RE: ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST JUDGE EDMUNDO T. ACUA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CALOOCAN CITY, BRANCH 123. [A.M.

No. RTJ-
04-1891. July 28, 2005]

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received a Letter from Concerned citizens of the lower court reporting the alleged practices of
Judge Edmundo T. Acua of Caloocan Regional Trial Court. According to the letter, the respondent Judge conducted trials, signed orders and even
sentenced accused while on official leave from August 15, 2001 to September 15, 2001. That the judge uses humiliating statements to embarrass
others but loves to glorify himself.

The respondent averred that the allegations in the letter were fabricated, exaggerated, or misquoted.

Anent the allegation that he conducted trials, signed orders and issued sentences while he was on official leave, the respondent alleged that his
application[4] for a thirty-day leave was from August 21, 2001 to September 21, 2001 as approved by Deputy Court Administrator Jose P. Perez
on August 3, 2001. As such, he was not yet on leave from August 15, 2001 to August 21, 2001, thus, he had the right and duty to come to court
and conduct trials, sign orders and issue sentences. On the allegation that he exhibited weird behavior, the unknown complainants may have
seen and observed him at the time when he was depressed and angry at the loss of his eldest son. As to the alleged humiliating statements that
he made, he insisted, however, that he had been misquoted, and dismissed as mere fabrication some of the statements attributed to him.

The OCA recommended that the respondent be reprimanded for ignorance of a policy on leave of absence expressed through the ruling of the
Court in Paz v. Tiong,[5] where it was held that a judge on leave of absence would have absolutely no authority to discharge his duties or exercise
the powers of a judge.

In view of this approved application for leave, it was a natural expectation that Judge Acua would cease from exercising his functions during the
said period. However, respondent admitted reporting for work August 21, 2001, the first day of his official leave, and presiding over two (2)
criminal cases.

Respondent claimed that he acted in good faith and in the honest belief that he had the right to defer the effectivity of his 30-day forfeitable leave.
He did not received any remuneration when he presided cases on August 21, 2001, and that he had no intention on violating any rules as he had a
heavy case load involving detention of prisoners that needed the urgency of action.

Ruling:

The allegations in the anonymous complaint, some of which were admitted with qualifications by the respondent, are not sufficient to warrant a
penalty other than to remind him of the rules regarding official leaves and of proper conduct of judges. A judges official conduct should be free
from the appearance of impropriety, and his personal behavior, not only in the bench and in the performance of his official duties, but also in his
everyday life should be beyond reproach. Judges are demanded to be always temperate, patient and courteous both in conduct and in
language.[12] Indeed, a judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Indeed,
a judges personal behavior, not only while in the performance of official duties, must be beyond reproach, being the visible personification of
law and of justice.

To reiterate, a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. Thus, in conducting hearings and promulgation
of decisions on the day when his official leave of absence was to commence, the respondent Judge was guilty of impropriety. Considering,
however, that no bad faith or ill motive can be attributed to the respondent, the Court deems it proper to reprimand him for his actuations. In
view of the lack of malice and improper motive in reporting for work and discharging his functions and taking into account his desire to dispense
justice promptly, respondent cannot be said to have been grossly ignorant of the rules as to be deemed administratively liable.[9]

WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Edmundo T. Acua is found GUILTY of impropriety and is REPRIMANDED therefor. He is STERNLY WARNED that
the repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.