A.M. No. RTJ-99-1439 - VIRGINIA VILLALUZ VDA. DE ENRIQUEZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE JAIME F. BAUTISTA AND DEPUTY SHERIFF JAIME T. MONTES, RTC, BR. 75, VALENZUELA, METRO MANILA.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully recommended that respondent Judge Jaime F. Bautista be exonerated of the administrative charge proffered against him with the ADMONITION that he should be more discreet in his actuations; while respondent Deputy Sheriff Jaime T. Montes be declared guilty of gross misconduct and suspended for a period of three (3) months without pay, with a stern warning that any further infraction of the Rules of Court shall be dealt with more severely." [3] Like the Investigating Justice, this Court is not persuaded that the supposed grave misconduct imputed on respondent judge, i.e., the demand for money in consideration of a favorable action by him, can be inferred from the attendant circumstances, particularly in the light of the admission of complainant during the investigation that she herself would not be in any position to substantiate the charges against the Judge and that she has merely relied on her uncle who instigated the filing of the complaint. Indeed, it is apparent that complainant has not been a privy to whatever might have ensued between respondent Judge and her deceased uncle, Avelino Joaquin, a co-owner of the premises subject of the ejectment case. Esmsc Respondent Judge, nevertheless, cannot be said to be entirely blameless. His actuations have been less than circumspect. He should have kept himself free from any appearance of impropriety and should have endeavored to distance himself from any act liable to create an impression of indecorum. A judicial office traces a line around his official as well as personal conduct, a price one has to pay for occupying an exalted position in the judiciary, beyond which he may not freely venture. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins a judge to avoid not just impropriety in the performance of judicial duties but in all his activities, whether in his public or private life. He must conduct himself in a manner that gives no ground for reproach. [4] In the case of respondent sheriff, however, the records would sustain the penalty recommended by the Investigating Justice. The sheriff failed to require the plaintiffs in the ejectment case to deposit with the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff the duly approved estimated expenses. He neither issued any official receipt for the amounts he had collected from the plaintiffs or demanded a corresponding receipt for each disbursement he had made nor timely submitted a proper liquidation thereof. The case would bear striking resemblance to the case of Ong vs. Meregildo [5] where this Court held: Esm "Respondent Sheriffs unilaterally and repeatedly demanding sums of money from a party-litigant purportedly to defray expenses of execution, without obtaining the approval of the trial court for such purported expense and without rendering to that court an accounting thereof, in effect constituted dishonesty and extortion. That conduct, therefore, fell too far short of the required standards of public service. Such conduct i