A.M. No. RTJ-24-073 (Formerly JIB FPI No. 21-028-RTJ) - HON. CARMEL GIL GRADO, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 56, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT [RTC], COMPOSTELA, DAVAO DE ORO, COMPLAINANT, VS. HON. ARLENE LIRAG-PALABRICA, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 31, RTC, TAGUM CITY, DAVAO DEL NORTE.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court

Ruling

Accordingly, lawyers are expected and required to demonstrate a high sense of morality, honesty, and fair dealing. [35] For this reason, all lawyers, whether in private or public service, are mandated to adhere to the Lawyer's Oath and the CPRA. Judges, as members of the Bar, are equally bound by the same standards of integrity and professional conduct as other lawyers. Thus, a judge facing an administrative case under Rule 140 may also be sanctioned for violating the Lawyer's Oath and the CPRA. That being said, not every offense under Rule 140 warrants a similar disciplinary action under the CPRA . As the Court explained in Guevarra-Castil v. Trinidad , [36] a government official may only be disciplined as a member of the Bar if their misconduct "is of such character as to affect [their] qualification as a lawyer or to show moral delinquency." Consequently, the Court clarifies that Section 4 of Rule 140 would only come into play if the administrative charge against a judge, official or employee of the Judiciary directly affects their moral fitness to practice the legal profession. To rule otherwise would result in an absurd situation wherein a member of the Judiciary is disciplined twice for the very same act relating to the discharge of his or her official functions. In line with this, Judge Palabrica cannot be disciplined under the CPRA for the remarks that she made during the hearing of the subject criminal cases. For one , Judge Palabrica's actions, which clearly pertain to the discharge of her judicial functions as a sitting magistrate, already constitute Simple Misconduct under Rule 140. For another , Judge Palabrica's utterances are clearly rooted in her personal belief, albeit a misguided one, that the criminal cases should be settled amicably between the parties in order to protect Judge Grado's reputation as a member of the Judiciary. In other words, her misconduct relates more to her position in the Judiciary than to her status as a lawyer. Verily, there is no basis to sanction Judge Palabrica under the CPRA, as there is no indication that her misconduct is of such character that her moral fitness to remain a member of the Bar is compromised. Proper penalty imposed. A. Penalty for Judge Palabrica's violation of Section 15(a) of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court Simple Misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct is a less serious charge under Section 15 of Rule 140, as amended. It is sanctioned under Section 17 of the same Rule as follows: Section 17. Sanctions . .... (2) If the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed: (a) Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) month nor more than six (6) months; or (b) A fine of more than [PHP] 35,000.00 but not exceeding [PHP] 100,000.00 .... In determining the appropriate penalty, the Court notes that Judge Palabrica was previously sanctioned for Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge and