribed by stenographer Elenita C. de Guzman, viz:

COURT:

. . . Sir, are you from the College of Law of the University of the Philippines?

ATTY. MANE:

No[,] [Y]our Honor[,] from Manuel L. Quezon University[,] [Y]our Honor.

COURT:

No, you're not from UP.

ATTY. MANE:

I am very proud of it.

COURT:

Then you're not from UP. Then you cannot equate yourself to me because there is a saying and I know
this, not all law students are created equal, not all law schools are created equal, not all lawyers are
created equal despite what the Supreme Being that we all are created equal in His form and
substance.2 (Emphasis supplied)

Complainant further claimed that the entire proceedings were "duly recorded in a tape recorder" by stenographer de
Guzman, and despite his motion (filed on April 24, 2006) for respondent to direct her to furnish him with a copy of
the tape recording, the motion remained unacted as of the date he filed the present administrative complaint on May
26, 2006. He, however, attached a copy of the transcript of stenographic notes taken on February 27, 2006.

In his Comments3 dated June 14, 2006 on the complaint filed in compliance with the Ist Indorsement dated May 31,
20064 of the OCA, respondent alleged that complainant filed on December 15, 2005 an "Urgent Motion to Inhibit,"5
paragraph 36 of which was malicious and "a direct assault to the integrity and dignity of the Court and of the
Presiding Judge" as it "succinctly implied that [he] issued the order dated 27 September 2005 for [a] consideration
other than the merits of the case." He thus could not "simply sit idly and allow a direct assault on his honor and
integrity."

On the unacted motion to direct the stenographer to furnish complainant with a copy of the "unedited" tape
recording of the proceedings, respondent quoted paragraphs 4 and 37 of the motion which, to him, implied that the
trial court was "illegally, unethically and unlawfully engaged in 'editing' the transcript of records to favor a party
litigant against the interest of [complainant's] client."

Respondent thus claimed that it was on account of the two motions that he ordered complainant, by separate
orders dated June 5, 2006, to explain within 15 days8 why he should not be cited for contempt.

Complainant later withdrew his complaint, by letter of September 4, 2006,9 stating that it was a mere result of his
impulsiveness.

In its Report dated November 7, 2007,10 the OCA came up with the following evaluation:

. . . The withdrawal or desistance of a complainant from pursuing an administrative complaint does not divest
the Court of its disciplinary authority over court officials and personnel. Thus, the complainant's withdrawal of
the instant complaint will not bar the continuity of the instant administrative proceeding against respondent
judge.

The issue presented before us is simple: Whether or not the statements and actions made by the respondent
judge during the subject February 27, 2006 hearing constitute conduct unbecoming of a judge and a violation
of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

After a cursory evaluation of the complaint, the respondent's comment and the documents at hand, we find
that there is no issue as to what actually transpired during the February 27th hearing as evidenced by the
stenographic notes. The happening of the incident complained of by herein complainant was never denied by
the respondent judge. If at all, respondent judge merely raised his justifications for his complained actuations.

xxxx

. . . [A] judge's official conduct and his behavior in the performance of judicial duties should be free from the
appearance of impropriety and must be beyond reproach. A judge must at all times be temperate in his
language. Respondent judge's insulting statements which tend to question complainant's capability and
credibility stemming from the fact that the latter did not graduated [sic] from UP Law school is clearly
unwarranted and inexcusable. When a judge indulges in intemperate language, the lawyer can return the
attack on his person and character, through an administrative case against the judge, as in the instant case.

Although respondent judge's use in intemperate language may be attributable to human frailty, the noble
position in the bench demands from him courteous speech in and out of the court. Judges are demanded to
be always temperate, patient and courteous both in conduct and language.

xxxx

Judge Belen should bear in mind that all judges should always observe courtesy and civility. In addressing
counsel, litigants, or witnesses, the judge should avoid a controversial tone or a tone that creates animosity.
Judges should always be aware that disrespect to lawyers generates disrespect to them. There must be
mutual concession of respect. Respect is not a one-way ticket where the judge should be respected but free
to insult lawyers and others who appear in his court. Patience is an essential part of dispensing justice and
courtesy is a mark of culture and good breeding. If a judge desires not to be insulted, he should start using
temperate language himself; he who sows the wind will reap a storm.

It is also noticeable that during the subject hearing, not only did respondent judge make insulting and
demeaning remarks but he also engaged in unnecessary "lecturing" and "debating". . .

xxxx

Respondent should have just ruled on the propriety of the motion to inhibit filed by complainant, but, instead,
he opted for a conceited display of arrogance, a conduct that falls below the standard of decorum expected
of a judge. If respondent judge felt that there is a need to admonish complainant Atty. Mane, he should have
called him in his chambers where he can advise him privately rather than battering him with insulting remarks
and embarrassing questions such as asking him from what school he came from publicly in the courtroom
and in the presence of his clients. Humiliating a lawyer is highly reprehensible. It betrays the judge's lack of
patience and temperance. A highly temperamental judge could hardly make decisions with equanimity.
 Thus, it is our view that respondent judge should shun from lecturing the counsels or debating with them
during court hearings to prevent suspicions as to his fairness and integrity. While judges should possess
proficiency in law in order that they can competently construe and enforce the law, it is more important that
they should act and behave in such manner that the parties before them should have confidence in their
impartiality.11 (Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied)

The OCA thus recommended that respondent be reprimanded for violation of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct with a warning that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more severely.12

By Resolution of January 21, 2008,13 this Court required the parties to manifest whether they were willing to submit
the case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings already filed. Respondent complied on February 26, 2008,14
manifesting in the affirmative.

The pertinent provision of the Code of Judicial Conduct reads:

Rule 3.04. - A judge should be patient, attentive, and courteous to lawyers, especially the inexperienced, to
litigants, witnesses, and others appearing before the court. A judge should avoid unconsciously falling into
the attitude of mind that the litigants are made for the courts, instead of the courts for the litigants.

An author explains the import of this rule:

Rule 3.04 of the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a judge should be courteous to counsel, especially
to those who are young and inexperienced and also to all those others appearing or concerned in the
administration of justice in the court. He should be considerate of witnesses and others in attendance upon
his court. He should be courteous and civil, for it is unbecoming of a judge to utter intemperate language
during the hearing of a case. In his conversation with counsel in court, a judge should be studious to avoid
controversies which are apt to obscure the merits of the dispute between litigants and lead to its unjust
disposition. He should not interrupt counsel in their arguments except to clarify his mind as to their positions.
Nor should he be tempted to an unnecessary display of learning or premature judgment.

A judge without being arbitrary, unreasonable or unjust may endeavor to hold counsel to a proper appreciation
of their duties to the courts, to their clients and to the adverse party and his lawyer, so as to enforce due
diligence in the dispatch of business before the court. He may utilize his opportunities to criticize and
correct unprofessional conduct of attorneys, brought to his attention, but he may not do so in an insulting
manner.15 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

The following portions of the transcript of stenographic notes, quoted verbatim, taken during the February 27, 2006
hearing show that respondent made sarcastic and humiliating, even threatening and boastful remarks to
complainant who is admittedly "still young," "unnecessary lecturing and debating," as well as unnecessary display of
learning:

COURT:

xxx

Sir do you know the principle or study the stare decisis?

ATTY. MANE:

Ah, with due respect your…

COURT:

Tell me, what is your school?

ATTY. MANE:

I am proud graduate of Manuel L. Quezon University.

COURT:

Were you taught at the MLQU College of Law of the principle of Stare Decisis and the interpretation of
the Supreme Court of the rules of procedure where it states that if there is already a decision by the
Supreme Court, when that decision shall be complied with by the Trial Court otherwise non-
compliance thereof shall subject the Courts to judicial sanction, and I quote the decision. That's why I
quoted the decision of the Supreme Court Sir, because I know the problem between the bank and the
third party claimants and I state, "The fair market value is the price at which a property may be sold by
 a seller, who is not compelled to sell, and bought by a buyer, who is not compelled to buy." Sir, that's
very clear, that is what fair market value and that is not assessment value. In fact even you say
assessment value, the Court further state, "the assessed value is the fair market value multiplied. Not
mere the basic assesses value. Sir that is the decision of the Supreme Court, am I just reading the
decision or was I inventing it?

ATTY. MANE:

May I be allowed to proceed.

COURT:

Sir, you tell me. Was I inventing the Supreme Court decision which I quoted and which you should have
researched too or I was merely imagining the Supreme Court decision sir? Please answer it.

ATTY. MANE:

No your Honor.

COURT:

Please answer it.

xxxx

COURT:

That's why. Sir second, and again I quote from your own pleadings, hale me to the Supreme Court
otherwise I will hale you to the bar. Prove to me that I am grossly ignorant or corrupt.

ATTY. MANE:

Your Honor when this representation, your Honor . . .

COURT:

No, sir.

ATTY. MANE:

Yes your Honor . . .

COURT:

No sir unless you apologize to the Court I will hale you to the IBP Because hindi naman ako ganon. I am
not that vindictive but if this remains. You cannot take cover from the instruction of your client because
even if the instruction of a client is "secret." Upon consideration, the language of the pleader must still
conform with the decorum and respect to the Court. Sir, that's the rule of practice. In my twenty (20)
years of practice I've never been haled by a judge to any question of integrity. Because even if I believed
that the Court committed error in judgment or decision or grave abuse of discretion, I never imputed
any malicious or unethical behavior to the judge because I know and I believe that anyone can commit
errors. Because no one is like God. Sir, I hope sir you understand that this Court, this Judge is not God
but this Judge is human when challenge on his integrity and honor is lodged. No matter how simple it
is because that is the only thing I have now.

Atty. Bantin, can you please show him my statement of assets and liabilities?

ATTY. MANE:

I think that is not necessary your Honor.

COURT:

No counsel because the imputations are there, that's why I want you to see. Show him my assets and
liabilities for the proud graduate of MLQU. Sir, look at it. Sir, I have stock holdings in the U.S. before I
joined the bench. And it was very clear to everyone, I would do everything not be tempted to accept
bribe but I said I have spent my fifteen (15) years and that's how much I have worked in fifteen (15)
years excluding my wife's assets which is more than what I have may be triple of what I have. May be
even four fold of what I have. And look at my assets. May be even your bank can consider on cash to
 cash basis my personal assets. That is the reason I am telling you Atty. Mane. Please, look at it. If you
want I can show you even the Income Tax Return of my wife and you will be surprised that my salary is
not even her one-half month salary. Sir, she is the Chief Executive Officer of a Multi-National Publishing
Company. That's why I have the guts to take this job because doon po sa salary niya umaasa na
lamang po ako sa aking asawa. Atty. Mane, please you are still young. Other judges you would already
be haled to the IBP. Take that as a lesson. Now that you are saying that I was wrong in the three-day
notice rule, again the Supreme Court decision validates me, PNB vs. Court of Appeals, you want me to
cite the quotation again that any pleadings that do not conform with the three-day notice rule is
considered as useless scrap of paper and therefore not subject to any judicial cognizance. You know
sir, you would say but I was the one subject because the judge was belligerent. No sir, you can go on
my record and you will see that even prior to my rulings on your case I have already thrown out so many
motion for non-compliance of a three-day notice rule. If I will give you an exception because of this,
then I would be looked upon with suspicion. So sir again, please look again on the record and you will
see how many motions I threw out for non-compliance with the three-day notice rule. It is not only your
case sir, because sir you are a practitioner and a proud graduate of the MLQU which is also the Alma
Mater of my uncle. And I supposed you were taught in thought that the three-day notice rule is almost
sacrosanct in order to give the other party time to appear and plead. In all books, Moran, Regalado
and all other commentators state that non-compliance with the three-day notice rule makes the
pleading and motion a useless scrap of paper. If that is a useless scrap of paper, sir, what would be
my ground to grant exception to your motion? Tell me.

xxxx

COURT:

Procedural due process. See. So please sir don't confuse the Court. Despite of being away for twenty
years from the college of law, still I can remember my rules, In your motion you said . . . imputing things
to the Court. Sir please read your rules. Familiarize yourself, understand the jurisprudence before you
be the Prince Valiant or a Sir Gallahad in Quest of the Holy Grail. Sir, ako po ay mahirap na tao,
karangalan ko lang po ang aking kayang ibigay sa aking mga anak at iyan po ay hindi ko palalampasin
maski kanino pa. Sir, have you ever heard of anything about me in this Court for one year. Ask around,
ask around. You know, if you act like a duck, walk like a duck, quack like a duck, you are a duck. But
have you ever heard anything against the court. Sir in a judicial system, in a Court, one year is time
enough for the practitioner to know whether a judge is what, dishonest; 2), whether the judge is
incompetent; and 3) whether the judge is just playing loco. And I have sat hear for one year sir and
please ask around before you charge into the windmill. I am a proud product of a public school system
from elementary to college. And my only, and my only, the only way I can repay the taxpayers is a
service beyond reproach without fear or favor to anyone. Not even the executive, not even the one
sitting in Malacanang, not even the Supreme Court if you are right. Sir, sana po naman inyo ring igalang
ang Hukuman kasi po kami, meron nga po, tinatanggap ko, kung inyo pong mamarapatin, meron pong
mga corrupt, maaari pong nakahanap na kayo ng corrupt na Judge pero hindi po lahat kami ay corrupt.
Maaari ko rin pong tanggapin sa inyong abang lingcod na merong mga Hukom na tanga pero hindi po
naman lahat kami ay tanga. Ako po ay 8:30 or before ay nandito po ako sa husgado ko. Aalis po ako
dito sa hapon, babasahin ko lahat ang kaso ko para ko po malaman kung any po ang kaso, para po
pagharap ko sa inyo at sa publiko hindi po ako magmumukhang tanga. Sir, please have the decency,
not the respect, not to me but to the Court. Because if you are a lawyer who cannot respect the Court
then you have no business appearing before the Court because you don't believe in the Court system.
That's why one of my classmates never appeared before Court because he doesn't believe in that
system. He would rather stay in their airconditioned room because they say going to Court is useless.
Then, to them I salute, I give compliment because in their own ways they know the futility and they
respect the Court, in that futility rather than be a hypocrite. Atty. Mane hindi mo ako kilala, I've never
disrespect the courts and I can look into your eyes. Kaya po dito ko gusto kasi di po ako dito
nagpractice para po walang makalapit sa akin. Pero kung ako po naman ay inyong babastusin ng
ganyang handa po akong lumaban kahit saan, miski saan po. And you can quote me, you can go there
together to the Supreme Court. Because the only sir, the only treasure I have is my name and my
integrity. I could have easily let it go because it is the first time, but the second time is too much too
soon. Sir, masyado pong kwan yon, sinampal na po ninyo ako nung primero, dinuran pa po ninyo ako ng
pangalawa. That's adding insult to the injury po. Hindi ko po sana gagawin ito pero ayan po ang dami
diyang abugado. I challenge anyone to file a case against me for graft and corruption, for
incompetence.

xxxx

COURT:
 I will ask the lawyer to read the statement and if they believe that you are not imputing any wrong doing
to me I will apologize to you.

Atty. Hildawa please come over. The Senior, I respect the old practitioner, whose integrity is
unchallenged.

Sir you said honest. Sir ganoon po ako. You still want to defend your position, so be it.

Atty. Hildawa I beg your indulgence, I am sorry but I know that you are an old practitioner hammered
out by years of practice and whose integrity by reputation precedes you. Please read what your younger
companero has written to this Honorable Court in pleading and see for yourself the implications he
hurled to the Court in his honest opinion. Remember he said honest. That implication is your honest
opinion of an implication sir.

Sir 1, 2 and 3. Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. If that is your honest opinion. Remember the word you said
honest opinion.

Alam mo Atty. Mane I know when one has to be vigilant and vigorous in the pursue of pride. But if you
are vigilant and vigor, you should never crossed the line.

Sir, what is your interpretation to the first three paragraphs?

ATTY. HILDAWA:

There will be some . . .

COURT:

What sir?

ATTY. HILDAWA:

. . . indiscretion.

COURT:

Indiscretion. See, that is the most diplomatic word that an old practitioner could say to the Court
because of respect.

Sir, salamat po.

xxxx

COURT:

Kita po ninyo, iyan po ang matatandang abogado. Indiscretion na lang. Now you say that is your honest
opinion and the old practitioner hammered through years of practice could only say indiscretion
committed by this judge. Much more I who sits in this bench?

Now is that your honest opinion?16 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

The Court thus finds the evaluation by the OCA well-taken.

An alumnus of a particular law school has no monopoly of knowledge of the law. By hurdling the Bar Examinations
which this Court administers, taking of the Lawyer's oath, and signing of the Roll of Attorneys, a lawyer is presumed
to be competent to discharge his functions and duties as, inter alia, an officer of the court, irrespective of where he
obtained his law degree. For a judge to determine the fitness or competence of a lawyer primarily on the basis of his
alma mater is clearly an engagement in an argumentum ad hominem.

A judge must address the merits of the case and not on the person of the counsel. If respondent felt that his
integrity and dignity were being "assaulted," he acted properly when he directed complainant to explain why he
should not be cited for contempt. He went out of bounds, however, when he, as the above-quoted portions of the
transcript of stenographic notes show, engaged on a supercilious legal and personal discourse.

This Court has reminded members of the bench that even on the face of boorish behavior from those they deal with,
they ought to conduct themselves in a manner befitting gentlemen and high officers of the court.17
Respondent having exhibited conduct unbecoming of a judge, classified as a light charge under Section 10, Rule 140
of the Revised Rules of Court, which is penalized under Section 11(c) of the same Rule by any of the following: (1) a
fine of not less than P1,000 but not exceeding P10,000; (2) censure; (3) reprimand; and (4) admonition with warning,
the Court imposes upon him the penalty of reprimand.

WHEREFORE, respondent, Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 36,
Calamba City, is found GUILTY of conduct unbecoming of a judge and is REPRIMANDED therefor. He is further
warned that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES

WE CONCUR:

LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson

DANTE O. TINGA PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

Footnotes

1 Rollo, pp. 8-10.

2 Id. at 15.

3 Id. at 34-36.

4 Id. at 33.

5 Id. at 37-38.

6 Paragraph 3 read:

Without imputing any wrongdoings to the Honorable Presiding Judge, the content of the said Order
[dated September 27, 2005] of the Honorable Presiding Judge has induced doubt as to his competence
to handle this case.

7 Should have been paragraph 6.

8 Both dated June 5, 2006, rollo, pp. 44-46.

9 Id. at 47-48.

10 Id. at 1-7.

11 Id. at 2-7.

12 Id. at 7.

13 Id. at 51-52.

14 Id. at 54.

15 Agpalo, Legal And Judicial Ethics 558-559 (2002 ed).

17 Re: Anonymous Complaint dated Feb. 18, 2005 of a "Court Personnel" against Judge Francisco C. Gedorio, Jr.,
RTC, Br. 12, Ormoc City, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1955, May 25, 2007, 523 SCRA 175, 181-182; Bravo v. Morales, A.M.
No. P-05-1950, August 30, 2006, 500 SCRA 154, 160.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation