A.M. No. RTJ-01-1630 - HEINZ R. HECK, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ANTHONY E. SANTOS.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully recommended to this Honorable Court that respondent Judge Anthony E. Santos be FINED in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.(Emphasis and underscoring supplied) This Court agrees with the findings of the OCA. Respondents order for the counsel of one of the parties to draft the decision and his adoption verbatim of the draft clearly violate the Code of Judicial Conduct, the pertinent canons of which read: Canon 2 A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES. xxx Canon 3 A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM OFFICIAL DUTIES HONESTLY , AND WITH IMPARTIALITY AND DILIGENCE ADJUDICATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES. x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied), in relation to the above-quoted Section 1 of Rule 36 of the Revised Rules of Court. By such order, respondent abdicated a function exclusively granted to him by no less than the fundamental law of the land. It is axiomatic that decision-making, among other duties, is the primordial and most important duty of a member of the bench. [21] He must use his own perceptiveness in understanding and analyzing the evidence presented before him and his own discernment when determining the proper action, resolution or decision. Delegating to a counsel of one of the parties the preparation of a decision and parroting it verbatim reflect blatant judicial sloth. Lack of malice or bad faith is not an excuse. It bears emphasis that a judge must not only render a just, correct and impartial decision. He should do so in such a manner as to be free from any suspicion as to his fairness, impartiality and integrity. [22] As the questioned acts of respondent violate the Code of Judicial Conduct which violation falls under the classification of a serious charge [23] under Section 3 of Rule 140 [24] of the Revised Rules of Court, this Court does not find the recommended fine of P5,000.00 commensurate thereto. For Section 10 of Rule 140 provides: SECTION 10. Sanctions . A. If the respondent is found culpable of a serious charge , any of the following sanctions shall be imposed: Dismissal from the service with forfeiture of benefits (except accrued leaves) and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office including a government-owned or controlled corporation; Suspension for three (3) months without salary and benefits; or A fine not less than P20,000.00 but not more than P40,000.00. x x x (Emphasis supplied) Respondent having retired on May 22, 2002, his dismissal or suspension is no longer feasible. This leaves this Court only the third option - to mete him a fine of P20,000.00, to be deducted from his retirement benefits. WHEREFORE , respondent Judge Anthony E. Santos is found GUILTY of violating Canons 2 and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct in relation to Section 1 of Rule 36 of the Revised Rules of Court and is hereb