Canon 1

10. In his Comment,[11] respondent judge alleged that he never neglected

Belen v Belen his duties as a judge; that as a landowner and citizen of the Republic
of the Philippines, he had the right to file criminal complaints against
1. Complainant Michael B. Belen filed a Verified Complaint with the violators of environmental laws to protect the environment; and that
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) of the Supreme Court, he had the right, under the Constitution and Republic Act No. 6173,
charging Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen with grave abuse of to secure public information from government offices, especially
authority and conduct unbecoming a judge. about the complainant who was violating numerous laws.
2. According to complainant,[1] sometime in March 2004, respondent Respondent judge also claimed that he did not use the courts official
judge filed a case for Estafa against complainants father, Nezer D. stationery or letterhead in his correspondence with government
Belen, but the same was dismissed for lack of probable cause authorities and employees of Alaminos, Laguna. He emphasized that
3. Respondent judge filed an Omnibus Motion (For Reconsideration the courts official letterhead should appear as:
and Disqualification) before the Office of the City Prosecutor of San
Pablo City, alleging that Sunega-Lagman was always absent during
the hearings in the preliminary investigation in the estafa case. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
4. Respondent judge likewise filed a complaint for disciplinary action REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
against Sunega-Lagman before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines 4TH JUDICIAL REGION
Commission on Bar Discipline. BRANCH 36
5. To refute the allegations of respondent judge against Sunega- CALAMBA CITY
Lagman, complainant executed an Affidavit dated 19 May 2006,
which was submitted by Sunega-Lagman as evidence in the CBD
case. Complainants Affidavit stated that the allegations of Respondent judge claimed that he used his personal stationery or letterhead,
respondent judge against Sunega-Lagman were false; that Sunega- and signed the same in his private, not judicial, capacity.
Lagman was present during the preliminary investigation hearings,
and that she was absent only once, when she was already on
maternity leave; and that it was respondent judge who was absent
during the hearings.[2] The OCAs Report and Recommendation

6. Thereafter, respondent judge allegedly started harassing and On 11 March 2008, the OCA submitted its Report[12] finding respondent judge
threatening complainant with the filing of several cases against the guilty of violating Section 4, Canon 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for
latter. the Philippine Judiciary. The OCA stated that while respondent judge did not
actually use the courts official letterhead but his own personal stationery, his
7. complainant received a mobile phone text message from the letters indicated that he is the presiding judge of an RTC in Calamba City,
caretaker of his piggery, informing him that respondent judge arrived and even stated that his letters were from the chambers of the presiding
and was taking pictures of the piggery. judge. It is apparent from the acts of respondent judge that he intended to
use the prestige of his judicial position to promote his personal interest.
8. Complainant rushed to the area and saw respondent judge, The OCA recommended that (a) the administrative case against respondent
accompanied by the Municipal Agriculturist and Sanitary Inspector judge be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter; and (b) that
and the Barangay Chairman, inspecting complainants piggery. respondent Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen be fined in the amount of P11,000
for violation of Section 4, Canon 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for
9. Respondent judge also wrote several letters addressed to certain the Philippine Judiciary with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or
local government authorities and employees, requesting information similar act shall be dealt with more severely.[13]
on complainants piggery and poultry business; advising them of the
alleged violations by the complainant of the National Building Code In a Resolution dated 13 August 2008, the Supreme Court resolved, among
and certain environmental laws; and reminding the local government others, to re-docket the administrative complaint against respondent judge as
authorities of their duty to forestall the issuance of municipal a regular administrative matter.[14] Subsequently, the OCA, in compliance with
clearance and license to complainants business establishment.
the Courts Resolution,[15] designated Court of Appeals Associate Justice
Ramon R. Garcia as the investigating justice of the administrative case. xxx

SECTION. 4. Judges shall not allow family, social, or other

The Findings and Recommendation relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. The
of the Investigating Justice prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance
the private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to
convey the impression that they are in a special position to
Investigating Justice Ramon R. Garcia found respondent judge to have influence the judge.
violated Section 4 of Canon 1 and Section 1 of Canon 4 of the New Code of
Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary when he used a letterhead
indicating his position as the Presiding Judge of the RTC of Calamba City, CANON 4
Branch 36. According to Justice Garcia, while the computer-printed PROPRIETY
letterhead of respondent judge is not the official letterhead of the RTC of
Calamba City, Branch 36, the use of the same reflects respondent judges Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to
designation and position in the judiciary, and indicates that the letters came the performance of all the activities of a judge.
from the chambers of the presiding judge of Branch 36. Undoubtedly,
respondent judge was trying to use the prestige of his judicial office for his SECTION 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the
own personal interest. appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.
Justice Garcia agreed with the OCA in recommending the imposition of the
administrative penalty of fine in the amount of P11,000 with a stern warning xxx
that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

The Courts Ruling In Oktubre v. Velasco,[16] this Court held that respondent judges act of
sending several letters bearing his salas letterhead, in connection with an
The findings and recommendations of both the Investigating Justice and the apparent dispute in the administration of the estates of his relatives, clearly
OCA are well-taken. showed the judges intent to use the prestige of his judicial office, and hence,
violative of Rule 2.03 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. [17] The Court
Respondent judge wrote letters to government authorities and employees to considered respondent Judge Velascos excuse for using his salas letterhead,
secure public information regarding complainants piggery and poultry i.e., that he wanted to protect the interest of his maternal co-heirs in the
business; to inform addressees of the laws allegedly being violated subject properties, as flimsy, and emphasized that respondent judge had no
by complainant; and to remind the addressees of their duties as government business using his salas letterhead for private matters, as the same should
officials or employees and warn them of the possible legal effects of neglect be used only for official correspondence.[18]
of public duties. In writing these letters, respondent judges use of his
personal stationery with letterhead indicating that he is the Presiding Judge Similarly, in Rosauro v. Kallos,[19] it was held that respondent judges use of
of RTC of Calamba City, Branch 36, and stating that the letter was from [his] his salas official stationery in his private correspondence with complainant
chambers, clearly manifests that respondent judge was trying to use the and his counsel constitutes violation of Rule 2.03 of the Code of Judicial
prestige of his office to influence said government officials and employees, Conduct. The Court concluded that: By using his salas stationery other than
and to achieve with prompt and ease the purpose for which those letters for official purposes, respondent Judge evidently used the prestige of his
were written. In other words, respondent judge used said letterhead to office to benefit Guerrero (and himself) in violation of Rule 2.03 of the Code.
[20]
promote his personal interest. This is violative of Section 4 of Canon 1 and
Section 1 of Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary. We quote these sections below: In Ladignon v. Garong,[21] respondent judges act of using the official
letterhead of his court and signing the same using the word judge in his
CANON 1 letter-complaint to the First United Methodist Church in Michigan, USA, was
INDEPENDENCE
held to be violative of Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Ethics and Rule 2.03 correspondence of a member of the Judiciary. While the use
of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Court held, thus: of the title is an official designation as well as an honor that
We agree with the Report that what is involved here an incumbent has earned, a line still has to be drawn based
is the rule that Judges shall avoid impropriety and the on the circumstances of the use of the appellation. While the
appearance of impropriety in all of their activities. (Canon 4, title can be used for social and other identification purposes,
Section 1, New Code of Judicial Conduct) Indeed, members it cannot be used with the intent to use the prestige of his
of the Judiciary should be beyond reproach and suspicion in judicial office to gainfully advance his personal, family or
their conduct, and should be free from any appearance of other pecuniary interests. Nor can the prestige of a judicial
impropriety in the discharge of their official duties as well as office be used or lent to advance the private interests of
in their personal behavior and everyday life. No position others, or to convey or permit others to convey the
exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and impression that they are in a special position to influence the
uprightness on the individual than a seat in the Judiciary. x x judge. (Canon 2, Rule 2.03 of the Code of Judicial Conduct)
x To do any of these is to cross into the prohibited field of
impropriety.[22]
xxx

x x x As the Report stated, [repondent judges] use of

the letterhead and his designation as a Judge in a situation In view of the foregoing, we find respondent judge guilty of violation
of potential dispute gave the appearance that there is an of Section 4 of Canon 1 and Section 1 of Canon 4 of the New Code of
implied or assured consent of the court to his cause. This Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.
circumstance, to our mind, was what marked the respondent
Judges use of his letterhead and title as improper. In other Section 11(B), in relation to Section 9(4) of Rule 140, as amended by A.M.
words, the respondent Judges transgression was not per No. 01-8-10-SC,[23] provides that violation of Supreme Court rules constitutes
se in the use of the letterhead, but in not being very careful a less-serious charge punishable by any of the following sanctions:
and discerning in considering the circumstances surrounding 1. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits
the use of his letterhead and his title. for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or
2. A fine of more than P10,000.00 but not
xxx exceeding P20,000.00.

x x x the use of a letterhead should not be

considered independently of the surrounding circumstances
of the use - the underlying reason that marks the use with We agree with the recommendation of the investigating justice and
the element of impropriety or appearance of impropriety. In the OCA that respondent judge, for his transgression, be meted a penalty of
the present case, the respondent Judge crossed the line of fine amounting to P11,000, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same
propriety when he used his letterhead to report a complaint or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
involving an alleged violation of church rules and, possibly, of
Philippine laws. Coming from a judge with the letter
addressed to a foreign reader, such report could indeed WHEREFORE, we find Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen, Presiding Judge of
have conveyed the impression of official recognition or notice the Regional Trial Court of Calamba City, Branch 36, GUILTY of violation of
of the reported violation. Section 4 of Canon 1 and Section 1 of Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial
The same problem that the use of letterhead poses, occurs Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, and FINE him P11,000
in the use of the title of Judge or Justice in the