This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2003-03-10 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| It appears now that respondent has failed to live up to those rigorous standards. Whether or not he purposely went to the Manila Hotel on November 25, 1998 to meet complainant or only had a chance meeting with him, his act of trying to convince complainant to agree to his proposal is an act of impropriety. It is improper and highly unethical for a judge to suggest to a litigant what to do to resolve his case for such would generate the suspicion that the judge is in collusion with one party. A litigant in a case is entitled to no less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.[18] Judges are not only required to be impartial, but also to appear to be so, for appearance is an essential manifestation of reality.[19] Hence, not only must a judge render a just decision, he is also duty bound to render it in a manner completely free from suspicion as to its fairness and its integrity.[20] Respondent's conduct in the instant case inevitably invites doubts about respondent's probity and integrity. It gives ground for a valid reproach. In the judiciary, moral integrity is more than a cardinal virtue, it is a necessity.[21] Moreover, a judge's lack of impartiality or the mere appearance of bias would cause resentment if the party who refused the judge's proposal subsequently lost his case. It would give rise to suspicion that the judgment was "fixed" beforehand. Such circumstance tarnishes the image of the judiciary and brings to it public contempt, disrepute, and ridicule. Thus, we are constrained to rule that respondent violated Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.[22] His misconduct is not excused but rather made more glaring by the fact that the controversy involving complainant was pending in his own sala. | |||||