View full case

VICTOR TUZON v. JUDGE LORETO CLORIBEL-PURUGGANAN

FACTS:

The case at hand involves an administrative complaint filed against Judge Loreto Cloribel-Purugganan, Regional Trial Court, Tuguegarao, Cagayan, Branch 3, for various offenses such as illegal practice of law, gross ignorance of the law, serious misconduct, evident bias and partiality, knowingly rendering unjust judgment, and willful violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

The complaint arises from an incident where Victor Tuzon filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, challenging an order issued by Judge Purugganan in Civil Case No. 4269. The order denied Tuzon's motion to allow cross-examination of his witness and directed the case to be submitted for resolution.

The Court of Appeals issued a resolution directing private respondent Raymundo Catral to file a comment within ten days. On July 22, 1998, Judge Purugganan filed the comment for Catral and herself, signing it with her name and signature. Eventually, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of merit.

In February 2000, Tuzon filed an administrative complaint against Judge Purugganan, alleging that her filing of a comment in the civil case amounted to illegal practice of law. Tuzon also accused the judge of antedating a decision in another civil case, making it appear that the decision was issued earlier than it actually was. Respondent judge denied these allegations and claimed that she filed the comment because the counsel for Catral was sick.

In January 2001, the Deputy Court Administrator recommended that Judge Purugganan be imposed a fine for filing an answer on behalf of Catral. The Court reminded judges that they need not file an answer or take an active part in proceedings when their orders are challenged in an appellate court, unless expressly directed to do so.

The Court found that Judge Purugganan violated the Revised Rules of Court provision which states that public respondents shall not appear or file an answer or comment to a petition unless specifically directed by the court. In signing and filing the comment on behalf of Catral, the judge engaged in the private practice of law, which is prohibited for judges under the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Revised Rules of Court.

As for the other charges against Judge Purugganan, the Court found no evidence to support Tuzon's accusations of antedating a decision, gross ignorance of the law, serious misconduct, evident bias and partiality, and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. Consequently, these charges were dismissed.

The Court imposed a penalty on Judge Purugganan of a three-month suspension from office without pay, along with a fine of ten thousand pesos. A warning was also issued that the commission of the same or similar act in the future would be dealt with more severely.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the respondent judge violated the provision in the Revised Rules of Court by filing a comment on behalf of the respondent in a case pending before the Court of Appeals.

  2. Whether or not the respondent judge engaged in the illegal practice of law by signing and filing a comment on behalf of one of the parties.

  3. Whether or not the respondent judge antedated her decision in a civil case.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the respondent judge violated the provision in the Revised Rules of Court by filing a comment on behalf of the respondent in a case pending before the Court of Appeals.

  2. Yes, the respondent judge engaged in the illegal practice of law by signing and filing a comment on behalf of one of the parties.

  3. No, there is no proof that the respondent judge antedated her decision in a civil case.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A judge whose order is challenged in an appellate court need not file any answer or take an active part in the proceedings unless expressly directed by order of the Court.

  • Judges must maintain a detached attitude from the case and shall not waste their time by taking an active part in a proceeding that relates to official actuations in a case.

  • The practice of law includes the preparation of pleadings or papers in anticipation of litigation.

  • Judges are prohibited from engaging in the private practice of law as it is inherently incompatible with their official functions, duties, powers, discretion, and privileges.