gacad vs clapis

A.M. No. RTJ-10-2257 July 17, 2012

CRISELDA C. GACAD, Complainant, vs. JUDGE HILARION P. CLAPIS, JR., Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Nabunturan, Compostela Valley, Respondent.

FULL TEXT

Facts: 

Criselda C. Gacad (Gacad) filed a Verified Complaint1 dated 9 June 2010 against Judge Hilarion P. Clapis, Jr. (Judge Clapis), Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 3, Nabunturan, Compostela Valley, for Grave Misconduct and Corrupt Practices, Grave Abuse of Discretion, Gross Ignorance of the Law, and violations of Canon 1 (Rule 1.01, 1.02), Canon 2 (Rule 2.01), and Canon 3 (Rule 3.05) of the Code of Judicial Conduct relative to Criminal Case No. 6898 entitled "People of the Philippines v. Rodolfo Comania."


The following day, Arafol informed Gacad that he filed a complaint for murder against the suspect but the Provincial Governor kept on pressuring him about her brother’s case. Arafol suggested that they see Judge Clapis so he would deny the Motion for Reinvestigation to be filed by the accused Rodolfo Comania (accused). Arafol, further, told Gacad to prepare an amount of P50,000 for Judge Clapis.

On 23 November 2009, Arafol told Gacad that they would meet Judge Clapis at the Golden Palace Hotel in Tagum City. Thus, Gacad, together with her husband Rene Gacad and their family driver Jojo Baylosis (Baylosis), proceeded to the Golden Palace Hotel. Inside the hotel, Gacad joined Arafol and his wife at their table. After a while, Judge Clapis joined them. Arafol told Judge Clapis, "Judge sya yong sinasabi kong kapitbahay ko may problema." Judge Clapis replied, "So, what do you want me to do?" Afarol answered, "Kailangang madeny ang reinvestigation ni Atty. Gonzaga and we proceed to trial kasi palaging tumatawag si Governor." Arafol paused, and continued, "Wag kang mag-alala judge, mayron syang inihanda para sa iyo." Gacad felt terrified because she had not yet agreed to Arafol’s demands. Hence, when Arafol asked her, "Day, kanus a nimo mahatag ang kwarta?" (When can you give the money?), Gacad could only mumble, "Paningkamutan na ko makakita ko ug kwarta... basin makakita ko sir." (I will try to look for money, maybe I can find, sir.) Judge Clapis excitedly nodded and said, "Sige, kay ako na bahala, gamuson nato ni sila." (Okay, leave it all to me, we shall crush them.)



The following day, Arafol instructed his nephew Baldomero Arafol (Baldomero) to go to Gacad’s house to accompany Baylosis. In Gacad’s house, Gacad gave P50,000 to Baylosis in the presence of Baldomero. Baylosis then drove with Baldomero to Jollibee in Tagum City. Upon their arrival, Baldomero alighted and Arafol got into the passenger seat. Arafol directed Baylosis to drive to Mikos Coffee Bar. Along the way, Arafol took the money from Baylosis. At Mikos Coffee Bar, Arafol alighted, telling Baylosis to wait for him. Then, Arafol went inside Mikos Coffee Bar to join Judge Clapis.

On the second week of January 2010, Arafol showed to Gacad a copy of Judge Clapis’ Order dated 4 January 2010 denying the Motion for Reinvestigation filed by the accused. Subsequently, Arafol told Gacad that Judge Clapis was borrowing P50,000 from her for his mother’s hospitalization. Arafol handed to Gacad a postdated BPI check allegedly issued by Judge Clapis as assurance of payment. However, Gacad failed to produce the P50,000.


Thereafter, Judge Clapis set a hearing for a petition for bail on 29 March 2010, which Gacad came to know only inadvertently since she received no notice for the hearing. During the 29 March 2010 hearing, Public Prosecutor Alona Labtic moved that the petition for bail be put in writing. However, the counsel for the accused manifested that he was not prepared for a written petition because it was only right before the hearing that the accused informed him of Arafol’s agreement to bail. Thus, Judge Clapis calendared the case for speedy trial. He set a continuous hearing for the petition for bail on 12 April 2010, 13 April 2010, and 14 April 2010.



On 8 April 2010, the accused filed a Petition For Bail while Gacad filed a Motion For Inhibition of Judge Clapis. On 18 May 2010, Judge Clapis granted the accused’s Petition For Bail. On 24 May 2010, Judge Clapis issued a Notice of Preliminary Conference set on 2 December 2010. On 1 June 2010, Judge Clapis inhibited himself.

Ruling:

We, however, find Judge Clapis liable for gross misconduct. In Kaw v. Osorio,8 the Court held that while the respondent judge, in that case, may not be held liable for extortion and corruption as it was not substantially proven, he should be made accountable for gross misconduct.

In the present case, the Investigating Justice found Gacad’s narration, that she met and talked with Judge Clapis in the Golden Palace Hotel, as credible. Gacad categorically and unwaveringly narrated her conversation with Judge Clapis and Arafol. On the other hand, Judge Clapis merely denied Gacad’s allegation during the hearing conducted by the Investigating Justice, but not in his Comment, and without presenting any evidence to support his denial. It is a settled rule that the findings of investigating magistrates are generally given great weight by the Court by reason of their unmatched opportunity to see the deportment of the witnesses as they testified.9 The rule which concedes due respect, and even finality, to the assessment of credibility of witnesses by trial judges in civil and criminal cases applies a fortiori to administrative cases.10

Thus, the acts of Judge Clapis in meeting Gacad, a litigant in a case pending before his sala, and telling her, "Sige, kay ako na bahala gamuson nato ni sila" (Okay, leave it all to me, we shall crush them.), both favoring Gacad, constitute gross misconduct.

In Sevilla v. Lindo,11 where the respondent judge tolerated the unreasonable postponements made in a case, the Court held that such conduct proceeded from bias towards the accused, rendering such acts and omissions as gross misconduct.

Misconduct means intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior in connection with one’s performance of official functions and duties.12 For grave or gross misconduct to exist, the judicial act complained of should be corrupt or inspired by the intention to violate the law, or a persistent disregard of well-known rules.13 The misconduct must imply wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment.14

Judge Clapis’ wrongful intention and lack of judicial reasoning are made overt by the circumstances on record. First, the Notices of Hearings were mailed to Gacad only after the hearing. Second, Judge Clapis started conducting the bail hearings without an application for bail and granted bail without affording the prosecution the opportunity to prove that the guilt of the accused is strong. Third, Judge Clapis set a preliminary conference seven months from the date it was set, patently contrary to his declaration of speedy trial for the case. Judge Clapis cannot escape liability by shifting the blame to his court personnel. He ought to know that judges are ultimately responsible for order and efficiency in their courts, and the subordinates are not the guardians of the judge’s responsibility.15

The arbitrary actions of respondent judge, taken together, give doubt as to his impartiality, integrity and propriety. His acts amount to gross misconduct constituting violations of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, particularly:

CANON 2. INTEGRITY IS ESSENTIAL NOT ONLY TO THE PROPER DISCHARGE OF THE JUDICIAL OFFICE BUT ALSO TO THE PERSONAL DEMEANOR OF JUDGES.

Section 1. 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. The behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the people’s faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but must also be seen to be done.

It is an ironclad principle that a judge must not only be impartial; he must also appear to be impartial at all times.16 Being in constant scrutiny by the public, his language, both written and spoken, must be guarded and measured lest the best of intentions be misconstrued.17 Needless to state, any gross misconduct seriously undermines the faith and confidence of the people in the judiciary.