A judge is the visible representation of the law and, more importantly, of justice.^[1] He must be first in observing the law scrupulously. Any appearance of criminal violation of the law, in any way or capacity, directly or indirectly, principal or accessing, will warrant the judge to be disrobed. We cannot tolerate a discordant robe in the judiciary. This is the case of Judge Ismael B. Sanchez.

On 25 June 1999, the Chief Justice received an anonymous letter^[2] from a "Group to Clean the Judiciary of Lucena City" informing the Court of the misconduct of Judge Ismael B. Sanchez for using a car involved in a carnapping case in his sala.

By First Indorsement,^[3] the Chief Justice referred the letter to the Court Administrator for appropriate action.

In view of the indorsement, Justice Narciso T. Atienza (Ret.), a consultant of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), made a discreet inquiry on the reported impropriety to coincide with an on-the-spot audit of the Regional Trial Court, Quezon, Branch 57, Lucena City, and the follow-up audit in Branch 53, same court. This was to divert the attention of the court employees who may be able to give information on the whereabouts of the car.

On the basis of the Report that Justice Atienza submitted, on 20 August 1999, the Court Administrator recommended to the Chief Justice that: ^[1] the Investigation Report of Justice Atienza be considered as an administrative complaint against Judge Ismael B. Sanchez; ^[2] the case be docketed as an administrative matter; ^[3] Judge Sanchez be required to comment thereon within ten (10) days from notice; and ^[4] upon receipt thereof, the case be assigned to a Justice of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation.^[4]

Upon the filing of the respondent Judge's Comment,^[5] on 27 June 2000, the Court resolved to refer the case to Associate Justice Mercedes Gozo-Dadole of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation within ninety (90) days from receipt of the records.^[6]

After due investigation, on 21 March 2001, Justice Dadole submitted a Report and Recommendation summarizing the facts, thus:

"This administrative case started when a letter dated June 17, 1999 from "a Group to Clean the Judiciary of Lucena" was sent to the Honorable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court wherein the following information was provided:

"That a case for violation of the Anti-Carnapping Act (Rep. Act No. 6539) entitled "People vs. SPO4 Rim Mulbog y Morales" docketed as Criminal Case No. 96-460 was filed in Lucena City and assigned to Branch 58 (Regional Trial Court) presided by Judge Sanchez; that the car involved is a gray Toyota Corolla four-door sedan with engine number 2E-2816712 and chassis number EE100-9539128; that on October 28, 1996, the said case was provisionally dismissed on the ground that the owner of the car is unknown; that in an office order dated November 27, 1996, Judge Sanchez authorized the process server of Branch 58, Mr. Jose D. Lopez, to receive and accept from the District Director, PNP, Traffic Management District IV, Camp Vicente Lim, Laguna, the said car for delivery to the Chief of Police, PNP, Lucena City for safekeeping; that on November 30, 1996, said car was received by Mr. Lopez after signing an undertaking; that said car was, however, not delivered to the Chief of Police, PNP, Lucena City because Judge Sanchez took custody thereof for his personal use; and that after using the car in Lucena City for a few months, Judge Sanchez brought the car to his residence in Pasig and thereafter the car was never seen again in Lucena City.^[7]

"Pursuant to the First Indorsement dated June 28, 1999, the aforementioned letter of June 17, 1999 was endorsed by the Chief Justice for appropriate action by the Honorable Court Administrator^[8] who in turn directed Justice Narciso P. Atienza (ret.), consultant of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), to conduct a discreet inquiry on the matter resulting in the submission of the Report dated August 2, 1999 by the latter^[9] wherein the following facts were shown:

"In the morning of July 28, 1999, while the Audit Team was conducting the on-the-spot audit in RTC Branch 57, the undersigned went to the Office of the Chief of Police of Lucena City, to inquire whether the car subject of Crim. Case No. 96-460 for Carnapping was turned over to the Chief of Police for safekeeping and follow-up investigation as per order of the court dated October 28, 1996. The Chief of Police was not in his office, but the undersigned was able to talk to the Deputy Chief of Police, Senior Inspector Ricardo Villanueva.

"In his conversation with the Deputy Chief of Police, the undersigned was informed that the subject car was not turned over to the Chief of Police for safekeeping and follow-up investigation. The Deputy Chief of Police said that their office did not receive even a copy of the order, xerox copy of which was shown to him. He brought the undersigned to the place where vehicles are impounded to view the place, and he did not see any Toyota Corolla car there.

"In view of the information given by the Deputy Chief of Police, the undersigned went to RTC Branch 58 and asked for Mr. Lopez, the Process Server who was earlier directed by the court to take temporary custody of the car during pendency of the case. Mr. Lopez was not in his office the whole day because he served summons at No. 1717, T.P. Building, Jose Abad Santos, Tondo, Manila.

"On the following day, (July 29, 1999), the undersigned met Mr. Lopez in his office. When queried on the whereabouts of the car, after showing to him the xerox copy of the order dated October 28, 1996, which was attached to the basic communication, Mr. Lopez said that the car is in the possession of Judge Sanchez since October 1998.

"Mr. Lopez narrated that he did not turn over the custody of the car to the Chief of Police because on December 6, 1996, the court issued an order transferring the custody and possession of the car to the court. Mr. Lopez claimed that after the car was repaired and the missing parts replaced, the car remained in his custody and it was used by the court on official matters where use of motor vehicle is necessary.

"The subject car is not within the vicinity of the court when the inquiry was conducted on July 28, 29, 1999. The undersigned was informed by a court employee who requested not to be identified that the subject car was brought by Judge Sanchez to his residence in Pasig, Metro Manila.^[10]

"This investigation report of Justice Atienza was considered by the Honorable Supreme Court as an administrative complaint against Judge Sanchez and at the same time required him to file his comment, per Resolution en banc, dated September 21, 1999^[11] which he readily complied with by submitting his Comment dated October 28, 1999.^[12]

tags