Source: http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/45719
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 12:22:49+00:00

Document:
HON. JULIETA A. DECENA, HON. VIRGILIO D. PONTANAL, HON. AMELITA A. IBASCO, HON. GERRY D. RAÑA, HON. PEDRO N. MORA. JR., AND HON. FERDINAND T. AGUILAR, COMPLAINANTS, VS. JUDGE NILO A. MALANYAON, PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC), BRANCH 32, PILI, CAMARINES SUR, RESPONDENT.
The regular session of a municipal council was interrupted by a heckler in the audience hurling various accusatory remarks and insults at the council members. The heckler is a judge, the incident, the subject of this case.
On 26 May 2000, the Office of the Court Administrator received a Joint Affidavit-Complaint executed by various municipal officials of Bula, Camarines Sur. The affiants-complainants, Mayor Julieta A. Decena (“Decena”), Vice-mayor Virgilio D. Pontanal (“Pontanal”), and Councilors Amelita A. Ibasco (“Ibasco”), Gerry D. Raña (“Raña”), Pedro N. Mora, Jr. (“Mora”), and Ferdinand T. Aguila (“Aguilar”) sought the dismissal from the service and the disbarment of respondent Judge Nilo A. Malanyaon (“Judge Malanyaon”), Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 32, of Pili, Camarines Sur, on account of his conduct during the 21 February 2000 session of the Sangguniang Bayan of Bula.
On 21 February 2000, the Sangguniang Bayan of Bula, Camarines Sur convened its regular session, with Vice-mayor Pontanal presiding. Among the matters on the agenda was the revocation of two previous council resolutions authorizing Rolando N. Canet (“Canet”) to operate a cockpit in the municipality. A former vice-mayor of Bula, Canet is also the nephew-in-law of Judge Malanyaon. Both Judge Malanyaon and Canet attended the 21 February 2000 session of the Sangguniang Bayan. Canet, however, came along with many supporters. Noticing his presence, the Sanggunian offered to recognize Judge Malanyaon; but he declined, saying that he merely wanted to be an observer.
Subsequently, during the deliberations, the vice mayor attested that respondent interrupted the session by shouting comments in their vernacular such as: “Ambog, Ambog iyan” (“lies, they are lies”); “Butig! Caya mo yan? Maski Butig! Maski Piglalado Camo!” (“Lies! Can you do that? Even if they are lies? Even if you are being deceived?”) and “Dale Sana Camong Dale!” (“You do things recklessly”). During the deliberations relative to the authority of Mr. Rolando N. Canet to operate a cockpit, the respondent judge, with blazing eyes and a red face further interrupted the session by lambasting the municipal councilors with disparaging and insulting remarks, which left the whole proceedings in confusion.
Pedro N. Mora, former municipal councilor of Bula, Camarines Sur, in his affidavit also conformed that he heard the respondent judge utter: “Ambog, Ambog iyan” (“lies, they are lies”); “Butig! Caya mo yan? Maski Butig! Maski Piglalado Camo!” (“Lies! Can you do that? Even if they are lies? Even if you are being deceived?”) and “Dale Sana Camong Dale!” (“You do things recklessly”) during the session of Sangguniang Bayan of Bula, held on 21 February 2000.
Ernesto B. Ballaber, who is the incumbent Barangay Captain of Salvacion, Bula, Camarines Sur, testified through his affidavit that he was present and seated beside the respondent judge on the date in question. He noticed that the respondent judge was drunk as the latter gave off a strong alcoholic scent. Moreover, Ballebar observed that the respondent’s eyes were watery and red.
Ballebar’s deduction that Judge Malanyaon was drunk was reinforced when the respondent stood up, banged the table and shouted in the vernacular: “Butig!, Butig! Butig!” (“Lies! Lies! Lies!”) and “Ambog! Ambog iyan!” (“Lie! It’s a lie!) during the session. Ballebar further testified that the respondent also verbally abused the members of the Sangguniang.
Mora and Raña, as well as two other witnesses for the complainants confirmed that Judge Malanyaon reeked of liquor as he proceeded with his tirade.
According to Bartolome D. Parro, the Sangguniang Bayan OIC Secretary, because of the outbursts of Judge Malanyaon the session was suspended. Meanwhile, the Sanggunian members were involuntarily detained at the session hall. They were unable to leave as the entrance and exits were blocked by supporters of Canet. Meanwhile, Judge Malanyaon continued his outbursts against the councilors.
Admitting his presence during the Sanggunian session, Judge Malanyaon explained, however, that he was there not as a judge but in his private capacity as a taxpayer. He denied he was drunk, even as he admitted he was enraged and furious over the proceedings at the Sanggunian. He did not deny delivering a diatribe, but he claimed his actions were appropriate since the proposed revocation of his nephew-in-law’s cockpit license was illegal in his estimation.
All told, Judge Malanyaon did not dispute the facts as laid down by the complainants and the latter’s witnesses. He justified his behavior though as the fulminations of a righteously outraged citizen which according to him should be segregated from his function as a judge.
Judge Malanyaon deserves to be taken to task for his outrageous behavior as it clearly violates the Code of Judicial Conduct.
First. The remarks uttered are patently defamatory and even vulgar. Indeed, such utterances should not be expected of a public official worthy of his office. At fault is not the sentiment harbored, but the impolitic choice of words employed to express such sentiment. It is not even particularly relevant if Judge Malanyaon was inebriated at that time, for the reckless character of his remarks are in themselves palpable, whether they were delivered in a drunken or sober state.
Second. Judge Malanyaon’s harangue was directed at the members of the Sangguniang Bayan in the course of a regular session of the body. The members of the Sanggunian are, by reason of their public office, entitled to the respect of other people, especially their fellow public officers. Judge Malanyaon’s diatribe indicates his inability to accord his fellow public officials their due.
Third. Judge Malanyaon made his remarks in a public forum. Obviously, however, he forgot or even failed to realize that he is a representative of the judicial branch of government, the judge being the visible representation of the law and, more importantly, of justice. The judiciary is loathe to interfere with the due exercise by co-equal branches of government of their official functions, absent any justiciable action brought in due course.
Fourth. It must be understood that Judge Malanyaon’s remarks were aimed at preventing the Sanggunian from revoking the cockpit license of Canet. In doing so, he was attempting to interfere with the will of the Sanggunian as an independent legislative body. As observed by Investigating Justice Reyes, Jr., the awkward situation was aggravated when Judge Malanyaon publicly humiliated the councilors in front of their constituents, making them look witless and obtuse, and thereby creating a mockery of the proceedings. The disruptive presence of several supporters of Canet, a local town politician, porated the protest against the plan to revoke the cockpit license with political color. Judge Malanyaon’s active participation in apparent concert with Canet’s supporters exposed him as nothing but a common lobbyist, as he forgot to act as a judge with the standard judicial temperament and prudence.
Fifth. Judge Malanyaon obstructed the Sangguniang members from performing their official duties. As Investigating Justice Reyes, Jr. pointed out, the acts complained of Judge Malanyaon is no less a crime under Article 144 of the Revised Penal Code. As a judge, respondent should very well know how deleterious it would be to the discharge of his functions if the court hearings he presides over would be rudely interrupted by fulsome tirades delivered by a spectator in the audience. If such a situation arise in his courtroom, Judge Manlayaon would have every right to take offense to the disruption in the proceedings. A legislative session is no less an official proceeding as a court session and any one who disrupts either proceedings deserves to be sanctioned.
Sixth. The Code of Judicial Conduct requires that a judge shall neither allow family relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment, nor allow the prestige of judicial office to be used or lent to advance the private interests of others. It does not escape our attention that Judge Malanyaon was agitated during the Sanggunian session because the interests of his nephew-in-law were under attack. Perhaps, Judge Malanyaon honestly believed that the revocation of Canet’s cockpit license was illegal. Yet, it would not justify his undisguised attempt to prevent the threatened detrimental action against his relative with his influence. We agree with the conclusion of Investigating Justice Reyes, Jr. that Judge Malanyaon allowed himself to be used by his nephew-in-law to promote the latter’s private interests, in contravention of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
It may strike perhaps as a poetically tragic notion, but for very good reasons, a judge's official life cannot simply be detached or separated from his personal existence. Indeed, the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2 in particular, mandates that a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities, as well as behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Thus, the Court has to dismiss outright Judge Malanyaon’s suggestion that his actions be evaluated as one of a taxpayer or ordinary citizen and not as that of a judge. In fact, his utterances were not made under a cloak of anonymity, for the members of the council, as well as some of the people in the gallery knew very well that he was a judge. It is highly probable that his invectives took on a greater imperative on the listeners precisely because he was a judge, with all the authority attendant to the office.
Rule 2.03. – A judge shall not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.
The Office of the Court Administrator recommends that respondent be fined Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00). In his seventeen (17) years in the judiciary, Judge Malanyaon has not been sanctioned, except once by reprimand. With the comparative seriousness of the offense, a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) would serve as an appropriate penalty.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Nilo A. Malanyaon is hereby found GUILTY of conduct unbecoming of a judge, in violation of Canon 2, Rule 2.01 and Rule 2.03 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. He is ordered to pay a FINE of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) with a STERN WARNING that the commission of the same or a similar act or omission in the future will be dealt with more severely.
Quisumbing, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.
Puno, (Chairman), J., no part due to close relation to the parties.
Austria-Martinez, J., no part in view of close relation to one of the parties.
 Namely, Sangguniang Bayan Resolutions 049 and 063, series of 1998. See Report and Recommendation of Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. (“Report”), p. 4.
 The two witnesses were Ernesto B. Ballebar, Barangay Captain of Salvacion, Bula, Camarines Sur, and Jesus Saluna, a resident of Bula. Report, pp. 9, 10.
 [F]rom the standpoint of conduct and demeanor expected of a judge, resort to intemperate language only detracts from the respect due a member of the judiciary and becomes self-destructive. Galang v. Judge Santos, 367 Phil. 81, 88 (1999).
 Cabrera v. Judge Pajares, 226 Phil. 53, 61 (1986), citing De la Paz vs. Inutan, 64 SCRA 540 (1975).
 Rule 2.03, Canon 2, Code of Judicial Conduct.
 Castillo v. Judge Calanog, G.R. No. RTJ- 90-447, 12 July 1991, 199 SCRA 75, 83-84.
 Talens-Dabon v. Arceo, G.R. No. RTJ-96-1336, 25 July 1996, 259 SCRA 354, 368. “A judge's private as well as official conduct must at all times be free from all appearances of impropriety, and be beyond reproach.” Garcia, et. al v. Judge Valdez, 354 Phil. 475, 480 (1998), citing Castillo v. Calanog, Jr., 199 SCRA 75, 83 (1991) and Dysico v. Dacumos, 262 SCRA 275, 283 (1996).
 See Canon 2, Code of Judicial Conduct, and Rule 2.01, Canon 2, id.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.