Jocelyn Mclaren, et al. (Plaintiff-Appellee) Vs Honorable Jacinto C. Gonzales, Presiding Judge Municipal Trial Court (Accused-Appellant)
A.M. No. MTJ-16-1876
April 26, 2017
Facts:
On March 17, 2014, complainants Jocelyn Mclaren, et al. filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Jacinto C. Gonzales, Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 2, Olongapo City for gross misconduct in connection with Civil Case No. 7439, entitled "Subic International Hotel Corp. v. Jocelyn Mclaren, et al.," and for gross dishonesty in failing to disclose that he had a pending criminal case filed against him when he applied for judgeship in the Judiciary. Complainants, who were the defendants in Civil Case No. 7439 for Unlawful Detainer, alleged that their counsel was badly treated in three hearings in the following manner: ( 1) he was not allowed to argue or discuss their objections to the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and their two motions to dismiss ad cautelam; (2) most of the manifestations of their counsel were cut short by respondent even while he was just beginning to say something; and (3) he was ordered to sit down three times. Respondent allegedly had a visible ferocious negative facial countenance when he addressed their counsel.
Moreover, complainants said that respondent arbitrarily issued in open court, without legal basis, an Order denying all motions of the parties. They alleged that respondent was arrogant during the hearings, not wearing the judicial robe, incessantly puffing a lighted cigarette, and unnecessarily banging the gavel. Complainants had the impression that respondent lost the neutrality of an impartial judge; hence, they filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Inhibition, which motion was denied by respondent in an Order1 dated January 21, 2014.
In addition, complainants alleged that respondent should be held liable for gross dishonesty, since he failed to disclose that he had a pending criminal case for sexual harassment filed in 2002 in connection with his application for judgeship and his appointment to the Judiciary in December 2005. In his Comment, 2 respondent stated that the charge against him stemmed from the denial of complainants' motion for inhibition from Civil Case No. 7439 on the ground that it was already submitted for decision. Respondent asserted that the charge of impropriety alleged to have been committed by him during the hearings was not true and was not a valid reason and legal basis for his inhibition and administrative sanction. Assuming that there were instances wherein counsels were cut short by him in the course of the hearing, respondent said that those were judgment calls designed to maintain orderly court proceedings and were made in the performance of duty in good faith.
Issue:
. Whether or not respondent Judge Gonzales should be held administratively liable for gross misconduct for his alleged hostile behavior toward complainants' counsel which resulted in the filing of a motion for inhibition, and for his alleged arrogance during the hearing with his non-wearing of the judicial robe, smoking and unnecessarily banging the gavel.
Ruling:
There is insufficient evidence against respondent in regard to all other charges of complainants, except the non-wearing of his judicial robe. Respondent Judge Gonzales admitted not wearing the judicial robe due to the extreme heat, non-functioning air-conditioning units and regular brownouts. His justification for not wearing his judicial robe is unacceptable. Respondent judge admitted that he does not wear the black robe but seeks to excuse his non-compliance because of his illness. The Court cannot accept his plea. In Chan v. Majaducon, where respondent judge tried to excuse his noncompliance because of his hypertension, we held that: The wearing of robes by judges during official proceedings, which harks back to the 14th century, is not an idle ceremony. Such practice serves the dual purpose of "heighten[ing] public consciousness on the solemnity of judicial impressing upon the judge, the exacting obligations of his office. As well put by an eminent jurist of another jurisdiction. The court finds respondent Judge Jacinto C. Gonzales, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Olongapo City, guilty of violating Administrative Circular No. 25 dated June 9, 1989.
No comments:
Post a Comment