DIGEST: Florence Schuman v. Judge Efren M. Cacatian

CANON 5 – Rule 5.02

FLORENCE SCHUMAN v. JUDGE EFREN M. CACATIAN

A.M. No. RTJ-11-2279, April 6, 2011

            Schuman is one of the children of Norma Del Mar who is the party-plaintiff in a Civil Case, entitled Norma Del Mar v. Robert Del Mar for reconveyance of ownership and possession of disputed properties. The RTC rendered a decision in favor of plaintiff on October 21, 1997 and this was rendered final by the Supreme Court in its decision dated March 13, 2002. On September 7, 2005, upon motion of plaintiff-appellee, Judge Efren Cacatian issued a Writ of Execution to implement the October 21, 1997 Decision of the trial court. However, before the full implementation of the writ of execution, Judge Cacatian called the plaintiffs in his chamber for a conference. During the conference, Judge Cacatian proposed a package deal for the issuance of the titles of the subject properties in the names of the three (3) heirs of judgment-plaintiff, including Schuman. In exchange, the plaintiffs were asked to provide the amount of P350,000.00 as fee for real estate research fixing. According to Schuman, she gave P50,000.00 to Judge Cacatian through her niece, Helen, and promised to give the remaining P300,000.00 as soon as she returned from her trip to the United States of America.

            Was Judge Cacatian’s conduct violative of the Code of Judicial Conduct?

            Respondent judge is guilty of violating Canon 5, Rule 5.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct for his act of transacting with complainants in facilitating the transfer of the titles of the properties from complainant's mother to complainant and her siblings during the conference in respondent judge's chamber.

Canon 5, Rule 5.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, provides:

A judge shall refrain from financial or business dealings that tend to reflect adversely on the court's partiality, interfere with the proper performance of judicial activities, or increase involvement with lawyers or persons likely to come before the court. A judge should so manage investments and other financial interests as to minimize the number of cases giving ground for disqualification.

            In the instant case, Judge Cacatian, in proposing to facilitate the transfer of titles of the properties, in effect engaged in a commercial transaction that gave him an appearance of impropriety. In Agustin v. Mercado, the SC declared that employees of the court should have no business meeting with litigants or their representatives under any circumstance. This prohibition is more compelling when it involves a judge who, because of his position, must strictly adhere to the highest tenets of judicial conduct; a judge must be the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence. 

            The Code does not qualify the prohibition. The intent of the rule is to limit a judge's involvement in the affairs and interests of private individuals to minimize the risk of conflict with his judicial duties and to allow him to devote his undivided attention to the performance of his official functions.

            Needless to say, the Code of Judicial Conduct has the force and effect of law. The Code itself provides that judges are enjoined to strictly comply with its provisions. Otherwise, a judge may arrogate upon himself the discretion of determining when he may or may not act in a fiduciary capacity.