Case Digest: Dionisio vs Escano, AM NO. RTJ 98-1400, February 1, 1999

                         New Code of Judicial Conduct, Propriety |     Legal Ethics

Facts:

Carlos Dionisio accuses Judge Zosimo Escano of using court facilities to advertise for attractive waitresses and personnel for a restaurant business. The following week, an advertisement for waitresses and female vocalists appeared in the Manila Bulletin, indicating Fontana Café & Restaurant as the hiring establishment with contact details addressed to his RTC branch. 

An undercover investigation by ABS-CBN's "Hoy Gising!" revealed that Judge Escano admitted to owning the establishment and described its concept, targeting classes A and B customers and emphasizing physical attractiveness. He mentioned the employment of waitresses wearing mini-skirts and having slightly revealing attire. He acknowledged the presence of customers known as "DOM" (Dirty Old Men) and discussed the need for singers to wear attention-grabbing clothing.

Judge Escano clarified that the business was intended as a restaurant and a gathering place for friends. Judge Escano claimed that the business was initially intended as a pub but is now operated as a cafe. He explained that he assisted his wife in hiring personnel and posted notices on the court bulletin board without realizing it may be perceived as a misuse of court facilities. He promptly removed the posters upon realization.

The investigation confirmed that Judge Escano posted the advertisement and made suggestions to applicants regarding attire during screenings. 

The investigating justice recommended a fine of P15,000.00, considering Judge Escano's intention to help his wife's business and his prompt cessation of the infraction. 

Issue:

WoN the respondent judge is administratively liable. 

Held:

Judge Zosimo Escano has behaved in a manner unbecoming of his judicial robe, betrayed the people's high expectations, and diminished the esteem in which they hold the judiciary in general. It is of no import that respondent Judge's act of using the court's facilities be motivated by a good cause, no matter how honorable. The moment such act deviates from purposes not directly related to the functioning and operation for which the courts of justice has been established, it must be immediately rectified. In Bautista vs. Costelo, Jr., we have held that "the prohibition against the use of halls of justice for purposes other than that for which they have been built extends to their immediate vicinity including their grounds. Otherwise, if the prohibition is not thus construed, acts tending to degrade courts would go unpunished on the pretext that they are not committed 'within the Halls of Justice'."

The excuse advanced by respondent Judge that in order for the prospective applicants not to have difficulty of locating their residence it would be more convenient if the screening was made inside his court, is a reason lacking in circumspection and delicadeza. It over-extends his authority as judge by failing to avoid situations that make him suspect to committing immorality. For judges are enjoined to avoid not just impropriety in their conduct but even the mere appearance of impropriety. This is true not only in the performance of their judicial duties but in all their activities, including their private lives. Judges must conduct themselves in such a manner that they give no ground for reproach. For no position exacts a greater demand or moral righteousness and uprightness of an individual than a seat in the judiciary. 

And as correctly pointed by the Investigating Justice, the acts of posting advertisements for the restaurant personnel on the court bulletin board, using his court address to receive the applications, and of screening applicants in his court constitute involvement in private business and improper use of office facilities for the promotion of the family business in violation of the Code of Judicial Ethics. The restriction enshrined under Rules 5.02 and 5.03 of the Code of Judicial Ethics on judges with regard to their own business interests is based on the possible interference which may be created by these business involvements in the exercise of their judicial duties which may tend to corrode the respect and dignity of the courts as the bastion of justice. Judges must not allow themselves to be distracted from the performance of their judicial tasks by other lawful enterprises. It has been a time honored rule that judges and all court employees should endeavor to maintain at all times the confidence and high respect accorded to those who wield the gavel of justice. 

As to the other charge that respondent Judge has caused the construction of an extension office known as the "Office of Negotiable Cases" after he acquitted a certain Hung, we have carefully reviewed the records of this case and find no evidence to substantiate that such office exists. In the absence of proof necessary to have a contrary holding, we find no reason to disbelieve the contention of respondent Judge that the extension office was constructed by the Municipal Government of Parañaque as a stockroom and as office for some court personnel. The complainant in this case admittedly being "incognito" for fear of placing his source of livelihood at peril, has failed to fully support such claim. The Rules, even in an administrative case, demand that, if the respondent judge should be disciplined for grave misconduct or any graver offense, the evidence against him should be competent and should be derived from direct knowledge.  For before any member of the judiciary could be faulted, it should be only after due investigation and after presentation of competent evidence, especially since the charge is penal in character. 

Furthermore, we likewise find no cogent reason to disturb the findings and conclusion of the respondent Judge in Criminal Case No. 96-62 entitled "People vs. Jia Hung, et al.". The Court understands the frustration that litigants and lawyers alike, would at times encounter in procedural bureaucracy, but imperative justice requires proper observance of indiputable technicalities precisely designed to ensure its proper dispensation. For if a party is prejudiced by the orders of a judge, his remedy lies with the proper court for the proper judicial action and not with the Office of the Court Administrator by means of an administrative complaint. Divergence of opinion between a trial judge and a party's counsel as to admissibility of evidence is not proof of bias and partiality. 

Ruling:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent Judge Zosimo Escano is hereby meted the penalty of SUSPENSION from service for six (6) months which shall start upon receipt of notice hereof WITH WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely