Umali vs. Villarante, A.M. No.

RTJ-08-2124, June 18, 2010

Facts:

Judge Rizalina Capco-Umali (petitioner) charged Judge Paulita Acosta-Villarante

(respondent) with violation of Canon 4.

The petitioner and other judges made a courtesy call to the Mayor of Mandaluyong and
they talked about local allowance of judges. The Mayor noticed the disparity in the amounts
received (respondent was receiving more, compared to petitioner and other judges). So the
Mayor ordered that the allowance received by respondent be reverted to the previous rates.

During the first ever monthly meeting of RTC judges, what happened in the courtesy call
was reported. Angered, respondent yelled accusations of paninira at the Executive judge (she
was there during the courtesy call and was presiding over the meeting). Petitioner, also present at
the meeting, felt that she had to rescue the executive judge and explained what happened. This
time, respondent yelled at petitioner, called her sinungaling and told petitioner to stop talking
because “nakakahiwa boses mo.” Petitioner yelled back, “matanda ka na, malapit ka na sa
kamatayan gumagawa ka pa ng ganyan, madadamay pa kami,” to which the respondent
answered that she was ready to die any moment because she did no wrong. Basically, they had a
screaming match until they were pacified.

Judge Villarante then wrote a Memorandum addressed to Executive Judge of the

Mandaluyong RTC, copies of which were furnished to the Justices of the SC, JBC, and other
judges of Mandaluyong, its Congressman, and prosecutor. The memo suggested that the holding
of monthly meeting of judges be suspended, considering what transpired. Petitioner filed a
complaint for libel based on the memorandum. In causing the circulation of the memorandum,
respondent claimed that it was her obligation to bring to the attention of concerned officials the
personal demeanor of petitioner that would put the judiciary in public scrutiny and disrespect.

Held:

Both judges are fined (11,000 for petitioner, 16,000 for respondent) and given a stern
warning for having violated Sec 1, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct

Courts are looked upon by the people with high respect. Misbehavior by judges and
employees necessarily diminishes their dignity. Any fighting or misunderstanding is a
disgraceful occurrence reflecting adversely on the image of the Judiciary. By fighting,
respondent judges failed to observe the proper decorum expected of members of the
Judiciary. More detestable is the fact that their squabble arose out of a mere allowance coming
from the local government.

The behavior of both parties was very unbecoming. Judge Capco-Umali failed to live up
to the standard of propriety required of judges. While she might have been provoked by Judge
Acosta-Villarante’s referral to her as a liar, she should have maintained her composure instead of
shouting back at a fellow judge. She should have exercised self-restraint instead of reacting in
such a very inappropriate manner.

Judge Acosta-Villarante should also be required to answer for her failure to observe the
basic norm of propriety demanded from a judge. She provoked petitioner by calling her
sinungaling. She should have been more cautious in choosing her words. She also repeated the
uncalled for conduct when she wrote the memorandum and caused its circulation. If indeed the
memorandum was produced strictly to allow the parties to cool off and avoid a repetition of the
incident, there was no need to mention the alleged misbehavior of Judge Capco-Umali during the
meeting. The memorandum was thus written as a medium for retaliation against Judge Capco-
Umali.