CEBU, Philippines - A retired Regional Trial Court judge in Cebu City was admonished by the Supreme Court after he was found guilty of conduct unbecoming for discussing a case involving another judge in his class.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza, the high court found retired Judge Meinrado Paredes guilty of the administrative complaint filed by the daughter of dismissed Municipal Trial Court in Cities Judge Rosabella Tormis.
“Judge Paredes, in using intemperate language and unnecessary comments tending to project Judge Tormis as a corrupt and ignorant judge in his class discussions, was correctly found guilty of conduct unbecoming of a judge by Justice Diy,” the high court decision read.
It added that the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary requires judges to “exemplify propriety at all times.”
The SC decision affirmed an earlier finding by the Court of Appeals which found Paredes administratively guilty.
Justice Maria Elisa Sempio Diy, of the Court of Appeals in Cebu City, recommended that Paredes be meted a penalty for conduct unbecoming a judge.
She said the use of “intemperate language during class discussions” was inappropriate.
“His statements in class, tending to project Judge Tormis as corrupt and ignorant of the laws and procedure, were obviously and clearly insensitive and inexcusable,” Diy said.
The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Tormis’ daughter, Jill, who claimed that Paredes violated the subjudice rule when he discussed in his class the marriage scam involving her mother judge.
Jill alleged that she enrolled under Paredes for Political Law Review during the school year 2010-2011 at the Southwestern University in Cebu City.
During the class, Paredes allegedly discussed the case of her mother who was then subject of the investigation by the Supreme Court for her involvement in the marriage scam.
According to Jill, Paredes called her mother “abusive of her position as a judge, corrupt, and ignorant of the law.”
To avoid humiliation, Jill said she dropped the class under Paredes and transferred to another law school in Tacloban City.
Jill said the actuation of Paredes in accepting the cash bail bond of a certain Lita Guioguio in the amount of P6,000 for the latter’s temporary liberty was worse than what her mother had committed. The said case was then pending before the MTCC.
Paredes denied the accusations. He said he discussed in his class the case of Lachica versus Tormis but never the involvement of Tormis in neither the marriage scam nor her sanctions as a result of the investigation conducted by the court.
Paredes claimed that he never attacked the credibility and dignity of Tormis. He added there was nothing wrong in discussing the administrative cases involving Judge Tormis because such cases were known to the legal community and some were even published in the Supreme Court Reports Annotated.
Moreover, Paredes said Jill never complained in his class and the matter was not also brought to the attention of the dean.
On the allegation that he received a cash bail of a case pending before the MTCC, Paredes admitted receiving bail but said there was nothing illegal about it.
He said the approval of the bail bond is in accordance with the law which allowed executive judges to act on petition for bail and other urgent matters on weekends, official holidays and special days.
The Supreme Court said Paredes should have chosen his words and exercised more caution.
“In the exercise of his right to freedom of expression, Judge Paredes should uphold the good image of the Judiciary of which he is a part. He should have avoided unnecessary and uncalled for remarks in his discussions and should have been more circumspect in his language. Being a judge, he is expected to act with greater circumspection and to speak with self-restraint. Verily, Judge Paredes fell short of this standard,” the decision read. (FREEMAN)