Dela Cruz vs.
Carretas
AM No. RTJ-07-2043, Sept. 5, 2007
Topic: Examination of Witness by Trial Judge
Judges must not only be impartial, but must also appear to be impartial. However, this
is not to say that judges must remain passive or silent during the proceedings. A judge
should properly intervene in the presentation of evidence to expedite and prevent
unnecessary waste of time.
Facts:
This is an administrative case stemmed from an anonymous complaint by “Juan de la
Cruz,” a concerned citizen of Legazpi City, against respondent Judge, Ruben B.
Carretas, presiding judge of the RTC of Legazpi City, Branch 9.
The letter complaint was filed against respondent judge due to his behavior and conduct
who appears to be inconsiderate, discourteous or uncivil to lawyers, litigants or
witnesses who appears in his sala. Respondent judge denied the accusation and
claimed that he had not insulted anyone. Respondent judge also stated that while he
may have used harsh word sometimes, they were made out of exasperation and with
the intention merely to right the wrong committed in his presence, not to insult anyone,
and apologized to those who may have been offended by his remarks.
In connection with the complaint, Judge Romeo S. Danas, executive judge of the RTC
of Legazpi City, conducted a discreet investigation. He interviewed lawyers who
appeared in the sala of respondent judge when holding trial and received comments
such as: Respondent judge should avoid making embarrassing, insulting and abrasive
remarks; He should also limit to himself to asking clarificatory questions; insulted and
subjected to sarcastic remarks lawyers; and most of the time, respondent judge would
unduly intervene in the presentation of evidence and asked more questions than
counsel and in conducting direct and cross-examination of witnesses.
Issue: Did the respondent judge properly intervened in the presentation of evidence?
Ruling: NO.
While a judge may properly intervene in a trial of a case to promote expedition and
prevent unnecessary waste of time, or to clear up some obscurity, nevertheless, he
should bear in mind that his undue interference, impatience, or participation in the
examination of witnesses, or a severe attitude on his part toward witnesses, especially
those who are excited or terrified by the unusual circumstances of trial, may tend to
prevent the proper presentation of the cause, or the ascertainment of the truth in
respect thereto.
Conversation between the judge and counsel in court is often necessary, but the judge
should be studious to avoid controversies which are apt to obscure the merits of the
dispute between litigants and lead to its unjust disposition. In addressing counsel,
litigants or witnesses, he should avoid a controversial tone.
He should avoid interruptions of counsel in their arguments except to clarify his mind as
to their positions, and he should not be tempted to an unnecessary display of learning
or a premature judgment.”
A judge may properly intervene in the presentation of evidence to expedite and prevent
unnecessary waste of time and clarify obscure and incomplete details in the course of
the testimony of the witness or thereafter. Questions designed to clarify points and to
elicit additional relevant evidence are not improper. But the judge should limit himself to
asking clarificatory questions and the power should be sparingly and judiciously used.
The rule is that the court should stay out of it as much as possible, neither interfering
nor intervening in the conduct of the trial. A judge must always maintain cold neutrality
and impartiality for he is a magistrate, not an advocate.
In this case, respondent judge unduly intervened in the presentation of evidence. He
asked more questions than counsel and conducted direct and cross-examination of
witnesses. In so doing, he contravened Rule 3.06 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and
Canon 14 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics:
“RULE 3.06—While a judge may, to promote justice, prevent waste of time or clear up
some obscurity, properly intervene in the presentation of evidence during the trial, it
should be borne in mind that undue interference may prevent the proper presentation of
the cause or the ascertainment of truth.
In fine, the over-all conduct of respondent judge has been unbecoming of a magistrate.
