LETECIA MIL CAAMIC vs.

JUDGE VICTORIO GALAPON, JR.

A.M. No. MTJ-93-887
October 7, 1994

Topic: CANON 2 (Code of Judicial Conduct)

Facts:

Complainant was served a subpoena, allegedly requested by Generosa,

issued by the respondent Judge, unknowingly of any complaint against
her. Upon appearance, respondent Judge coerced her to give him the
amount she received as beneficiary in a life insurance policy obtained by
her common-law husband.

Generosa had not filed any action in respondent's court for her claim;
Generosa just requested to respondent to act as mediator to arrive at a
possible compromise with the complainant.
Issue: Whether the respondent Judge was guilty of ignorance of law and
oppression.

Ruling: Yes.
Remote from respondent Judge’s official functions and duties,
accomodating the request and using his official functions and office in
connection with the request of Generosa was improper. Respondent
Judge had no power or authority to issue subpoena to the complainant
there being no case to that matter in his sala.

The subpoena implanted fear in the mind of the complainant for her
failure appear would subject to "the penalty of law." This was an
oppression or abuse of authority, which aggravates his apparent
ignorance of the law on issuance of subpoenas.
A judge's official conduct should be free from appearance of impropriety,
and his personal behavior, not only upon the bench and in the
performance of official duties, but also in his every day life, should be
beyond reproach. (Canon 2)

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
compulsory processes of the law, otherwise the faith of the people in the
courts could be irreparably eroded.