Lihaylihay vs. Canda A.M. No. MTJ-06-1659, June 19, 2009 FACTS
In the case at bar, the complainant, Lihaylihay, alleged that the respondent judge, Judge Canda, asked Tenefrancia, to apply for the position of Sheriff IV, which was recently acated! "oweer, a certain #limpo #limpolo lo applie applied d for the posit position ion,, which which was strongly strongly opposed opposed by Judge Judge Canda Canda and was of the impression that Lihaylihay was assisting such application! The complainant receied a te$t message from the respondent judge which she reported for blotter as she took the message as a threat! The following day, she gain receied a te$t message from the judge which stated, in part, %$$$ you will hae your owned & sic' fair share of trouble in due time!% (urthermore, in a letter addressed to the )$ecutie Judge, Judge Canda accused Lihaylihay of seeral offenses in iolation of reasonable office rules and regulations and called her %*+%, %-"+)% and %.#/I#L#0)+#%! 1efore 1efore Lihaylih Lihaylihay ay could could een een commen commentt on the the letter letters, s, the second second letter letter of the judge was published in the 0indanao 0indanao bserer through the re2uest re2uest and effort of the respondent judge, judge, as testified by 3ennis 1aguio, a reporter and photographer of the newspaper! 4eertheless, on her comment, she denied the judge5s judge5s allegations allegations and in turn alleged, alleged, among others, that Canda wanted Tenefranc Tenefrancia5s ia5s position position acated because the former5s son was 2ualified for such position, position, and that she receied indecent messages from the judge een before the present case started! "oweer, this reply was published in the Tingog .eninsula without Lihaylihay5s permission which caused Judge Canda to file libel suit against the former! !SS"#
-4 Judge Canda was liable for gross misconduct $#L%
6es, 6es, the Court Court finds finds Judge Judge Canda Canda liable liable for gross gross miscon misconduc ductt for harass harassing ing and public publicly ly humiliating Lihaylihay! "e iolated seeral proisions of the 4ew Code of Judicial Conduct, to wit7 Sections 8 and 9 of Canon 9, Sections 9 and : of Canon ; and Section : of Canon :! Judges shall conduct themseles in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office! They are re2uired to be temperate in their language at all times! they must refrain from inflammatory or ile language! They should be dignified in demeanor and refined in speech, e$hibit that temperament of utmost sobriety and self< restraint, and be considerate, courteous, and ciil to all persons! Judge Canda5s acts of =8> threatening Lihaylihay with her %fair share of trouble in due time%? =9> filing administratie complaint complaintss and a criminal case to harass her? =@> describin describing g her as a %*+%, %*+%, %undigni %undignified% fied%,, etc? =;> publishing such foul remarks in the newspaper are ery unbecoming of a judge! The image of the judiciary is reflected in the conduct of its officials and Judge Canda subjected the judiciary to embarrassment!