A.M. No. RTJ-11-2267, January 19, 2011 MANSUETA T. RUBIN, complainant, vs. JUDGE JOSE Y. AGUIRRE, JR., Regional Trial Court, Branch 55,Himamaylan,NegrosOcddental, respondent. BRION, 7: Facts: ‘That Complainant, curing the lifetime of her husband, Feliciano Rubin, who was the Judicial Administrator of the Estate of the Spouses Dioscoro Rubin and Emperatriz Rubin, had witnessed and expenenced that her husband and their family vere victims of Graft. land Corruption, Grave Injustice amounting to Violation of the Constitution, Betrayal of Public Trust, Grave Misconduct, Grave Abuse of Authority, Gross Ignorance of Law, Conduct Unbecoming of a 2udge or Judicial Magistrate, Manifest Sias and Partialty, and Violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, on the part of the respondent Judge committed during the conduct of the proceedings in Special Proceeding No. 28, Intestate Estate of the Spouses Dioscoro Rubin and Emperatriz Rubin, and in Civil Case No. 184, an Annulment of Adoption pending before him In its report, the OCA recommended that the case be docketed as a regular administrative case considering the varying positions taken by the parties,and considering, too, the failure of judge Aguirre to explain in his Comment why he invited tr. Feliciano Rubin to cea him personally in court, ‘The Investigating Justice found that except fer the charge of Conduct Unbacoming of a Judge and Violation of Judicial Conduct, tha other charges against Judge Aguire were ‘bereft of factual and legal basis."The Investigating Justice found that Judge Aguirre committed an impropriety when he sent a letter to Mr. Feliciano Rubin "to discuss and to expedite a possible extra-judicial settlement of the estate of the deceased Spouses Rubin."The Investigating Justice explained: [dlls act of sending a lettar to a party litigant for a personal confarence, hewaver motivated, does not validate hie action and the damning implications it may generate to the [Iludiciary this is especially so since the content of said letter can constitute as an act of fratemizing with party-ltigants, Tt must be emphasized that in-chambers sessions without the presence of the ‘ther party and his counsel must be avoided. The prohibition is to maintain impartiality. Being a judicial front-tner who has a direct contact with the litigating parties, the respondant judge chould concuct himcelf bayond reproach. ISSUE: Whethar the respondent judge is guilty of impropriety in violation of Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Canon 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics HELD: The petition is mentorious POLITICAL LAW Adi nistrative Law; Judges ‘The Supreme Court found that Judge Aguirre committed an impropriety when he sent a letter, in his official letterhead, to Mr. Feliciano Rubin to discuss a matter pending before his own court. Inagustin v. Mercado, it was declared thetemployees of the court havenobusinessmeetingwithitigantsortheirrepresentatives under anycircumstanca. hisprohibitionismoracompalingwhenit involves ajudgewho,becauscothisposition,muststrictlyadheratothe —highast tenets of judicial conduct; a judge must be the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence. Petition is GRANTED.