CEBU, Philippines - For having an ocular inspection without notice or the presence of the parties, the Supreme Court of the Philippines found Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) Judge Jasper Jesse Dacanay guilty of an administrative case.
Acting Chief Justice Antonio Carpio found Dacanay guilty of committing conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service in violation of Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.
He was meted a penalty of P30,000 fine.
“Judge Dacanay is directed to pay, within 15 days from notice of this decision, this fine together with the fine imposed in A.M. No. MTJ-03-1480. Judge Dacanay is sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely,” the decision reads.
In his complaint filed before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), Dr. Janos Vizcayno said the respondent committed gross ignorance of the law, abuse of authority, manifest partiality and delay.
He said he was the defendant of the civil case filed by Deodito Pulido for forcible entry and damages before the MCTC Liloan-Compostela.
On March 31, 2009, he said the respondent conducted an ocular inspection on the subject property without notice. He added he only learned from their neighbor the actuation of the respondent.
“Complainant argues that respondent judge committed a gross violation of the due process clause protected under the Constitution when the latter conducted an ex-parte ocular inspection without notice to him. Respondent judge failed to live up to that norm of conduct that judges should not only be impartial but should also appear impartial when he conducted an inspection together with the plaintiffs,” the facts of the case read.
Vizcayno added that instead of hearing their motion for inhibition, the respondent ignored the same and proceeded with the hearing of the case.
In his comment, the respondent admitted going to the subject property with his utility personnel only to conduct his own personal investigation. He said he verified if the subject property really exist.
“At the time of his personal inspection of the property, no one from either the plaintiffs or the defendant ever entertained him. What he did was to make a mere assessment of the property for his personal satisfaction, in all good faith and without fraud, dishonesty, or malicious intent,” the comment reads.
Dacanay said it was premature for the complainant to conclude that he acted in partiality considering no ruling was made.
Moreover, he said he did not rule on the motion for inhibition because the counsel of the complainant failed to state his Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) number and the date of issue of the requisite certificate of compliance.
He added that the failure of the practicing lawyer to disclose the number and date of issue of MCLE warrant the dismissal of the pleading.
In their ruling, Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez and Deputy Court Administrator Jesus Edwin Villasor recommended that the complaint filed be referred to the Executive Judge of Regional Trial Court in Mandaue City, Judge Marilyn Lagura-Yap.
Yap in her final report said the respondent failed to refute the allegation of the complainant. She said there was no doubt that the respondent went to the subject property without the presence of Vizcayno and his counsels.
With that, she recommended to find the respondent liable for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and warned that a repetition of the same act will be dealt with severely.
However, OCA made a revision as to the recommendation of Yap, adding the penalty of P25,000 as fine and P11,000 imposed in the A.M. No. MTJ-03-1480.
In his ruling, Carpio affirmed the recommendation of the OCA. He said the failure of the respondent to inform the parties of the ocular inspection was improper.
“Good and noble intentions notwithstanding, Judge Dacanay’s actuations gave an appearance of impropriety. His behavior diminished public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,” the decision reads.
“As the administration of justice is a sacred task, this court condemns and cannot countenance any act on the part of court personnel that would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary,” the decision further reads. (FREEMAN)