Judge Dismissed for Illegally Occupying Public Land and Buying Property from Litigant

The Supreme Court has long held that judges must be models of uprightness and integrity. When a magistrate fails to live up to this standard, the consequences are severe. In a 2018 per curiam decision, the Court dismissed a Municipal Circuit Trial Court judge for illegally occupying government land, constructing structures without permits, and acquiring property from a litigant whose cases he had just decided. The case underscores that judges who violate the public trust face the ultimate administrative penalty.

The Facts of the Case

In 1969, Proclamation No. 573 set aside certain public lands as permanent forest reserves. A 193-hectare parcel in Sitio Tapaya, Villaros, Bagabag, Nueva Vizcaya was granted to the Department of Agriculture (DA) for research purposes. The property became known as the DA Cagayan Valley Hillyland Research Outreach Station (DA-CVHILROS).

Because informal settlers occupied the land, the DA filed cases before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Bagabag-Diadi, presided over by Judge Bill D. Buyucan. These included a forcible entry case against Eling Valdez and criminal cases for malicious mischief. Judge Buyucan dismissed these cases in May and June 2008.

A few months later, in August 2008, Judge Buyucan acquired a parcel within the same property for P150,000.00 from Eling Valdez and other co-vendors. The sale was evidenced by a "Waiver of Rights and Improvements."

When new malicious mischief cases were filed against other informal settlers, the Office of the Solicitor General moved for Judge Buyucan's inhibition because he himself resided on the same property. Judge Buyucan refused to recuse himself.

In 2013, the Ombudsman's Lifestyle Check Hotline received an anonymous text message about the judge. It alleged that Judge Buyucan had built a house on land that was not his, without a building permit, and had occupied a large area for a fighting cock farm. An investigation followed.

The Investigation's Findings

Executive Judge Fernando Flor, Jr. conducted an investigation and ocular inspection. The findings showed that Judge Buyucan occupied about one hectare of the DA-CVHILROS land, where he kept a fighting cock farm and built a two-storey house without a building permit. The DENR confirmed that no tenurial document had been issued to him.

Judge Buyucan denied knowledge of the DA's ownership, claiming instead that the land was within the road-right-of-way (RRW) of the Department of Public Works and Highways. He insisted the two-storey house belonged to his nephew and that what he built were merely temporary structures. He also denied owning a fighting cock farm.

The investigating judge found these denials unworthy of belief. The evidence showed Judge Buyucan was indeed squatting on the DA property, had confrontations with government lawyers about his illegal occupation, and erected a building of strong materials without a permit. The investigating judge recommended dismissal.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court found Judge Buyucan guilty of gross misconduct. The Court noted that the evidence was unequivocal: affidavits, the DENR verification plan, and the ocular inspection all confirmed his illegal occupation of the DA-CVHILROS property.

The Court also observed that even if Judge Buyucan's claim were true that he occupied only the RRW, such occupation was still unlawful. The Court cited Presidential Decree No. 17, which governs the use of public highways and rights-of-way, as making it unlawful to usurp or convert any portion of a public highway or right-of-way to private use. The exact statutory text is not reproduced here, but the Court relied on this provision in finding his possession unlawful.

Compounding his offense, Judge Buyucan acquired the property from Eling Valdez only months after dismissing cases in Valdez's favor. This conduct, the Court held, gave rise to the impression that he was motivated by extraneous factors in deciding those cases, casting doubt on his impartiality.

The Court emphasized that Canon 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to reaffirm the people's faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Canon 3 mandates that a judge's conduct, both in and out of court, must maintain public confidence in his impartiality.

The Penalty

The Office of the Court Administrator recommended a six-month suspension. The Supreme Court found this too light given the gravity and multiplicity of infractions. The Court dismissed Judge Buyucan from service with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave credits, and disqualified him from reinstatement or appointment to any public office. He was also ordered to immediately vacate the DA property, remove his structures, and show cause why he should not be disbarred.

Practical Takeaways

• Judges must avoid any conduct that creates even the appearance of impropriety, whether on or off the bench.
• A judge who acquires property from a litigant in cases pending before his sala — especially shortly after deciding those cases favorably — violates the standards of impartiality and integrity.
• Occupying public land without authority, whether forest reserve or road-right-of-way, is unlawful and constitutes gross misconduct for a member of the judiciary.
• The Supreme Court imposes the ultimate penalty of dismissal when a judge's misconduct betrays a lack of integrity and impartiality, as these are mandatory and continuing requirements of judicial office.
• Administrative cases require only substantial evidence — that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.