An administrative complaint under oath^[1] was filed by Leonardo Babatio, Municipal Mayor of Motiong, Samar, against Municipal Judge Jose Z. Tan of said town, with the following charges and specifi­cations:

"1. For:  Grave Coercion and Unprofessional Conduct

On or about December 7, 1974 at about 9:00 o'clock at the basketball court of Motiong, Samar, when TRANSITO BERMEJO was working at the damaged portion of the basketball court fronting the municipal hall, Judge Jose Z. Tan without legal basis arbitrarily forced Transito Bermejo to enter the municipal jail and against the consent of said Transito Bermejo but due to the justified resistance of said Bermejo, Judge Tan was not able to put him in jail.

"2. For:  Unprofessional Conduct and Reproachable Personal Behavior

On or about August 6, 1974 at the municipality of Motiong, Samar, Judge Jose Z. Tan in a display of haughtiness, unprofessional conduct and reproach­able personal behaviour arrogantly threw the fish for sale of Fernando Java into the ground for the simple reason that the fish Judge Tan bargained for was not granted by said Fernando Java.

"3. For:  Partisan Politics

That on or about the 1st day of August, 1974 at Motiong, Samar, Judge Tan had actively partici­pated in partisan politics in the elections (of) barangay heads particularly Alfonsa Tan and he was the active promoter of said Alfonsa Tan, one of the candidates for barangay head.  That as a consequence of the loss of Alfonsa Tan to Vicente Bermejo, her stenographer and typist who voted for Vicente Bermejo was forcibly made to resign.

"4. For:  Unprofessional Conduct and Reproachable Behavior

On or about the 6th day of August, 1974, Judge Tan accosted Felix Rondina, a municipal janitor and told said Felix Rondina, that since you are the "tuta" (puppy) of the Mayor, you tell him to come and anytime I will challenge him to a fist fight in the public market or in the plaza.  Judge Tan disregarding his position in the government called the mayor as an animal like his master Marcos (referring to President Marcos).

"5. For:  Usurping the functions of the Office of the Chief of Police of Motiong

Judge Jose Z. Tan in a case filed against Glicerio B. Eufracio, Jr., for Grave Slander by Deed with intent and his full knowledge of the extent of his authority as municipal judge was the one who personally prepared the affidavits of the alleged aggrieved party and same complaint was filed in his Sala.

"6. For:  Ordering the arrest without warrant of arrest

On or about the 4th day of July, 1975, in the Poblacion of Motiong, Samar, Guillermo Lagbo, Fernando Tan and Basilio Lagbo, were illegally arrested without warrant of arrest and arbitrarily clapped in the municipal jail before any formal com­plaint was filed upon order of Judge Tan."

This case was first referred to Judge Segundo Zosa of the Court of First Instance, Branch I, Catbalogan, Samar, for investigation, report and recommendation.  Judge Zosa conducted several hearings and when he was transferred to the Court of First Instance, Branch XXXVI at Makati, Metro Manila, District Judge Wenceslao M. Polo who replaced Judge Zosa took over the investigation, and submitted the following report dated August 31, 1981:^[2]

"Evaluating the whole evidence on record, your investigator finds and is of the honest opinion that of the six (6) charges against the herein respondent, five (5) counts had been fully substantiated.

"In Charge No. 3, for Partisan Politics, to the effect that on August 1, 1974, the respon­dent promoted the candidacy of Mrs. Alfonsa Tan as barangay chairman, proof is wanting along this line.  Assuming that such act is prohibited and therefore a ground for an admi­nistrative action, the only proof adduced against respondent is that in the morning of July 29, 1974, while in the house of Marianito Tan at Motiong, Samar, respondent called for Lamberto Pacanza, Judith Pacanza, Vedasto Dasmarinas, Jr. and his wife, and thereat, the respondent told them to vote for his candidate, Alfonsa Tan and Vedasto Dasmarinas, Jr.  This sounds true but improbable, because Alfonsa Tan is the wife of Marianito Tan, the incumbent Vice-Mayor who is himself a politician and Vedasto Dasmarinas is also a candidate for that office and therefore there was no necessity for the respondent to campaign for their candi­dacy.  Besides, during that day of the voting, it was clearly shown that respondent was out of his station.  He was in Catbalogan, Samar.  To the assertion that Judith Pacanza, a clerk of the Municipal Court was made to resign by the respondent on the ground that she did not vote for the candidate of the latter, the declaration of the two (2) witnesses presented to prove or establish this point has no leg to stand for the reason that Judith Pacanza herself was not pre­sented as a witness.

"For Charge Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 however, the evidence is preponderant and convincing against the herein respondent.

"When the complainant and his witnesses were presented, they testified in a natural manner, they declared without hesitation.  Your Investigator found no circumstance which would impeach their truthfulness nor conditions which would render their narration inherently improbable.  Besides, in the absence of a convincing proof which would tend to show that these witnesses had any ulterior motive to testify against the respondent, their assertions or declarations could be relied upon, more especially the policemen of Motiong, Samar, as witnesses for the complainant.  They, being merely municipal officials or employees who testified as to what transpired in the performance of their duties, were neutral and disinterested and has no reason therefore to falsely testify against the respondent.

"Analyzing the evidence supporting the defense presented by the respondent, Your Investigator found that the declarations of the respondent and his witnesses do not deserve credibility for lack of sufficient proof to peg the holes of weak recollections.  The assertion of the respondent that he did not actually stop Transito Bermejo and his two (2) laborers from working on the damaged portion of the cemented basketball court and the municipal auditorium but merely explained to him that they were destroying government property and also did not force Bermejo to enter the municipal jail, as a result his T-shirt was torn; that he did not arrogantly throw the fish for sale at the market of the vendor Fernando Jaba and that, he did not utter a challenging remark to a fight to the municipal mayor while at the public market on that day, cannot prevail over the positive decla­rations of the witnesses of the complainant who testified on the matter.  As a municipal judge, it is not a part of his duty nor incumbent upon him to call the Philippine Constabulary to main­tain peace and order during the celebration of the fiesta of that town, much less to check on the projects of the municipal government on whether or not they are being undertaken according to specifications.  It is a function of the head of the local government of that town.  By doing so, the respondent stooped too low and even went to the level of a laborer and a fish vendor and, pre­sumably has forgotten that he was holding a position invested with public trust and confidence principally charged with the administration of justice in that area.

"On the claim that the case against Glicerio Eufracio, Jr. for Slander by Deed filed by Francisca Gaviola on March 10, 1975, the pleading and affidavit was prepared by Atty. Manuel Torrevillas, Jr. on that day, the same cannot prevail over the declaration of Acting Chief of Police Bermejo who saw respondent himself preparing the papers after which accompanied the complainant to his office for his (Bermejo's) signature.  Moreover, the record or the docket of that Court does not show that Atty. Torrevillas appeared as private prosecutor in that case.

"The same is true to Charge No. 6.  Precisely, the respondent presumably cons­cious of the fact that the three (3) accused (Basilio Lagbo, Guillermo Lagbo and Fernando Tan) were already detained at the municipal jail, after Acting Chief of Police Bermejo refused to sign that criminal complaint for Slander by Deed, already prepared for his signature, for the reason that he had no hand in the investigation of the case, the respondent even admitted that he assisted or guided the complainant Vedasto Dasmariñas, Jr. in his office or chamber in preparing the complaint and affidavit to be signed by the said complainant.  After this complaint was finished that evening, the same was filed and docketed by the respondent after which a warrant of arrest was issued.

"Considering the nature of the case and that day being a holiday, the respondent acted precipitately in accepting the complaint and issuing the bench warrant.  He even went beyond the call of duty by assisting if not preparing the pleadings for the complainant.  He should have been more prudent and circumspect in the discharge of his duties so as to obviate the suspicion that he was in cahoots with the offended party in that case for the purpose of using the strong arm of the law against the accused."

The Investigating Judge found that respondent failed to live up to his sworn duties and is guilty of grave misconduct in office, despite which, however, he recommends that respondent judge be only reprimanded and admonished that a repetition of the same offense will be dealt with more severely, considering that his transfer to the Municipal Court of Sta. Rita, Samar, a far distant town which is sometimes not accessible by road and saturated by NPAs may already be regarded as sufficient punishment to him.

Deputy Court Administrator Arturo Buena disagrees with the Inves­tigating Judge and recommends that he be separated from the service.  We agree with Deputy Court Administrator Buena considering that from the established facts and findings of the Investigating Judge five of the six (6) serious charges against respondent judge have been fully substantiated.  The acts attributed to him and duly proven constitute serious misconduct and want on abuse of authority prejudicial to the judiciary and to public interest.

As borne out by the records, respondent judge has miserably failed to conduct himself within the confines of propriety.  We deplore his use of the power of his office without restraint, which to Our mind, not only demeans his judicial office but also erodes the confidence of the people in the Bench, making him unfit to continue in the service to which the people take recourse for their protection and comfort.  His actuations placed the court in danger of disrepute, which We must zealously guard against, if We have to maintain the confidence of the people in the whole judicial machinery.

At this point, it is well to quote the exhortation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics:

A judge's official conduct should be free from appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior not only upon the bench and in the performance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach.^[3]

Accordingly, respondent judge is hereby separated from the service, as recommended, for serious misconduct with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and pay and with prejudice to reinstatement to any position in the national or local government, including government owned or controlled corporations, agencies or instrumentalities.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Acting Chief Justice), Barredo, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez, Guerrero, Abad Santos, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.
Makasiar, J., on leave.

---

^[1] pp. 34-35, Rollo.

^[2] pp. 337-342, Id.

^[3] Section 5; See also de la Paz vs. Inulan, 64 SCRA 549.