EN BANC
[ A.M. No. MTJ-16-1879 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 14-2719-MTJ), July 24, 2018 ]ANONYMOUS v. JUDGE BILL D. BUYUCAN +
ANONYMOUS, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE BILL D. BUYUCAN, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, BAGABAG-DIADI, NUEVA VIZCAYA, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
ANONYMOUS v. JUDGE BILL D. BUYUCAN +
ANONYMOUS, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE BILL D. BUYUCAN, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, BAGABAG-DIADI, NUEVA VIZCAYA, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
Before the Court is an administrative matter filed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) against respondent Judge Bill D. Buyucan (Judge Buyucan).[1]
The Facts
As gathered from the records, the factual antecedents are as follows:
On June 26, 1969, Proclamation No. 573 was signed, which set aside certain lands of the public domain as permanent forest reserves.[2] Included in the said reservation was a 193-hectare parcel of land located in Sitio Tapaya, Villaros, Bagabag, Nueva Vizcaya, a portion of which was granted to the Department of Agriculture (DA) for research purposes (Subject Property).[3] Accordingly, the Subject Property was declared for taxation purposes by the DA as evidenced by T.D. ARP No. 2005-03017-0117[4] and is now known as the Department of Agriculture Cagayan Valley Hillyland Research Outreach Station (DA-CVHILROS).[5]
As there was a need to clear the Subject Property of informal settlers already residing therein, the DA filed several criminal and civil cases before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Bagabag-Diadi, Nueva Vizcaya (MCTC), which is presided over by respondent Judge Buyucan.[6]
Among the cases filed before the MCTC were: (i) Civil Case No. 626 for Forcible Entry, entitled "Province of Nueva Vizcaya v. Eling Valdez, et al.," and (ii) Criminal Cases No. 4691 and 5094 for Malicious Mischief, entitled "People of the Philippines v. Eling Valdez" and "People of the Philippines v. Amado Valdez alias Eling," respectively.[7] The said cases were eventually dismissed by respondent Judge Buyucan in separate Decisions dated May 22, 2008[8] and June 16, 2008.[9]
A few months later, in August 2008, respondent Judge Buyucan acquired a parcel of land located within the Subject Property for One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00) from Eling Valdez, the same respondent in the previously dismissed cases, together with Ernesto A. Bagos, Isaija Suarez, and a certain Casmin as co-vendors.[10] The purported sale was evidenced by a "Waiver of Rights and Improvements."[11]
Subsequently, complaints for Malicious Mischief were again filed before the MCTC against the informal settlers, entitled "People of the Philippines v. Arsenio Apostol and John Doe" and docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 5597 and 5598.
A Motion for Voluntary Inhibition dated March 9, 2009 was then filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), seeking the inhibition of respondent Judge Buyucan as he was also residing within the very same property involved in the said criminal cases.[12] The OSG alleged that his continued presence in the Subject Property had "emboldened" the other informal settlers to continue with their illegal occupation therein.[13] Respondent Judge Buyucan, however, refused to recuse himself from hearing the said cases.[14]
As a result of the foregoing, in a Letter dated March 1, 2013,[15] the OMB[16] informed the OCA of an anonymous text message received by the Ombudsman Lifestyle Check Hotline on February 20, 2013, as follows:
In an Indorsement dated April 4, 2013,[18] the OCA referred the Letter dated March 1, 2013 to Hon. Fernando F. Flor, Jr. (Judge Flor), Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, for investigation and report.
In his Report dated May 16, 2013,[19] Judge Flor gathered the following facts:
In a Letter dated November 15, 2013,[21] the OCA directed respondent Judge Buyucan to comment on the charges contained in the Letter dated March 1, 2013.
In his Letter dated December 13, 2013,[22] respondent Judge Buyucan denied knowledge of the DA's ownership of the Subject Property and instead claimed that the land he was occupying was within the road-right-of-way (RRW) of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) beside the Nueva Vizcaya-Isabela National Road.[23] Respondent Judge Buyucan also claimed that the alleged two (2)-storey house actually belonged to his nephew and that what he constructed were merely a "temporary Ifugao native house" and an adjacent shanty.[24] He further stated that he is, in any case, ready to vacate the area if and when the DPWH needs it.[25]
In a Resolution dated October 15, 2014,[26] the Court resolved to refer the matter back to Judge Flor to conduct a thorough determination and/or confirmation of facts and to submit a more exhaustive report thereon, to wit:
Accordingly, sometime in December 2014, Judge Flor, together with a representative of this Court,[28] conducted an ocular inspection of the Subject Property.[29]
In the meantime, respondent Judge Buyucan filed a Supplemental Answer/Comment dated December 16, 2014,[30] denying once again the allegations of his squatting on the Subject Property and insisting that the land he purchased was within the RRW of the DPWH.[31] He likewise insisted that he did not own a fighting cock farm and that the structures he built were made of light and indigenous materials and thus exempted from the requirement of a building permit under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1096.[32] Further, respondent Judge Buyucan alleged that the two (2)-storey house described in the Report dated May 16, 2013 is actually owned by his brother, Gabriel Buyucan, who purchased the lot sometime in June 2008 from a certain Larry Valdez, as evidenced by a Waiver of Rights and corroborated by several affidavits.[33]
Thereafter, in compliance with the Resolution dated October 15, 2014, Judge Flor submitted a Report dated January 20, 2015,[34] submitting additional evidence and essentially refuting respondent Judge Buyucan's statements in his Letter dated December 13, 2013. The following facts were further established in the said Report: (i) respondent Judge Buyucan was indeed squatting on the Subject Property; (ii) the informal settlers in the Subject Property were mostly members of the same Ifugao tribe of respondent Judge Buyucan;[35] (iii) respondent Judge Buyucan had several confrontations with the representatives of the Office of the Solicitor General with respect to his illegal occupation of the Subject Property;[36] and (iv) respondent Judge Buyucan erected a building of strong materials on the Subject Property without procuring the necessary building permit.[37]
In a Supplemental Report dated February 16, 2015,[38] Judge Flor recommended the penalty of dismissal from the service against respondent Judge Buyucan as a result of the foregoing acts.
In a Resolution dated September 21, 2016,[39] the Court referred the matter to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation.
The OCA 's Report and Recommendation
In its Memorandum dated May 23, 2017 (OCA Memorandum), the OCA found respondent Judge Buyucan liable for gross misconduct for his illegal occupation and refusal to vacate the Subject Property despite demands from the DA-CVHILROS.[40] Such conduct, the OCA opined, encouraged other illegal settlers to continue occupying portions of the Subject Property in defiance of the orders of the DA.[41] The OCA further opined that respondent Judge Buyucan's act of acquiring a portion of the Subject Property from Eling Valdez three (3) months after deciding a case in his favor was unethical and was indicative of a lack of independence and impartiality.[42]
The OCA recommended thus:
Issue
Whether respondent Judge Buyucan is guilty of gross misconduct.
The Court's Ruling
Respondent Judge Buyucan is liable. After a judicious review of the records, the Court adopts the findings in the OCA Memorandum with modification only as to the penalty recommended.
In administrative cases, the quantum of proof required is only substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[44] Pertinently, as with factual findings of trial courts, credence should be accorded to the findings of the investigating judge who had the opportunity to hear witnesses and observe their demeanor.[45]
In this case, the liability of respondent Judge Buyucan hinges on whether he is in fact illegally occupying a portion of the Subject Property. The Court finds in the affirmative.
The evidence on record is unequivocal. As summarized in the OCA Memorandum:
In addition, respondent Judge Buyucan's claim that he was not occupying a portion of the Subject Property is plainly belied by the verification plan prepared by the DENR, which forms part of the records of this case.[47] Proceeding therefrom, the Court so finds that respondent Judge Buyucan was indeed an illegal occupant of the Subject Property.
In any case, even assuming that respondent Judge Buyucan did not occupy a portion of the Subject Property, he is still liable due to his admission in his Letter dated December 13, 2013 that he was then occupying a portion of the RRW of the DPWH Nueva Vizcaya-Isabela National Road.[48] As aptly observed in the OCA Memorandum, such act nevertheless constitutes a violation of P.O. No. 17, which makes it unlawful for any person to "usurp any portion of a right-of-way, to convert any part of any public highway, bridge, wharf or trail to his own private use or to obstruct the same in any manner, or to use any highway ditch for irrigation or other private purposes x x x."[49]
Aside from the foregoing, the Court also notes several other acts of respondent Judge Buyucan that renders him administratively liable.
By his own admission, respondent Judge Buyucan acquired the occupied portion of the Subject Property (subject of Civil Case No. 626, entitled "Province of Nueva Vizcaya v. Eling Valdez, et al.") in August of 2008 – only a few months after dismissing Civil Case No. 626.[50] As stated earlier, it bears stressing that one of the vendors in the alleged transaction was Eling Valdez, one of the respondents in Civil Case No. 626 and the accused in Criminal Case No. 4691.[51]
Lastly, the Court also notes that despite repeated demands from the DA, respondent Judge Buyucan refused to cease his illegal occupation of the Subject Property.[52]
Persons involved in the administration of justice are expected to uphold the strictest standards of honesty and integrity in the public service; their conduct must always be beyond reproach and circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility.[53] In this regard, the Court has consistently admonished any act or omission that would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary.[54]
At the outset, respondent Judge Buyucan's continued illegal settlement erodes the public's confidence in its agents of justice considering that such act amounts to an arbitrary deprivation of the DA's ownership rights over the Subject Property. Even worse, his continued refusal to vacate instigated the continued illegal occupation of other informal settlers residing therein. Canon 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct[55] requires that the conduct of judges must reaffirm the people's faith in the integrity of the judiciary and that their conduct must, at the least, be perceived to be above reproach in the view of a reasonable observer. Based on the foregoing acts alone, it is clear the respondent Judge Buyucan fell short of the required conduct of all members of the bench.
In the same vein, the Court faults respondent Judge Buyucan for his act of acquiring a portion of the Subject Property from a respondent in a case pending before his sala. His act is further aggravated by the fact that the respondent therein, Eling Valdez, received a favorable judgment just a few months before the purported sale.
Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office.[56] Section 2 of Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a judge shall ensure that his conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public and litigants in his impartiality and that of the judiciary. In this respect, respondent Judge Buyucan's conduct incites intrigue and puts into question his impartiality in deciding the cases then pending before him. Such conduct unquestionably gives rise to the impression that he was motivated by extraneous factors in ruling on the said cases.
In Agpalasin v. Agcaoili,[57] the respondent Judge was found administratively liable for allowing an accused in a robbery case pending before his sala to pay for freight charges of his personal acquisitions. Therein, the Court held that the subsequent acquittal of the accused gave rise to the impression that the judge was swayed by other factors than the evidence on record, thereby casting doubt on the independence and integrity of the entire judiciary:
Guided by the foregoing standards, the Court hereby finds respondent Judge Buyucan guilty of gross misconduct for his flagrant violation of the standard of conduct embodied in the New Judicial Code of Judicial Conduct.
Gross misconduct is classified as a grave offense under Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, and is punishable under Section 11(A) of the same rule by: (1) dismissal from the service, forfeiture of benefits except accrued leave credits and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office; (2) suspension from office without salary or other benefits for more than three (3) months but not exceeding six (6) months; or (3) a fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.[59]
The interests of justice require no less than a penalty commensurate to the violations committed by the person charged. In this regard, the OCA's recommendation to penalize respondent Judge Buyucan with a six (6)-month suspension without benefits is far too light given the gravity and multiplicity of infractions committed by respondent Judge Buyucan. Such acts betray his utter lack of integrity and impartiality, both mandatory and continuing requirements, which renders him unfit to continue his service as an esteemed member of the bench. Bearing the foregoing in mind, the Court hereby imposes the penalty of dismissal from the service and forfeiture of benefits following Rule 140.
Further, the Court adopts the finding and recommendation of the OCA to order respondent Judge Buyucan to immediately vacate the Subject Property:
The Court takes note of the undisputed fact that respondent Judge Buyucan is occupying public land. Thus, while respondent Judge Buyucan denies the DA's ownership, he nevertheless admitted on record he is encroaching on what he claims to be the RRW of the DPWH beside the Nueva Vizcaya-Isabela National Road.[61] In this regard, the Court, which is vested with disciplinary authority over its officers, finds that respondent Judge Buyucan must likewise be ordered to immediately vacate the Subject Property.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, Judge Bill D. Buyucan of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Bagabag-Diadi, Nueva Vizcaya, is hereby found GUILTY of Gross Misconduct for violating the New Code of Judicial Conduct and is hereby DISMISSED from the service, with FORFEITURE OF ALL BENEFITS, except accrued leave credits. He is likewise DISQUALIFIED from reinstatement or appointment to any public office or employment, including to one in any government-owned or government-controlled corporations.
He is likewise ordered to IMMEDIATELY VACATE the land known as the Department of Agriculture Cagayan Valley Hillyland Research Outreach Station, REMOVE the structures he introduced thereon, and SUBMIT a report on his compliance within a period of thirty (30) days from notice.
Further, respondent Bill D. Buyucan is directed to SHOW CAUSE in writing within ten (10) days from notice why he should not be disbarred for violation of the Lawyer's Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional Ethics as outlined herein.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Court Administrator for its information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Jardeleza, Caguioa, Martires, Tijam, Reyes, Jr., and Gesmundo, JJ., concur.
Velasco, Jr., J., no part.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that on July 24, 2018 a Decision, copy attached herewith, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled administrative matter, the original of which was received by this Office on August 16, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.
[1] Rollo, p. 4.
[2] Id. at 49.
[3] Id. at 7-8.
[4] Id. at 15.
[5] Id. at 7 and 81.
[6] Id. at 8.
[7] Id.
[8] Id. at 21-35.
[9] Id. at 38-44.
[10] Id. at 45, 75 and 87.
[11] Id.
[12] Id. at 46-48.
[13] Id. at 47.
[14] OCA Memorandum (dated May 23, 2017), p. 10.
[15] Rollo, p. 4.
[16] Atty. Joselito P. Fangon, Assistant Ombudsman.
[17] Rollo, 4.
[18] Id. at 6.
[19] Id. at 7-9.
[20] OCA Memorandum, p. 2.
[21] Rollo, p. 51.
[22] Id. at 55-56.
[23] Id. at 55.
[24] Id. at 56.
[25] Id. at 55.
[26] Id. at 58-59.
[27] Id.
[28] Atty. Marilou Marzan-Anigan, Judicial Supervisor.
[29] Rollo, p. 60.
[30] Id. at 60-62.
[31] Id. at 62.
[32] Id. at 61.
[33] OCA Memorandum, p. 4.
[34] Rollo, pp. 74-76.
[35] Id. at 77.
[36] Id.
[37] Id. at 78.
[38] Id. at 86-89.
[39] Id. at 97.
[40] OCA Memorandum, pp. 8-9.
[41] Id. at 9.
[42] Id. at 9-10.
[43] OCA Memorandum, p. 11.
[44] Velasco v. Angeles, 557 Phil. 1 (2007).
[45] Español v. Mupas, 484 Phil. 636 (2004).
[46] OCA Memorandum, pp. 4-5.
[47] Rollo, p. 14.
[48] Id. at 55.
[49] Section 23, REVISED PHILIPPINE HIGHWAY ACT, Presidential Decree No. 17, October 5, 1972.
[50] Rollo, pp. 45, 75, 77 and 80.
[51] Id. at 45.
[52] OCA Memorandum, p. 6.
[53] Office of the Court Administrator v. Duque, 491 Phil. 128 (2005).
[54] Id.
[55] NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT FOR THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY, A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC, April 27, 2004.
[56] Canon 3, NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT FOR THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY, A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC, April 27, 2004.
[57] 386 Phil. 452 (2000).
[58] Id. at 468.
[59] RULES OF COURT, Rule 140, Sec. 11(A).
[60] OCA Memorandum, p. 7.
[61] Rollo, p. 55.
As gathered from the records, the factual antecedents are as follows:
On June 26, 1969, Proclamation No. 573 was signed, which set aside certain lands of the public domain as permanent forest reserves.[2] Included in the said reservation was a 193-hectare parcel of land located in Sitio Tapaya, Villaros, Bagabag, Nueva Vizcaya, a portion of which was granted to the Department of Agriculture (DA) for research purposes (Subject Property).[3] Accordingly, the Subject Property was declared for taxation purposes by the DA as evidenced by T.D. ARP No. 2005-03017-0117[4] and is now known as the Department of Agriculture Cagayan Valley Hillyland Research Outreach Station (DA-CVHILROS).[5]
As there was a need to clear the Subject Property of informal settlers already residing therein, the DA filed several criminal and civil cases before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Bagabag-Diadi, Nueva Vizcaya (MCTC), which is presided over by respondent Judge Buyucan.[6]
Among the cases filed before the MCTC were: (i) Civil Case No. 626 for Forcible Entry, entitled "Province of Nueva Vizcaya v. Eling Valdez, et al.," and (ii) Criminal Cases No. 4691 and 5094 for Malicious Mischief, entitled "People of the Philippines v. Eling Valdez" and "People of the Philippines v. Amado Valdez alias Eling," respectively.[7] The said cases were eventually dismissed by respondent Judge Buyucan in separate Decisions dated May 22, 2008[8] and June 16, 2008.[9]
A few months later, in August 2008, respondent Judge Buyucan acquired a parcel of land located within the Subject Property for One Hundred Fifty Thousand Pesos (P150,000.00) from Eling Valdez, the same respondent in the previously dismissed cases, together with Ernesto A. Bagos, Isaija Suarez, and a certain Casmin as co-vendors.[10] The purported sale was evidenced by a "Waiver of Rights and Improvements."[11]
Subsequently, complaints for Malicious Mischief were again filed before the MCTC against the informal settlers, entitled "People of the Philippines v. Arsenio Apostol and John Doe" and docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 5597 and 5598.
A Motion for Voluntary Inhibition dated March 9, 2009 was then filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), seeking the inhibition of respondent Judge Buyucan as he was also residing within the very same property involved in the said criminal cases.[12] The OSG alleged that his continued presence in the Subject Property had "emboldened" the other informal settlers to continue with their illegal occupation therein.[13] Respondent Judge Buyucan, however, refused to recuse himself from hearing the said cases.[14]
As a result of the foregoing, in a Letter dated March 1, 2013,[15] the OMB[16] informed the OCA of an anonymous text message received by the Ombudsman Lifestyle Check Hotline on February 20, 2013, as follows:
Gud day po, gusto ko lang iparating sa inyo itong problema namn dto sa brgy. Villaros, Bagabag Nueva Vizcaya tungkol po sa isang naturingan Judge dto po sa aming bayan kasip nagpatayo po cia ng bahay eh pagkaalam po naming dpo sa kanya yung lupa at wala po kamng makita na building permit tapos maluwang pa ang kanyang sinakop na lupa para kanyang panabong na maunkan imbes n asana kami ang makinabang san po paki imbistigahan po ito maraming salamat po!!!
Gud am po, yung tinutukoy po maimbistigahan ay si judge Bill Buyucan ng MTC Bagacg, N.V., tnx/.[17]
In an Indorsement dated April 4, 2013,[18] the OCA referred the Letter dated March 1, 2013 to Hon. Fernando F. Flor, Jr. (Judge Flor), Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, for investigation and report.
In his Report dated May 16, 2013,[19] Judge Flor gathered the following facts:
- Judge Buyucan is occupying an approximate area of one (1) hectare where he keeps and maintains his fighting cock farm. A year ago, he started constructing a two-storey house made of strong materials without securing a building permit. This is confirmed by the Municipal Engineer of Bagabag in its Certification dated May 15, 2013.
- The land occupied by Judge Buyucan is part of the 193 hectares given to the Department of Agriculture (DA) by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 573 dated June 26, 1969, intended for research purposes and for planting of various plants and trees. The land is declared for taxation purposes in the name of the DA as evidenced by Tax Declaration ARP No. 2005-03017-0117.
x x x x
- The Department of Environment and Natural Resources Office through its CENR Officer issued a Certification that the DENR-Officer has not issued any grant, authority under a license, lease, permit or any tenurial document to enter or occupy or possess portions of the land within the DA-CVHILROS.[20]
In a Letter dated November 15, 2013,[21] the OCA directed respondent Judge Buyucan to comment on the charges contained in the Letter dated March 1, 2013.
In his Letter dated December 13, 2013,[22] respondent Judge Buyucan denied knowledge of the DA's ownership of the Subject Property and instead claimed that the land he was occupying was within the road-right-of-way (RRW) of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) beside the Nueva Vizcaya-Isabela National Road.[23] Respondent Judge Buyucan also claimed that the alleged two (2)-storey house actually belonged to his nephew and that what he constructed were merely a "temporary Ifugao native house" and an adjacent shanty.[24] He further stated that he is, in any case, ready to vacate the area if and when the DPWH needs it.[25]
In a Resolution dated October 15, 2014,[26] the Court resolved to refer the matter back to Judge Flor to conduct a thorough determination and/or confirmation of facts and to submit a more exhaustive report thereon, to wit:
[D]espite the Report dated May 16, 2013 of Judge Flor, there are still factual issues that need to be clarified especially on the matter of Judge Buyucan's alleged squatting and occupation of the land supposedly reserved for Department of Agriculture Cagayan Valley Hillyland Research Outreach Station (DA-CVHILROS), his alleged construction of a 2-storey house without a building permit, a fighting cock farm on the said parcel of land, and an Ifugao native house allegedly within the road right of way of the Department of Public Works and Highways.[27]
Accordingly, sometime in December 2014, Judge Flor, together with a representative of this Court,[28] conducted an ocular inspection of the Subject Property.[29]
In the meantime, respondent Judge Buyucan filed a Supplemental Answer/Comment dated December 16, 2014,[30] denying once again the allegations of his squatting on the Subject Property and insisting that the land he purchased was within the RRW of the DPWH.[31] He likewise insisted that he did not own a fighting cock farm and that the structures he built were made of light and indigenous materials and thus exempted from the requirement of a building permit under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1096.[32] Further, respondent Judge Buyucan alleged that the two (2)-storey house described in the Report dated May 16, 2013 is actually owned by his brother, Gabriel Buyucan, who purchased the lot sometime in June 2008 from a certain Larry Valdez, as evidenced by a Waiver of Rights and corroborated by several affidavits.[33]
Thereafter, in compliance with the Resolution dated October 15, 2014, Judge Flor submitted a Report dated January 20, 2015,[34] submitting additional evidence and essentially refuting respondent Judge Buyucan's statements in his Letter dated December 13, 2013. The following facts were further established in the said Report: (i) respondent Judge Buyucan was indeed squatting on the Subject Property; (ii) the informal settlers in the Subject Property were mostly members of the same Ifugao tribe of respondent Judge Buyucan;[35] (iii) respondent Judge Buyucan had several confrontations with the representatives of the Office of the Solicitor General with respect to his illegal occupation of the Subject Property;[36] and (iv) respondent Judge Buyucan erected a building of strong materials on the Subject Property without procuring the necessary building permit.[37]
In a Supplemental Report dated February 16, 2015,[38] Judge Flor recommended the penalty of dismissal from the service against respondent Judge Buyucan as a result of the foregoing acts.
In a Resolution dated September 21, 2016,[39] the Court referred the matter to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation.
The OCA 's Report and Recommendation
In its Memorandum dated May 23, 2017 (OCA Memorandum), the OCA found respondent Judge Buyucan liable for gross misconduct for his illegal occupation and refusal to vacate the Subject Property despite demands from the DA-CVHILROS.[40] Such conduct, the OCA opined, encouraged other illegal settlers to continue occupying portions of the Subject Property in defiance of the orders of the DA.[41] The OCA further opined that respondent Judge Buyucan's act of acquiring a portion of the Subject Property from Eling Valdez three (3) months after deciding a case in his favor was unethical and was indicative of a lack of independence and impartiality.[42]
The OCA recommended thus:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully recommended for the consideration of the Honorable Court that:
Whether respondent Judge Buyucan is guilty of gross misconduct.
Respondent Judge Buyucan is liable. After a judicious review of the records, the Court adopts the findings in the OCA Memorandum with modification only as to the penalty recommended.
In administrative cases, the quantum of proof required is only substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[44] Pertinently, as with factual findings of trial courts, credence should be accorded to the findings of the investigating judge who had the opportunity to hear witnesses and observe their demeanor.[45]
In this case, the liability of respondent Judge Buyucan hinges on whether he is in fact illegally occupying a portion of the Subject Property. The Court finds in the affirmative.
The evidence on record is unequivocal. As summarized in the OCA Memorandum:
To prove that Judge Buyucan illegally occupied the land reserved for the DA-CVHILROS, Executive Judge Flor submitted a Sworn Statement executed by Ernesto Bagos, Antonio M. Balut and Reynaldo G. Garcia, Jr. The affidavit states that: (1) Bagos was one of the vendors who sold his occupation of the land and its improvements to Judge Buyucan; (2) Balut was one of the carpenters who constructed the 2-storey house and was paid by Edwin Buyucan, nephew of Judge Buyucan; and (3) Garcia, Jr. was the Barangay Captain of Villaros who witnessed the execution of the Waiver of Rights between Bagos and Judge Buyucan. He also submitted the Affidavit dated January 29, 2009 of Ms. Celerina T. Miranda stating that Judge Buyucan is one of those who is occupying a portion of the area of DA-CVHILROS and built a rest house and cultivated portions thereof and planted pineapple, mangoes and corn. The affidavit was executed to support a Motion to Inhibit Judge Buyucan. In another affidavit, Ms. Miranda stated that Judge Buyucan up to the present is squatting on the land reserved for the DA and his acts have emboldened others to enlarge their occupations of the land to the detriment of the outreach projects of the DA-CVHILROS. It also stated that Assistant Solicitor General Hector Calilung who was providing legal assistance to the DA in 2008 had several confrontations with Judge Buyucan regarding his illegal occupation of the DA's land and that he was present during the taking of a survey questionnaire where Judge Buyucan stated that he was a transferee of the land. In addition, Executive Judge Flor in his Supplemental Report dated February 16, 2015 also points out that the land occupied by Judge Buyucan is not only the land beside the national highway where he built a native Ifugao house but also occupied about 20 to 30 meters of the DA-CVHILROS reserved land where he built his rest house.[46]
In addition, respondent Judge Buyucan's claim that he was not occupying a portion of the Subject Property is plainly belied by the verification plan prepared by the DENR, which forms part of the records of this case.[47] Proceeding therefrom, the Court so finds that respondent Judge Buyucan was indeed an illegal occupant of the Subject Property.
In any case, even assuming that respondent Judge Buyucan did not occupy a portion of the Subject Property, he is still liable due to his admission in his Letter dated December 13, 2013 that he was then occupying a portion of the RRW of the DPWH Nueva Vizcaya-Isabela National Road.[48] As aptly observed in the OCA Memorandum, such act nevertheless constitutes a violation of P.O. No. 17, which makes it unlawful for any person to "usurp any portion of a right-of-way, to convert any part of any public highway, bridge, wharf or trail to his own private use or to obstruct the same in any manner, or to use any highway ditch for irrigation or other private purposes x x x."[49]
Aside from the foregoing, the Court also notes several other acts of respondent Judge Buyucan that renders him administratively liable.
By his own admission, respondent Judge Buyucan acquired the occupied portion of the Subject Property (subject of Civil Case No. 626, entitled "Province of Nueva Vizcaya v. Eling Valdez, et al.") in August of 2008 – only a few months after dismissing Civil Case No. 626.[50] As stated earlier, it bears stressing that one of the vendors in the alleged transaction was Eling Valdez, one of the respondents in Civil Case No. 626 and the accused in Criminal Case No. 4691.[51]
Lastly, the Court also notes that despite repeated demands from the DA, respondent Judge Buyucan refused to cease his illegal occupation of the Subject Property.[52]
Persons involved in the administration of justice are expected to uphold the strictest standards of honesty and integrity in the public service; their conduct must always be beyond reproach and circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility.[53] In this regard, the Court has consistently admonished any act or omission that would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary.[54]
At the outset, respondent Judge Buyucan's continued illegal settlement erodes the public's confidence in its agents of justice considering that such act amounts to an arbitrary deprivation of the DA's ownership rights over the Subject Property. Even worse, his continued refusal to vacate instigated the continued illegal occupation of other informal settlers residing therein. Canon 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct[55] requires that the conduct of judges must reaffirm the people's faith in the integrity of the judiciary and that their conduct must, at the least, be perceived to be above reproach in the view of a reasonable observer. Based on the foregoing acts alone, it is clear the respondent Judge Buyucan fell short of the required conduct of all members of the bench.
In the same vein, the Court faults respondent Judge Buyucan for his act of acquiring a portion of the Subject Property from a respondent in a case pending before his sala. His act is further aggravated by the fact that the respondent therein, Eling Valdez, received a favorable judgment just a few months before the purported sale.
Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office.[56] Section 2 of Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a judge shall ensure that his conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public and litigants in his impartiality and that of the judiciary. In this respect, respondent Judge Buyucan's conduct incites intrigue and puts into question his impartiality in deciding the cases then pending before him. Such conduct unquestionably gives rise to the impression that he was motivated by extraneous factors in ruling on the said cases.
In Agpalasin v. Agcaoili,[57] the respondent Judge was found administratively liable for allowing an accused in a robbery case pending before his sala to pay for freight charges of his personal acquisitions. Therein, the Court held that the subsequent acquittal of the accused gave rise to the impression that the judge was swayed by other factors than the evidence on record, thereby casting doubt on the independence and integrity of the entire judiciary:
That the accused who indulged respondent Judge's corrupt tendencies was subsequently acquitted further gives rise to suspicions that the judge was influenced by the favors the accused extended to him. It gives the impression that the judge was swayed by factors other than the evidence on record, that he arrived at the decision of acquittal other than by his own independent judgment.
A judge should, in pending or prospective litigation before him, be scrupulously careful to avoid such action as may reasonably tend to waken the suspicion that his social or business relations or friendships constitute an element in determining his judicial course. He must not only render a just, correct and impartial decision but should do so in such a manner as to be free from any suspicion as to his fairness, impartiality and integrity. A decision which correctly applies the law and jurisprudence will nevertheless be subject to questions of impropriety when rendered by a magistrate or tribunal believed to be less than impartial and honest.[58] (Emphasis supplied)
Guided by the foregoing standards, the Court hereby finds respondent Judge Buyucan guilty of gross misconduct for his flagrant violation of the standard of conduct embodied in the New Judicial Code of Judicial Conduct.
Gross misconduct is classified as a grave offense under Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, and is punishable under Section 11(A) of the same rule by: (1) dismissal from the service, forfeiture of benefits except accrued leave credits and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office; (2) suspension from office without salary or other benefits for more than three (3) months but not exceeding six (6) months; or (3) a fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.[59]
The interests of justice require no less than a penalty commensurate to the violations committed by the person charged. In this regard, the OCA's recommendation to penalize respondent Judge Buyucan with a six (6)-month suspension without benefits is far too light given the gravity and multiplicity of infractions committed by respondent Judge Buyucan. Such acts betray his utter lack of integrity and impartiality, both mandatory and continuing requirements, which renders him unfit to continue his service as an esteemed member of the bench. Bearing the foregoing in mind, the Court hereby imposes the penalty of dismissal from the service and forfeiture of benefits following Rule 140.
Further, the Court adopts the finding and recommendation of the OCA to order respondent Judge Buyucan to immediately vacate the Subject Property:
[J]udge Buyucan's claim that he is not occupying the land of the DA but a portion of the road right of way of the Nueva Vizcaya-Isabela road is inconsistent with the survey map of the entire land of the DA-CVHILROS. The map shows that Judge Buyucan occupies lot 45 (in orange highlight) of parcel no. 1 located near the Nueva Vizacaya-Isabel (sic) national road. As pointed out by Executive Judge Flor, Judge Buyucan does not only occupy the land beside the national highway where he built his native Ifugao house but also about 20 to 30 meters of the DA-CVHILROS land. But even assuming that the land he occupies is not within the DA-CVHILROS land, his possession of a portion of the road right of way of the national highway of the DPWH is still unlawful. x x x
To prove that he legally occupies the subject land, Judge Buyucan presented the Waiver of Rights executed by Ernesto Bagos in his favor. However, the said land transferred to him is within the land owned by the DA-CVHILROS which has been the subject of a controversy between the DA and the occupants of the land which was brought to his court for adjudication. Hence, Judge Buyucan's rights over the land are still questionable as the DA has yet to take appropriate action against him and claimants of the land.[60]
The Court takes note of the undisputed fact that respondent Judge Buyucan is occupying public land. Thus, while respondent Judge Buyucan denies the DA's ownership, he nevertheless admitted on record he is encroaching on what he claims to be the RRW of the DPWH beside the Nueva Vizcaya-Isabela National Road.[61] In this regard, the Court, which is vested with disciplinary authority over its officers, finds that respondent Judge Buyucan must likewise be ordered to immediately vacate the Subject Property.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, Judge Bill D. Buyucan of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Bagabag-Diadi, Nueva Vizcaya, is hereby found GUILTY of Gross Misconduct for violating the New Code of Judicial Conduct and is hereby DISMISSED from the service, with FORFEITURE OF ALL BENEFITS, except accrued leave credits. He is likewise DISQUALIFIED from reinstatement or appointment to any public office or employment, including to one in any government-owned or government-controlled corporations.
He is likewise ordered to IMMEDIATELY VACATE the land known as the Department of Agriculture Cagayan Valley Hillyland Research Outreach Station, REMOVE the structures he introduced thereon, and SUBMIT a report on his compliance within a period of thirty (30) days from notice.
Further, respondent Bill D. Buyucan is directed to SHOW CAUSE in writing within ten (10) days from notice why he should not be disbarred for violation of the Lawyer's Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Canons of Professional Ethics as outlined herein.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Court Administrator for its information and guidance.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Jardeleza, Caguioa, Martires, Tijam, Reyes, Jr., and Gesmundo, JJ., concur.
Velasco, Jr., J., no part.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that on July 24, 2018 a Decision, copy attached herewith, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled administrative matter, the original of which was received by this Office on August 16, 2018 at 10:00 a.m.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Clerk of Court
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Clerk of Court
[1] Rollo, p. 4.
[2] Id. at 49.
[3] Id. at 7-8.
[4] Id. at 15.
[5] Id. at 7 and 81.
[6] Id. at 8.
[7] Id.
[8] Id. at 21-35.
[9] Id. at 38-44.
[10] Id. at 45, 75 and 87.
[11] Id.
[12] Id. at 46-48.
[13] Id. at 47.
[14] OCA Memorandum (dated May 23, 2017), p. 10.
[15] Rollo, p. 4.
[16] Atty. Joselito P. Fangon, Assistant Ombudsman.
[17] Rollo, 4.
[18] Id. at 6.
[19] Id. at 7-9.
[20] OCA Memorandum, p. 2.
[21] Rollo, p. 51.
[22] Id. at 55-56.
[23] Id. at 55.
[24] Id. at 56.
[25] Id. at 55.
[26] Id. at 58-59.
[27] Id.
[28] Atty. Marilou Marzan-Anigan, Judicial Supervisor.
[29] Rollo, p. 60.
[30] Id. at 60-62.
[31] Id. at 62.
[32] Id. at 61.
[33] OCA Memorandum, p. 4.
[34] Rollo, pp. 74-76.
[35] Id. at 77.
[36] Id.
[37] Id. at 78.
[38] Id. at 86-89.
[39] Id. at 97.
[40] OCA Memorandum, pp. 8-9.
[41] Id. at 9.
[42] Id. at 9-10.
[43] OCA Memorandum, p. 11.
[44] Velasco v. Angeles, 557 Phil. 1 (2007).
[45] Español v. Mupas, 484 Phil. 636 (2004).
[46] OCA Memorandum, pp. 4-5.
[47] Rollo, p. 14.
[48] Id. at 55.
[49] Section 23, REVISED PHILIPPINE HIGHWAY ACT, Presidential Decree No. 17, October 5, 1972.
[50] Rollo, pp. 45, 75, 77 and 80.
[51] Id. at 45.
[52] OCA Memorandum, p. 6.
[53] Office of the Court Administrator v. Duque, 491 Phil. 128 (2005).
[54] Id.
[55] NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT FOR THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY, A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC, April 27, 2004.
[56] Canon 3, NEW CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT FOR THE PHILIPPINE JUDICIARY, A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC, April 27, 2004.
[57] 386 Phil. 452 (2000).
[58] Id. at 468.
[59] RULES OF COURT, Rule 140, Sec. 11(A).
[60] OCA Memorandum, p. 7.
[61] Rollo, p. 55.