Catbagan v. Barte

Facts:

This is the case of Judge Barte for grave and serious misconduct. Complainant was interested in buying land in Antique. She approached respondent judge and requested him to assist her in the prospective transaction. Together with Pedriña, the three of them agreed to divide the commission if they succeeded in brokering the sale of properties to the Church. When complainant heard that the vendors had been paid, she demanded her commission from respondent. However, respondent offered her only P25,000 for the two transactions, excluding the one in Hamtic.

The respondent denied the charges against him and asked for the dismissal of the administrative case on the grounds that “first, there was ambiguity in the charge of grave and serious misconduct in the complaint and conduct unbecoming of a judge in the OCA endorsement. Because of this confusion, he was deprived of his right to be informed of the real charge against him. Consequently, he was not able to properly prepare his defense” ; and “second, complainant's allegations were baseless and designed merely to harass and dishonor respondent.”

OCA found respondent not guilty of the charges against him but recommended a fine of P5,000 for violating Canon 5, Rule 5.02 13 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. It also warned respondent against directly engaging in any private business even outside office hours, otherwise a more severe penalty would be imposed upon him.

Issue:
Whether or not Judge Barte is liable for the violation of Canon 5, Rule 5.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Held:
Respondent judge ought perhaps to seriously consider leaving the judiciary and becoming a full-time real estate broker instead. The latter calling appears to have a special appeal to him. He was reminded that judges must not only be "good judges" but must also "appear to be good persons." In the judiciary, moral integrity is more than a cardinal virtue; it is a necessity.

WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Felixberto P. Barte is hereby found guilty of violating Canon 5.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Considering that this is his second offense, he is hereby SUSPENDED for six (6) months. He is hereby warned that another complaint of this kind will merit a penalty beyond mere suspension from public office.