FACTS:

Complainants, Jocelyn Mclaren et al., filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Jacinto C. Gonzales for gross misconduct and gross dishonesty. The complaint arose from the handling of Civil Case No. 7439, where complainants were the defendants. Complainants alleged that their counsel was badly treated in three hearings. They claimed that their counsel was not allowed to argue or discuss objections, their counsel's manifestations were cut short, and their counsel was ordered to sit down three times. They also alleged that respondent issued an Order denying all motions of the parties without legal basis. Complainants further argued that respondent should be held liable for gross dishonesty for failing to disclose a pending criminal case for sexual harassment when he applied for judgeship. In his Comment, respondent denied the charges and argued that the allegations against him were not true and not valid reasons for his inhibition as a judge. He claimed that his actions during the hearings were judgment calls made in good faith to maintain order in court proceedings. Respondent also argued that the issue of other cases filed against him was not within the scope of this administrative complaint.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the respondent judge committed gross misconduct in connection with Civil Case No. 7439.

2. Whether the respondent judge committed gross dishonesty in failing to disclose a pending criminal case during his application for judgeship.

3. Whether the respondent judge had the right to deny the plaintiffs' motion for inhibition.

4. Whether the respondent judge conducted himself in an arrogant manner during the hearings.

RULING:

1. The Court finds that the respondent judge did not commit gross misconduct in connection with Civil Case No. 7439. The complainants' allegations of mistreatment and unfair treatment of their counsel were deemed judgment calls made in the performance of duty and in good faith.

2. The Court finds that the respondent judge did not commit gross dishonesty in failing to disclose a pending criminal case during his application for judgeship. The issue of the pending criminal case is a matter within the cognizance of the appropriate body where they are pending and cannot be considered in this administrative complaint.

3. The Court finds that the respondent judge had the right to deny the plaintiffs' motion for inhibition. The motion for inhibition was filed after the case was submitted for decision and was seen as an abuse of judicial process and a dilatory tactic.

4. The Court finds that there is no basis to support the complainants' allegations of arrogance and misconduct on the part of the respondent judge during the hearings. The allegations of unnecessary banging of the gavel and smoking during trial were without factual basis.

PRINCIPLES:

• The denial of a motion for inhibition is within the discretion of the presiding judge, based on a rational and logical assessment of the circumstances in the case.

• Misconduct and dishonesty allegations should be supported by sufficient evidence before administrative sanctions can be imposed on a judge.

• Allegations of mistreatment and unfair treatment of counsel may be deemed judgment calls made in the performance of duty and in good faith.