MANE V JUDGE BELEN A.M. No. RTJ-08-2119, June 30, 2008

FACTS: Petitioner Attorney Melvin D.C. Mane filed a letter-complaint to the Office of the Administrator (OCA) charging respondent Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen, Presiding Judge of Branch 36, Regional Trial Court of Calamba City, of demeaning, humiliating, and berating him during the hearing on a case which he was a counsel for the plaintiff. In proving his claim, he cited remarks made by respondent in the course of the proceeding conducted. Respondent judge criticized the petitioner on the ground that he did not graduated from University of the Philippines College of Law. Based on the transcript of the stenographic notes, the respondent made also a threatening and boastful remarks to petitioner who is admittedly still young, unnecessary lecturing and debating, as well as unnecessary display of learning and showed a conceited display of arrogance as to the petitioner’s motion. Petitioner later withdrew his complaint, by letter of September 4, 2006, stating that it was a mere result of his impulsiveness. ISSUE: 1.Whether or not the statements and actions made by the respondent judge during the said hearing constitute conduct unbecoming of a judge and a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. RULING: Respondent judge is guilty of conduct unbecoming during the trial. An alumnus of a particular law school has no monopoly of knowledge of the law. The court ruled that Judges are demanded to be always temperate, patient and courteous both in conduct and language. The OCA thus recommended that respondent be reprimanded for violation of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct with a warning that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more severely. Canon Rule 3.04 states that a judge should be patient, attentive, and courteous to lawyers, especially the inexperienced, to litigants, witnesses, and others appearing before the court. A judge should avoid unconsciously falling into the attitude of mind that the litigants are made for the courts, instead of the courts for the litigants. A judge must address the merits of the case and not on the person of the counsel. If respondent felt that his integrity and dignity were being assaulted, he acted properly when he directed complainant to explain why he should not be cited for contempt. He went out of bounds, however, when he, as the above-quoted portions of the transcript of stenographic notes show, engaged on a supercilious legal and personal discourse. In this case, respondent should have just ruled on the propriety of the motion to inhibit filed by complainant, but, instead, he opted for a conceited display of arrogance, a conduct that falls below the standard of decorum expected of a judge. If respondent judge felt that there is a need to admonish complainant Atty. Mane, he should have called him in his chambers where he can advise him privately rather than battering him with insulting remarks and embarrassing questions such as asking him from what school he came from publicly in the courtroom and in the presence of his clients. Humiliating a lawyer is highly reprehensible. It betrays the Judges lack of patience and temperance. A highly temperamental judge could hardly make decisions with equanimity. Judge Belen should bear in mind that all judges should always observe courtesy and civility. In addressing counsel, litigants, or witnesses, the judge should avoid a controversial tone or a tone that creates animosity. Judges should always be aware that disrespect to lawyers generates disrespect to them. There must be mutual concession of respect. Respect is not a one-way ticket where the judge should be respected but free to insult lawyers and others who appear in his court. Respondent having exhibited conduct unbecoming of a judge, classified as a light charge under Section 10, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, which is penalized under Section 11(c) of the same Rule by any of the following: (1) a fine of not less than P1,000 but not exceeding P10,000; (2) censure; (3) reprimand; and (4) admonition with warning, the Court imposes upon him the penalty of reprimand. He is further warned that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely