A.M. No. R-592-RTJ September 17, 1987 respondent Judge, either by himself or through his Court Interpreter, Mr.

ither by himself or through his Court Interpreter, Mr. Benjamin

Pascual, asked for and received from complainant differing sums of money and a
JUANITO L. HAW TAY, complainant, round trip airplane ticket (Cotabato-Manila-Cotabato). The details of the findings are
vs. as follows:
HON. EDUARDO SINGAYAO, respondent.
... The evidence presented during the hearings conducted on May
RESOLUTION 5, 6 and 7, 1987 shows: that Juanito Haw Tay is the complaint in
this case (administrative matter No. R-592-RTJ-Exh. A) against
respondent Judge Eduardo Singayao for violation of the Anti-Graft
  Law and for Gross Ignorance of the Law filed on April 11, 1986; that
complainant is one of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 140, for
PER CURIAM: certiorari and Prohibition and one of the defendants in Civ. Case
G.R. No. 411 for Damages. Both cases are assigned to the sala of
In a sworn Administrative Complaint filed with this Court on 4 April 1986, Mr. Juanito respondent; that when complaint filed his petition for certiorari and
L. Haw Tay charged Judge Eduardo Singayao of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Prohibition with prayer for a restraining order before the Court of
Cotabato City, with violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act respondent on June 16, 1983, he was approached by Mr. Benjamin
No. 3019, as amended) and with gross ignorance of the law. Pascual, an Interpreter, who has known both the complaint and the
respondent for about 15 years. Mr. Pascual informed complainant
that the respondent was demanding Pl,000.00 for filing fee. So
The respondent Judge filed his Answer, denying the allegations of the complaint and complainant borrowed P1,000.00 and on the following day June 17,
claiming instead that complainant had subjected him to systematic harassment. By a 1983 gave it to Pascual who in turn delivered it to respondent
Resolution dated 20 January 1987, this Court referred this matter to Associate Justice Judge;
Eduardo R. Bengzon of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report, and
recommendations, and at the same time, suspended respondent Judge from office
pending the investigation and until further orders from the Court. that on June 17, 1983, in the afternoon, Mr. Pascual informed
complainant that the Judge was asking for P3,000.00 so that
complainant will no longer be required to post a bond. On June 18,
The Report dated 29 June 1987, of Mr. Justice Bengzon shows that the hearings held 1983 complainant again gave the money to Mr. Pascual who
in this administrative matter had in effect to be conducted ex-parte because delivered the same to respondent. On June 22, 1983 respondent
respondent Judge never appeared at the scheduled hearings to present his defense, issued the restraining order without the filing of a bond;
if any. At the outset, hearings were scheduled on 25, 26, and 27 March 1987 at 1:30
P.M. However, respondent judge moved for deferment of the hearings, stating that he
was experiencing financial difficulties as a result of the acceptance by the President of that on July 22, 1983, while jogging with his son in front of Farmacia
his courtesy resignation as Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Cotabato Victoria, complainant was approached by respondent who was also
City. Thus, hearings were reset to 22, 23, and 24 April 1987, at 1:30 P.M. jogging with some friends. Respondent told him he needed
Respondent Judge did not appear on 22 April 1987. At the instance of the Pl,000.00 very badly on that day. Complainant borrowed Pl,000.00
complainant, hearings were reset once more to 4, 5, and 6 May 1987, again at 1:30 from a friend who issued a check. After encashing the check,
P.M. to afford respondent Judge once more an opportunity to be heard and to cross complainant gave the Pl,000.00 personally to respondent in his
examine the witnesses of the complainant. chambers where respondent acknowledged having received the
P1,000.00 and P3,000.00;

On 4 May 1987, however, only complainant and his lawyer appeared. In order not to
take advantage of respondent's absence, complainant moved that the hearing be that on August 1,1983, after the scheduled hearing of his petition
reset to 5 May 1987 is previously scheduled. Once more, on 5 May 1987, respondent for certiorari was postponed, respondent again asked complaint for
Judge failed to appear. The Investigating Justice thereupon considered respondent, a round trip ticket for Cotabato-Manila-Cotabato flight. Complainant
in his Resolution dated 5 May 1987, to have waived his right to cross-examine raised the amount and bought the ticket from Miss Cecile Domines
complainant's witnesses, without prejudice, however, to his (respondent's) right, to at the PAL Office at Cotabato City. Complaint delivered the round
present evidence. A copy of the Investigator's Resolution was sent to the respondent trip ticket to the respondent on the same day; that the purchase and
by registered mail on 14 May 1987. To date, respondent Judge has not questioned use of said ticket (coupon) was confirmed by Rolando Corcuera,
this Resolution nor moved for its reconsideration. PAL Records Custodian, who produced the flight/coupon
(Cotabato-Manila) of Ticket No. 9120205-3 issued to Judge
Eduardo Singayao on August 1, 1983 (Exh. G). Said fight coupon
In respect of the charge of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the
Report of the Investigating Justice shows that on several occasions in 1983,
 was perforated, which means that it was used. Appearing on said We agree with the conclusions of the Investigating Justice. The acts of respondent
coupon is the name of the agent Cecile Domines; Judge in demanding and receiving money from a party-litigant before his court
constitute serious misconduct in office. This Court condemns in the strongest possible
that on October 20, 1983 before the hearing of the certiorari case, terms the misconduct of respondent Judge. It is this kind of gross and flaunting
respondent caged complainant inside his chambers and told him misconduct on the part of those who are charged with the responsibility of
that he needed Pl,500.00. Complaint borrowed the amount from his administering the law and rendering justice that so quickly and surely corrodes the
brother and gave it to respondent in his house at the Vilo respect for law and the courts without which government cannot continue and that
Subdivision; tears apart the very bonds of our polity. The respondent's ignorance of the
requirements of the Rules of Court and of elementary rules of Commercial Law, is
equally conspicuous. Respondent Judge combines in himself the twin evils of
x x x           x x x          x x x corruption and ignorance of the law and thus constitutes a deseased member which
must be decisively severed from the body of the judiciary and cast aside.
In respect of the charge of gross ignorance of the law, the Investigating Justice found
that respondent Judge had issued a writ of preliminary injunction in Civil Case No. Accordingly, this Court makes clear that had respondent Judge's resignation not been
411 although the party granted such injunction posted not the bond required under accepted by the President, respondent Judge would be dismissed from the service
the Rules of Court but rather a check issued by such party and payable to himself. forthwith. In addition, the Court RESOLVES to declare respondent disqualified from
The Report of Justice Bengzon sets out the following details: re-employment in any position in any branch, agency, or instrumentality of the
government, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and as having
xxx xxx xxx forfeited all his accused retirement benefits and leave and other privileges, if any.

that in Civil Case No. 411 entitled Eusebio Tanghal, plaintiff versus The Court also RESOLVES to require respondent to show cause, within 10 days from
Spouses Juanito Haw Tay, which case was also filed in the sale of notice hereof, why he should not be disbarred for the acts of which he has been found
respondent plaintiff Tanghal was ordered to post a bond of guilty.
P1,000.00 which was done by way of a check payable to plaintiff.
Respondent then issued a preliminary injunction (Exh. "D"). Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Special Prosecutor, Office of the
Complainant filed a Motion for Reconsideration regarding the Tanodbayan, for appropriate action on the probable violations of the Anti-Graft and
improper posting of the bond. On November 27, 1985 respondent Corrupt Practices Act by the respondent, with the request that the Court be informed
issued an order requiring plaintiff to modify, amend, or post another of the action taken.
bond in accordance with Sec. 4, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court.
SO ORDERED.
From the foregoing findings, the Investigating Justice reached the following
conclusions:

xxx xxx xxx

From the evidence, it would appear that the complainant was able
to substantiate the allegation in his complaint, and to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that respondent demanded and received money
on several occasions, i.e. on June 17, 1983- Pl,000.00; on June 18,
1983-P3,000.00; on July 22, 1983-Pl,000.00; on August 1, 1983
plane ticket worth Pl,348.00 and on October 20, 1983-Pl,500.00
from the defendants who had two pending cases before his sala.

It would also appear that the respondent erred in approving the

injunction bond which was posted by way of a check in the name of
the plaintiff and not the defendants. To correct this error,
respondent issued an order on November 27, 1985 requiring the
plaintiff to modify, amend or post another bond strictly in
accordance with Sec. 4, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court.