Back

Atty. Antonio D. Seludo vs Judge Antonio J. Fineza.

Atty. ANTONIO D. SELUDO, Complainant, versus Judge ANTONIO J. FINEZA, Regional Trial Court, Branch 131, Caloocan City, Respondent.

A.M. No. RTJ-04-1864 (formerly OCA IPI No. 03-1819-RTJ) | 2004-12-16

D E C I S I O N

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:

Besides possessing the requisite learning in the law, a magistrate must exhibit that hallmark judicial temperament of utmost sobriety[1] and self-restraint which are indispensable qualities of every judge.[2] A judge should be the last person to be perceived as petty, sharp-tongued tyrant. Sadly, respondent judge failed to live up to such standards of judicial conduct.

In a complaint[3] dated July 24, 2003 filed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), Atty. Antonio D. Seludo charged Judge Antonio J. Fineza of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 131, with violation of Canon...