A.M. No. RTJ-96-1356 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 95-94-RTJ) - EDMELINDA L. FERNANDEZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE FAUSTO H. IMBING.

Ruling

ACCORDINGLY, it is respectfully recommended that respondent Judge be held liable for grave abuse of authority and negligence and a FINE of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P 10,000.00) be imposed upon him with STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act(s) will be dealt with more severely. By and large, the Court agrees that respondent is indeed guilty of grave abuse of authority and negligence. Courts exist to dispense and to promote justice. Accordingly, a judges conduct should be free from any appearance of impropriety and his personal behavior not only upon the bench and in the performance of official duties, but also in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach (Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct). He is the visible representation of law and, more importantly, of justice ( Oca vs. Gines, 224 SCRA 261 [1993]). He should administer his office with a due regard to the integrity of the system of the law itself, remembering that he is not a depository of arbitrary power, but a judge under the sanction of law. Never for a moment must he act like a petty tyrant or provide any opportunity to be perceived as such through the abuse or misuse of the authority or power vested on him, otherwise the faith of the people in the courts could be irreparably eroded ( Caamic vs. Galapon, Jr., 237 SCRA 390 [1994]). Moreover, he is required to observe due care in the performance of his official duties. He is likewise charged with the knowledge of internal rules and procedures, especially those which relate to the scope of their authority. He is duty-bound to observe and abide by these rules and procedures, designed as they are, primarily to ensure the orderly administration of justice ( Cuaresma vs. Aguilar, 226 SCRA 73 [1993]). Respondents actuations in the matter at hand were clearly tainted both with grave abuse of authority and negligence as to undermine the peoples confidence in the integrity of the courts. Respondent judge failed to observe, in the performance of his duties, that due care, diligence, prudence, and circumspection which the law requires in the rendition of any public service ( In re: Climaco, 55 SCRA 107 [1974]; and, Suroza vs. Honrado, 110 SCRA 388, [1981]). He should have verified from his clerk whether or not his instructions have been carried out, especially the sending of the notices to the parties. Had he done this simple step in court administration, he would have found out that the notices had not been signed and sent to the parties and that the cases had been removed from the temporary calendar, for which reason, he would not have validly called the cases for hearing on May 3, 1995. Due to his negligence, he proceeded with the hearing of the cases and to make matter worse, on that very same day he granted the oral motion to dismiss the criminal cases made in open court by one Atty. Pacifico T. Cimefranca, a Public Attorney, who was not even the counsel of record for the accused. What made respondents behavior more censu