## FACTS:

The respondent in this case is the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, at Davao City. He is facing charges of serious misconduct, grave abuse of authority, harassment, and immorality. The complaint alleges several incidents that led to the filing of the charges.

First, in 1984, the complainant's neighbors, the spouses Wilfredo and Flordeliza Cañas, had a dispute with their domestic helper and sought the complainant's help. The complainant referred the matter to the barangay authorities and the dispute was resolved, but this strained the relationship between the two families.

Tensions escalated on September 27, 1990, when Mrs. Cañas had an exchange of words with the complainant's wife and daughter over a minor matter regarding a fight between their turkeys. The following day, Mrs. Cañas orchestrated the complainant's arrest by boarding a passenger jeepney, stopping it near the police station, and handing the policeman alias warrants of arrest against the complainant. The complainant was detained for one night without his family's knowledge. After his release, he discovered that the criminal cases against him had already been settled, and the judge who issued the warrants explained that he had only been requested by the respondent judge to issue them.

The complaint also alleges that the respondent judge disturbed mediation conferences between the families, introduced himself as the Executive Judge of the RTC of Davao City in an attempt to influence the Barangay Officials, and acted as the babysitter of Mrs. Cañas' daughter. The feud between the families escalated to a violent confrontation on December 29, 1990, and during the police investigations, the complainant claimed to have seen the respondent judge talking to the policemen.

Armed men in uniform arrived on January 2, 1991, and arrested members of the complainant's family following orders from a certain Col. Nelson Estares. The complainant alleges that the illegal issuance and service of the arrest orders were facilitated by the respondent judge's high position in the government and his close relations with the Cañas family. Charges of attempted murder were filed against the complainant, his wife, and his son, and the complainant alleges that the respondent judge influenced the conduct of the preliminary investigation.

In another incident, the complainant, his wife, and another person were processing their bail bond applications at the RTC when the respondent judge arrived, questioned the validity of the bond, and confiscated the receipts without authorization. The complainant suspected the judge had a special interest in his family's feud with the Cañas family. The respondent judge denies the allegations and claims the complaint was filed out of personal spite.

There were also allegations of harassment by the respondent judge, including his contact with the Social Security System and Philippine Airlines for malicious purposes. The complainant also criticized the respondent judge for discussing the merits of a hacking incident in his pleadings.

The case was subsequently referred to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation and investigation. It was alleged that the judge had an illicit relationship with Mrs. Cañas, but it was refuted by testimonies from Mrs. Cañas' husband and parents, who stated that the judge was just a family friend. A report found that there was insufficient substantiation for the charge and concluded that the suspicion was baseless and not censurable. The report recommended that the respondent judge be admonished and sternly warned.

ISSUES

1. Whether the respondent judge used his judicial office to influence the proceedings in a personal dispute between the Marces and Cañas families.

2. Whether the respondent judge was guilty of intervening and influencing the issuance of alias warrants of arrest against the complainant.

3. Whether the respondent judge improperly intervened in securing the arrest of complainant and members of his family through the Metrodiscom based on the hacking incident.

4. Whether the charges of serious misconduct, grave abuse of authority, harassment, and immorality against the respondent judge have basis and should result in his dismissal from service.

RULING

On issues 1 and 3: The Supreme Court found that the respondent judge was guilty of improper conduct by using his position to influence the barangay mediation proceedings and by intervening improperly to facilitate the arrest of the complainant and his family by Metrodiscom authorities. However, the respondent judge was not found guilty of the charge concerning illegal relationships, as the evidence was insufficient to prove the allegation of an affair between the judge and Mrs. Cañas.

On issue 2: It was established that the respondent judge did influence the issuance of alias warrants of arrest improperly by requesting another judge to issue the warrants and by ensuring their delivery to Mrs. Cañas instead of the appropriate law enforcement officers.

On issue 4: The court found the respondent judge guilty of improper conduct as a result of the first three issues but did not find sufficient evidence to warrant dismissal from service, considering this was his first administrative case and his otherwise exemplary service record. Hence, the judge was reprimanded with a stern warning against similar future conduct.

PRINCIPLES

1. Judges must avoid impropriety in all their activities and must refrain from influencing the outcome of litigation or any proceedings pending before another court.

2. The prestige of judicial office should not be used or lent to advance private interests or convey the impression of influence.

3. A judge’s personal behavior, both in official duties and everyday life, should be beyond reproach to uphold the judiciary's integrity and impartiality.

4. Intervention in disputes or controversies that could lead to litigation in which a judge would preside is improper.

5. Disciplinary actions against judges may vary based on the nature of the misconduct and the judge’s service record; however, reprimand may suffice for first-time offenses where there is potential for correction.