SY V FINEZA A.M. No. RTJ-03-1808. October 15, 2003

FACTS: A complaint filed by Radelia C. Sy with the Office of the Court Administrator, charging the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City (Branch 131), Judge Antonio J. Fineza, of bribery, grave misconduct, conduct unbecoming of a judge and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Petitioner Sy is accused of estafa and her case is pending before Judge Fineza. According to the petitioner, respondent, Judge Fineza, exerted undue and improper pressure on her by offering to dismiss the estafa case in exchange for P300,000. Otherwise, he threatened to convict complainant Sy of estafa regardless of her innocence. The second complaint further alleged that on May 23, 2001 complainant Sys counsel in other cases, Atty. Jubay, had relayed to her that Judge Fineza warned him that morning during a hearing that she had not been paying her other lawyers. Judge Fineza added that complainant Sy had been threatening to file a case against the former, and warned that if she does so, she could no longer appear or set foot in Caloocan City. This eventually led to the withdrawal of Atty. Jubay as complainant Sys counsel. Complainant Sy declared that she delivered money to Judge Fineza six times on separate occasions. Complainant Sy claimed that when she was unable to complete the remaining balance, Judge Fineza began harassing her. ISSUE: Whether the respondent has breached the norms and standards of the judiciary RULING: After assessing the pleadings and memoranda filed, along with the documents and affidavits attached, the investigating Justice saw no merit in the charge of bribery but found Judge Fineza guilty of simple misconduct. As found by the Supreme Court, bribery is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove, thus complainant must present a panoply of evidence in support of such an accusation. Complainant herein has only her friends to support her claims who would naturally testify in her favor. These two incidents clearly show Judge Finezas utter disrespect for the office he holds as a member of the judiciary. In the first instance, even assuming the absence of shouting, finger pointing and menacing stares, the admitted act of Judge Fineza in calling complainant Cato sinungaling in the hallway, already detracts from the equanimity and judiciousness that are required of a judge. As for describing one of the complainants witnesses as BAKLA in a pleading filed before this Court, resort to argumentum ad hominem is certainly most unbecoming of a judge, to say the least. While Judge Fineza denies that the conversation ever happened, the manifestation of Atty. Jubay cannot easily be dismissed as a fabrication. It was made by an officer of the court who could be held liable for contempt if the same is proven to be false. At this point, it bears noting that the manifestation was filed with the court of Judge Fineza and that he made no mention of ever having imposed sanctions on Atty. Jubay for making such allegations The integrity of the judiciary rests not only upon the fact that it is able to administer justice but also upon the perception and confidence of the community that the people who run the system have done justice. The assumption of office by a judge places upon him duties and restrictions peculiar to his exalted position. He must be perceived, not as a repository of arbitrary power, but as one who dispenses justice under the sanction of the rule of law. This Court has repeatedly reminded members of the judiciary to be irreproachable in conduct and to be free from any appearance of impropriety in their personal behavior, not only in the discharge of their official duties, but also in their daily life. For no position exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and uprightness of an individual than a seat in the judiciary. Respondent Judge Fineza is given one last chance to correct his ways and is sternly warned that one more transgression will merit his dismissal from the service. Respondent Judge Fineza is SUSPENDED from office without salary and other benefits for six (6) months, with the STERN WARNING that one more transgression will merit dismissal from the service.