Presiding Judge v Atty Dealca

7/25/2019 Presiding Judge v Atty Dealca

1/13

PRESIDING JUDGEJOSE L. MADRIDv

ATTY. JUAN S.DEALCAA.C. No. 7474 , September 9, 2!4,"er#$m%&, J.


2/13

FACTSThe complainant, Presiding Judge Jose Madrid is an RTCjudge in Sorsogon. He led an administrative case !ordis"arment against Att#. $ealca, a la%#er, %ho he accusedo! ling !rivolous administrative cases against judges andpersonnel o! the courts

The case arose %hen Att#. $ealca led an &ntr# o!

Appearance in a criminal case in "ehal! o! the accused,replacing Att#. 'icente Judar, %ho had led a Motion to(ithdra%. Aside !rom entering his appearance, Att#. $ealcaalso moved to have the case re)ra*ed to another "ranch.

+c-onsidering the adverse incidents "et%een theincum"ent Presiding Judge and the undersigned, %here

+he does not appear "e!ore the incum"ent Presiding Judge,and the latter does not also hear cases handled "# theundersigned.


3/13

FACTS

The complainant denied the motion to re)ra*e,ordering that the court %ill not allo% a case to "eremoved !rom it "ecause o! the personalsentiments "et%een the judge and counsel. /tnoted that Att#. $ealcas0s motion is an a1ront tothe integrit# o! the court, and his propensit# !orling administrative cases against the judge, %hich%ere all, dismissed "# the Supreme Court

He should not have accepted the case, %hen his

main purpose %as to remove the case !rom thejudge, not to represent the client. He denied themotion to %ithdra% led "# Att#. Judar and deniedthe entr# o! appearance o! Att#. $ealca.


4/13

FACTS

Conse2uentl#, Judge Madrid led a letter complaint %iththe 34ce o! the 5ar Condant against respondent0spractice o! entering his appearance as counsel and thenmoving !or the inhi"ition o! the judge on the prete6t o!previous adverse incidents "et%een them.

/n his comment)complaint Att#. $ealca asserted that hisorder unla%!ull# deprived the accused o! hisconstitutional right to "e represented "# counsel7 that it%as the judge %ho e6hi"ited "ias and prejudice against

the accused, and that it should "e Judge Madrid %hoshould "e dis"arred and ultimatel# dismissed !rom thejudiciar#.


5/13


6/13

FACTSThe /5P Commissioner recommended that Att# $ealca "esuspended !rom the practice o! la% !or a period o! si6

months

/5P Commissioner Ha"a"ag ultimatel# su"mitted hisReport and Recommendation nding Att#. $ealca guilt# o!violating the Ba%#er0s 3ath and the Code o! Pro!essionalResponsi"ilit# "# ling !rivolous adminstrative and criminalcomplaints7 recommending that he "e suspended !rom thepractice o! la% !or 9 #ear,.

Epon revie% "# the /5P)53, it modied therecommendation and dismissed the complaint !or lacG o!merit %hich Judge Madrid moved to reconsider %hich the/5P denied


7/13

ISSUES

89: (3; Att#. $ealca le !rivolousadministrative and criminal complaintsagainst judges and court personnel in

violation o! the Ba%#er0s 3ath and theCode o! Pro!essional Responsi"ilit#

8>: (3; Att#. $ealca is guilt# o! unethicalpractice in seeGing the inhi"ition o! Judge

Madrid in Criminal Case ;o. >??)=


8/13

REB/;!.YES.

+Although the Court al%a#s admires mem"ers o! the 5ar %ho areim"ued %ith a high sense o! vigilance to %eed out !rom the Judiciar#the undesira"le judges and ine4cient or undeserving court personnel,an# acts taGen in that direction should "e unsullied "# an# taint o!insincerit# or sel!)interest.

/t is !or that reason that Att#. $ealca0s complaint against Judge Madridhas !ailed our judicious scrutin#, !or the Co0rt $&&ot )& $&3 tr$eo/ %e$1%#m or $1tr0%#m %& t(e mot%*$t%o /or %&%t%$t%& %t.Ite$, Att3. De$1$ e8(%b%te (%# pro1%*%t3 /or *%&%t%*e&e##$& pe&($&t /or ($r$##me&t, o%er%& t($t, $# I"PComm%##%o&er po%&te o0t, (%# br%&%& o/ ($re# $$%t60e#, o0rt per#o&&e1 $& e*e& (%# o11e$0e# %& t(e L$Pro/e##%o& ($ $11 #temme /rom e%#%o or r01% be%&$*er#e to (%# 1%e&t# or (%# #%e

He should no% "e reminded that the aim o! ever# la%suit should "e to

render justice to the parties according to la%, not to harass them. T(eL$3er# O$t( e8(ort# 0po& t(e member# o/ t(e "$r &ot to:%tt%&13 or %11%&13 promote or #0e $&3 ro0&1e##, /$1#e or0&1$/01 #0%t.; Att#. $ealca %as a%are o! his dut# under his Ba%#er0s3ath not to initiate groundless, !alse or unla%!ul suits. The dut# hasalso "een e6pressl# em"odied in Rule 9.?, Canon 9 o! the Code o!Pro!essional Responsi"ilit# thus%iseI

R01e !.


9/13

REB/;

His "eing an o4cer o! the court should have impelled himto see to it that the orderl# administration o! justice mustnot "e undul# impeded. /ndeed, as he must resist the%hims and caprices o! his clients and temper his clients0propensities to litigate, so must he e2uall# guard himsel!against his o%n impulses o! initiating un!ounded suits.

(hile it is the Court0s dut# to investigate and uncover thetruth "ehind charges against judges and la%#ers, it ise2uall# its dut# to shield them !rom un!ounded suits thatare intended to ve6 and harass them, among other things.

Moreover, Att#. $ealca must "e mind!ul o! his mission toassist the courts in the proper administration o! justice. He

disregarded his mission "ecause his ling o! the un!oundedcomplaints, including this one against Judge Madrid,increased the %orGload o! the Judiciar#. Although no personshould "e penaliKed !or the e6ercise o! the right to litigate,the right must nonetheless "e e6ercised in good !aith6 6 6


10/13

REB/;

>.YES+Ba%#ers are licensed o4cers o! the courtsempo%ered to appear, prosecute and de!end thelegal causes !or their clients. As a conse2uence,peculiar duties, responsi"ilities and lia"ilities are

devolved upon them "# la%. 'eril#, theirmem"ership in the 5ar imposes certaino"ligations upon them. /n this regard, Canon 99and Rule 99.?@ o! the Code o! Pro!essionalResponsi"ilit# pertinentl# stateI

C$&o& !!L A la%#er shall o"serve and maintainthe respect due to the courts and to the judicialo4cers and should insist on similar conduct "#others.


11/13

REB/;R01e !!.4 L A la%#er shall not attri"ute to a Judge

motives not supported "# the record or have nomaterialit# to the case.

All la%#ers are "ound to uphold the dignit# and authorit#o! the courts, and to promote condence in the !airadministration o! justice. /t is the respect !or the courtsthat guarantees the sta"ilit# o! the judicial institution.

Att#. $ealca0s averment that Judge Madrid did not hearcases "eing handled "# him directl# insinuated that judgescould choose the cases the# heard, and could re!use tohear the cases in %hich hostilit# e6isted "et%een thejudges and t(e 1%t%$&t# or t(e%r o0e1. S0($*erme&t, %/ tr0e $t $11, #(o01 ($*e beeb#t$&t%$te b3 (%m be$0#e %t p0t %& b$ 1%(t &oto&13 J0e M$r% b0t $11 60e# %& e&er$1. This he!ailed to do. The right o! a part# to seeG the inhi"ition ordis2ualication o! a judge %ho does not appear to "e%holl# !ree, disinterested, impartial and independent inhandling the case must "e "alanced %ith the latter0ssacred dut# to decide cases %ithout !ear o! repression


12/13

REB/;

Thus, it %as incum"ent upon Att#. $ealca to esta"lish "#1e$r $& o&*%&%& e*%e&ethe ground o! "ias andprejudice in order to dis2uali!# Judge Madrid !romparticipating. The latter0s "are allegations o! JudgeMadrid0s partialit# or hostilit# did not su4ce, "ecause thepresumption that Judge Madrid %ould undertaGe his no"le

role to dispense justice according to la% and the evidenceand %ithout !ear or !avor should onl# "e overcome "#clear and convincing evidence to the contrar#.

3n a nal note, it cannot escape our attention that this isnot the rst administrative complaint to "e ever "roughtagainst Att#. $ealca. /n Montano v. /ntegrated 5ar o! the

Philippines, %e reprimanded him !or violating Canon >>and Rule >?.@, Canon >? o! the Code o! Pro!essionalResponsi"ilit#, and %arned him that a repetition o! thesame o1ense %ould "e dealt %ith more severel#.


13/13

REB/;

Aor%&13, b$#e o& t(e pe&$1t%e#t(e Co0rt %mpo#e o& err%& 1$3er#/o0& *%o1$t%& C$&o& !, R01e !.

Documents

Presiding Judge v Atty Dealca