NOTARIAL PRACTICE LEGASPI vs. ATTY. LANDRITO and ATTY.

TORIBIO Charges: Grave Misconduct, Grave Dishonesty, Use of Falsified Document and Conduct Unbecoming of a Member of the Bar Atty. Landrito filed an ejectment suit with DARAB on behalf of Pedrito Aragon in representation of his co-heirs o SPA dated 27 Dec. 2005 was prepared and presented to show he was authorized to file the suit and to represent his co-heirs Allegations of complainant: o Madonna Aristorenas and Rafael Aragon couldnt have executed SPA Were residing in USA and Canada, respectively Did not return to Philippines in 2005 as certified by the Bureau of Immigration Not even Filipino citizens o Atty. Toribio allegedly notarized the SPA without: 1. requiring the presence of the principals 2. verifying whether said document was really executed by latter 3. ascertaining if it is their free and voluntary act and deed Atty. Toribio stated in Resolution of the City Prosecutor: o that Madonna and Rafael had attested that the signatures appearing on the questioned SPA are their own o that they voluntarily executed the same in favor of their brother, Pedrito Atty. Landritos defense: o he had no participation in the execution of the SPA o Resolution of the Office of the City Prosecutor was not yet final as the DOJ had ordered a re-investigation of the case o Affidavit of Madonna and Rafael only proves that the latter were not in the country when the SPA was notarized

Pending proceedings at IBP, Atty. Landrito informed the IBP that the DOJ had issued a Resolution dated affirming the findings of the City Prosecutor IBP: -Atty. Toribio: guilty of violating CPR and rules on notarial practice = 6 months suspension as a lawyer and notary public - Atty. Landrito: case dismissed for lack of merit -Atty. Toribio: 6 months suspension from practice of law and notarial commission + stern warning -Atty. Landrito: case dismissed Violation of Notarial Practice: Although voluntarily executed, SPA was notarized in the absence of principals o Madonna and Rafael could not have personally appeared before Atty. Toribio they were not in the Philippines at date of execution Bureau of Immigration certified: Madonna in Phil. only Dec. 15-30, 2003 Rafael in Phil. only Dec. 15-27, 2003 o SPA was voluntarily executed by principals Affidavit acknowledged before the Consulate General of the Philippines in Chicago, Illinois Madonna stated she signed the SPA in her residence in the US Affidavit acknowledged before the Consulate General of the Philippines in Vancouver, Canada Rafae stated he signed the SPA in his residence in Canada Notarization is not an empty, meaningless or routinary act o Invested with substantive public interest o Only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public Notaries public must observe utmost care in their duties o Act of notarization whereby a private document is converted into a public one o Makes document admissible in evidence without need of preliminary proof of authenticity and due execution

SC:

o o o

Notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face Negligence = undermined confidence of the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated therein.

Graver responsibility placed upon notary public who is a lawyer o Responsibility to faithfully observe and respect the legal solemnity of the oath in an acknowledgment or jurat is more pronounced o Reason: duty in CPR to obey the laws and to do no falsehood or consent to the doing of any
14

Mitigated penalty for Atty. Toribio already of retirement age Case vs. Atty. Landrito dismissed o no indication that he participated in the preparation or notarization of the SPA o no basis to conclude that he knew of the defect in the notarization of the SPA and introduced the same in evidence with the knowledge of its deficiency

CANON 1 - JUDICIAL Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez

o o

Motion for consideration o Origin of Case: Decision dated September 9, 2008, sanctioning several justices of CA for improprieties or irregularities in connection with case of Antonio Rosete, et al. v. SEC (Meralco-GSIS case) 1. MR dated Sept. 24 filed by Justice Vicente Q. Roxas 2. MR dated Sept. 15 filed by Justice Jose L. Sabio 3. MR dated Sept. 24 filed by Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. 4. Plea for Compassion and Clemency dated Sept. 22 filed by Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal (considered as MR) 5. MR dated Sept. 26 filed by Mr. Francis de Borja

Transcript of Deliberation is better termed Minutes of the Deliberation being unsigned, should be considered a draft, not official document promulgation of ponencia was not intended to be a discourtesy to the Presiding Justice since Justice Roxas believed the Presiding Justice, who was of the opinion that he had no authority to act on the matter, would not resolve Justice Roxas' interpleader petition,

SC Ruling: o o speedy resolution of a case in itself is not indicative of any wrongdoing on the part of a judge or magistrate he was unduly interested in the Meralco-GSIS case haste in which the decision was promulgated was taken in context with other suspicious circumstances and improprieties on Justice Roxas' part Canon 6, Section 5 of the Canons of Judicial Conduct cannot be used as defense provision does not sanction procedural shortcuts with dubious motivations such as non-resolution of pending incidents or drafting a decision before all required pleadings have been filed brought the institution he works for to disrepute instead of protecting the integrity of the appellate court as Justice Roxas claims he was doing Justice Roxas rushed to judgment his full knowledge of the existence of the chairmanship dispute and the differences of opinion among his colleagues regarding the proper interpretation of the rules should have all the more induced him to wait for a final resolution of the dispute before deciding the case his rush to judgment only opened his act of deciding the case to more questions and attacks not only from the other justices but from the public as well

SC: All MRs denied o MR of Justice Roxas Penalty of dismissal imposed for haste in which his decision was promulgated Prayer: reconsider penalty should there be a penalty, it should be 2 months suspension at the most Defense: o "haste" was due to his intention to "efficiently" dispose of the case and to preserve confidentiality (i.e. avoid leakages and outside influence) o he was in compliance with Canon 6, Section 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct (perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness) o confusion arose due to chairmanship dispute between Justices Sabio, Jr. and Reyes acted in good faith believing because of reorganization of CA and internal rules, it was 8th Division that was to decide MeralcoGSIS case

Argument as to Transcript of Deliberation untenable argument flimsy and a mere afterthought since they are proferred only after the Panel already questioned irregularities as to its production

we cannot give such claim credit. Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez, Jr. testified that when Justice Roxas personally filed the interpleader petition he told Justice Roxas that he will study the matter1 and in fact rendered his opinion within days from the filing of the interpleader petition. Justice Roxas also asserts that he believed that he had either resolved all pending motions, or that said motions had become moot in view of transpiring events. For one, it is a matter of record that there were still pending motions unresolved and Justice Roxas, who had possession of the rollo of the case most of the time prior to the promulgation of his decision, could not have been unaware of said motions. Second, the transpiring event, i.e. the promulgation of the decision, which he claims had mooted certain motions, being an event of his making, could hardly be cited in his defense. Also if Justice Roxas truly believed that certain motions, such as the Motion for Inhibition, were unmeritorious then we have greater reason to believe that Justice Roxas could have easily resolved them before rendering a decision on the merits. With respect to arguments related to the acts of others involved in the controversy, these do not aid Justice Roxas' cause. To begin with, Justice Roxas' actions must be judged on their own and the improprieties committed by others will not negate nor mitigate his own liabilities in the matter at hand. Indeed, Justice Roxas' choice of personalities whose improprieties and wrongdoings were highlighted in his motion does not reflect well on Justice Roxas who has already been found to have shown undue interest in the case. With respect to his claim that his decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 103692 was anchored on existing law and jurisprudence and evidenced his good faith, we cannot rule upon this point considering that the said decision is under appeal with this Court and we cannot preempt the resolution of that appeal on the merits. Nevertheless, we must emphasize that the subject matter of this administrative case involves the irregularities and improprieties that attended the deliberation, drafting and/or promulgation of the decision which should be deemed entirely separate from and independent of the merits of the decision itself.

As for his complaint that he was not informed by the Panel that he was a "respondent" or "accused" and thus, he was not able to emphasize his intentions for greater efficiency and confidentiality in the discharge of his functions during the investigation, we find little merit in the same. It is common knowledge that the mandate of the Panel was to investigate the alleged improprieties of the actions of the Justices of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 103692. The Panel was not limited to the chairmanship dispute nor to the bribery allegations of Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr., as Justice Roxas claims to believe. Moreover, the questions asked by the Panel and his colleagues in relation to his actions in the Meralco-GSIS case could lead to no other conclusion but that the propriety of Justice Roxas' conduct was under scrutiny in these proceedings. In any event, Justice Roxas was given by the Panel ample opportunity to present his side and his evidence and to cross-examine the testimonies of the other participants in the investigation. Finally, Justice Roxas interposes a plea of mercy in consideration of the difficulties he and his family has had to face in the wake of his dismissal from the service. The Court is not at all insensitive to situation of dismissed court officials and personnel, especially in these turbulent economic times. However, we must emphasize that where the finding of administrative guilt is well supported by the evidence on record, as in this case, this Court must impose the penalty warranted under the law and prevailing jurisprudence. This is in accord with our duty to protect and preserve the integrity and independence of the Court of Appeals and the whole Judiciary. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF JUSTICE JOSE L. SABIO, JR. On September 17, 2008, Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. (Justice Sabio) filed a Motion for Reconsideration, praying that the Court (a) review the portion of our Decision finding Justice Sabio guilty of simple misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a justice of the Court of Appeals and (b) remove the two month suspension imposed upon him. In seeking the reversal of our Decision with respect to his participation in CA G.R.-SP No. 103692, Justice Sabio cites the following arguments: I. Justice Sabio did not violate any Canons of Professional Ethics by speaking with his brother, Camilo - truth is - Justice Sabio declined his brother's offer. How can that be taken against him? II. Although Justice Sabio defended Camilo's having telephoned him (during the hearings), that was mereobiter dicta which cannot render the Justice liable for his brother's act. (a) Justice Sabio did not initiate the phone call; (b) Justice Sabio did not agree to the request of Camilo; (c) Justice Sabio stated he would

rule on the matter based on good conscience. (d) The brothers never spoke again on the matter. What was Justice Sabio's wrongdoing? III. The panel's conclusion that "Justice Sabio adamantly refused to yield the chairmanship" and had "unusual interest in holding on to the case" is mischaracterization. (a) The unrebutted testimonies of Justice Sabio and of Justice Villarama establish that the latter advised Justice Sabio on June 23, 2008, the very morning of the hearing in issue, to remain as Chairman because that was the correct interpretation of the rules; (b) Likewise, the suspicious actuations of Justice Reyes and Justice Roxas constrained Justice Sabio "to stand his ground" in order to protect the integrity of the CA. IV. The panel's findings that Justice Sabio failed to tell De Borja that "he could not, and would not talk about the MERALCO case" is factual misappreciation and mischaracterization. The unrebbuted affidavit and testimony in open hearing of Justice Sabio is that he did not know and could not have known the reason for De Borja's urgent plea to meet. In truth, Justice Sabio told off De Borja when the latter came to the Atoneo Faculty Lounge. But since De Borja kept badgering Justice Sabio by text messages, Justice Sabio finally had to call De Borja to warn him against his pestering texts V. The Honorable Court's conclusion that Justice Sabio's conversations with his brother and with Mr. De Borja were "indiscreet and imprudent" would only be true and correct if Sabio knew before the fact of (a) what was to be discussed or (b) if he agreed to the proposals. Justice Sabio is not guilty of either. VI. Justice Sabio initiated this investigation by his letter to PJ Vasquez. Justice Sabio spoke the truth at great personal risk to himself and to his family. He even prejudiced his older brother whom he dearly loves by his revelations. Should this not have been at the very least positively noted by the investigating panel in its findings? Are the panel's findings not sending a subconscious message: that Justice Sabio would have been far better-off had he accepted the bribe offer (or kept silent about it); correspondingly ignoring the perceptible infidelities all about him?2 After a careful consideration of the foregoing justifications, we find no reason to overturn our previous findings with respect to Justice Sabio. Justice Sabio's Telephone Conversation With His Brother Chairman Camilo Sabio

In the Motion, Justice Sabio claims he did not violate Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility3considering that: (a) it was his brother Chairman Camilo Sabio (Chairman Sabio) of the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) who initiated the call; (b) all Justice Sabio did was answer a call from his brother without knowing beforehand what the call was about; (c) Justice Sabio told his brother that he would vote according to his conscience and did not do as his brother asked; (d) after that call, they never spoke on the matter again; (e) even though Justice Sabio defended his brother's "act of enlisting the Justice's support," he (Justice Sabio) should not be made liable for his brother's act. From the foregoing, it would appear that Justice Sabio is arguing from the mistaken premise that he was likewise being held accountable under Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility or that he is being held accountable for the acts of his brother. The Panel of Investigators indeed used Canon 13 to characterize his conversation with his brother as improper and the same provision was the basis for this Court to refer Chairman Sabio's act to the Bar Confidant for appropriate action. However, as Justice Sabio noted in his own motion, the Panel found him in violation of the following provisions of the Canon of Judicial Conduct on independence: Canon 1 Independence Sec. 1. Judges shall exercise the judicial function independently x x x free from extraneous influence, inducement, pressure, threat or interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason. xxx Sec. 4. Judges shall not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. Sec. 5. Judges shall not only be free from inappropriate connections with, and influence by, the executive and legislative branches of government, but must also appear to be free therefrom to a reasonable observer. This Court agrees with the panel that Justice Sabio, by his own action, or more accurately inaction, failed to maintain the high standard of independence and propriety that is required of him.

While it is true that Justice Sabio could not have possibly known prior to his brother's call that his brother intended to speak to him about the Meralco-GSIS case, the fact remains that Justice Sabio continued to entertain a call from his brother, who also happens to be an officer of the executive branch, despite realizing that the conversation was going to involve a pending case. In his Motion, Justice Sabio asks the Court if he should have immediately slammed the phone on his brother. Certainly, such boorish behavior is not required. However, as soon as Justice Sabio realized that his brother intended to discuss a case pending before him or in his division, Justice Sabio should have respectfully but firmly ended the discussion. Justice Sabio in his own affidavit narrated that Chairman Sabio told him of matters in the Meralco-GSIS case that Justice Sabio himself had not been formally informed.4 He further alleged that his brother tried to convince him of rightness of the stand of GSIS and the Securities and Exchange Commission. The improper substance of the conversation was confirmed in Chairman Sabio's own statement before the Panel.5 Justice Sabio had no business discussing with his brother court matters (such as his assignment to a particular case, the possibility of issuance of a TRO, etc.) which by his own account are not yet "official" and more importantly, he should not have allowed the conversation to progress to a point that his brother was already discussing the merits of the case and persuading him (Justice Sabio) to rule in favor of one of the parties. That Justice Sabio did not do as his brother asked is of no moment. Section 5, Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct maintains such a high bar of ethical conduct that actual influence is not a prerequisite before a violation is deemed committed. If a magistrate's actions allow even just the appearance of being influenced, it is deemed a violation. To be sure, as a complement to Canon 1, the Code of Judicial Conduct likewise provides: Canon 4 Propriety Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all the activities of a judge. SECTION 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities. xxx By allowing his brother to discuss with him the merits of one party's position, Justice Sabio gave his brother the opportunity to influence him. Any reasonable person would tend to doubt Justice Sabio's independence and objectivity after such a conversation with a close family member who also happens to hold a high government position. As a magistrate, Justice

Sabio has the duty to prevent any circumstance that would cast doubt on his ability to decide a case without interference or pressure from litigants, counsels or their surrogates. This Court further notes that had Justice Sabio been prudent enough to nip the improper conversation with his brother in the bud, he would have prevented his own brother from violating Canon 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. If Justice Sabio and his brother find themselves in such a quandary, it is a quandary of their own making. Justice Sabio's Various Conversations with Mr. Francis de Borja Justice Sabio's communications with Mr. Francis de Borja (Mr. de Borja) are inextricably related to the same charge of failure to comply with the canons of judicial independence and propriety cited in his conversation with his brother. By his own admission, Justice Sabio had communications with Mr. de Borja on at least four (4) occasions in relation to the Meralco case: (a) On May 31, 2008, Mr. de Borja allegedly called Justice Sabio and greeted him with "Mabuhay ka, Justice" and informed the latter that the Makati Business Club is happy with the issuance of a TRO in the Meralco case. Mr. de Borja also praised Justice Sabio for not succumbing to pressure. Justice Sabio allegedly replied that he voted according to his conscience. (b) On July 1, 2008, Mr. de Borja called up Justice Sabio again and urgently pleaded with the latter to meet on an "important" matter. Justice Sabio allegedly agreed to meet after his 6-8pm class at the Ateneo Law School but told Mr. de Borja that he could not stay long since his wife and daughter would be waiting for him. (c) Later July 1, 2008, Justice Sabio and Mr. de Borja indeed met face to face at the Lobby Lounge of the Ateneo Law School after Justice Sabio's class. It was during that meeting that Mr. de Borja allegedly offered Justice Sabio Ten Million Pesos to "give way to Justice [Bienvenido L.] Reyes" in their chairmanship dispute over the Meralco-GSIS case. Justice Sabio was shocked and insulted by Mr. de Borja's insinuation that he could be bribed and rejected the offer outright. (d) On July 3, 2008, Justice Sabio called Mr. de Borja purportedly to tell the latter to stop pestering him with text messages. When Mr. de Borja answered the justice's call, he allegedly said "Mabuti naman Justice tumawag ka, kasi malapit na ang deadline ng submission ng memorandum. Pinag-isipan mo na bang mabuti ang offer namin? Kasi sayang din kung di mo tatanggapin, kasi kahit aabot itong kaso sa Supreme Court,

matatalo ka din. Sayang lang yung 10 million. Baka sisihin ka pa ng mga anak mo."6 Justice Sabio claimed that he was again shocked and insulted that Mr. de Borja would repeat the reprehensible offer that he (Justice Sabio) already rejected. Anent the first call from Mr. de Borja on May 31, 2008, Justice Sabio would have this Court characterize that conversation as an innocent call from an acquaintance congratulating the justice on his having acted in a certain way in a case of public interest. Justice Sabio further claims that conversation did not give him any inkling that Mr. de Borja was lobbying for Meralco. However, taken with the other circumstances on record, we cannot take the view that first call was entirely proper. To begin with, in Justice Sabio's "Reaction" to Mr. de Borja's widely publicized Affidavit dated July 31, 2008,7Justice Sabio admitted that Mr. de Borja's allegation that he is a businessman engaged in, among others, "brokering contracts," "deal making" and "project packaging" was consistent with what Justice Sabio knows of him. In other words, Justice Sabio was not entirely oblivious to the sort of business that Mr. de Borja dabbled in. Justice Sabio further admits that prior to May 31, 2008, he had not had any communication with Mr. de Borja for about a year. That first call should have already put Justice Sabio on guard, for why would an acquaintance with whom he had lost touch suddenly feel the need to deliberately seek him out just to congratulate him on a particular action in a controversial case? Even then, Mr. de Borja was already making improper insinuations regarding the possibility that Justice Sabio was being subjected to undue pressure in relation to his participation in the Meralco-GSIS case. From that point, Justice Sabio should have viewed with wariness any further communications from Mr. de Borja. Thus, this Court could not accept Justice Sabio's explanation that the second call from Mr. de Borja was likewise innocent. According to Justice Sabio, there is nothing in that call that could have raised the suspicion Mr. de Borja was going to make him an offer. We disagree. Although Mr. de Borja did not expressly state that the "important matter" he wanted to discuss was the Meralco-GSIS case, considering that Justice Sabio's last conversation with Mr. de Borja involved said controversial case (a conversation memorable enough that Justice Sabio could even offer a supposed verbatim reproduction of it in his affidavit submitted to the Panel), Justice Sabio should have proceeded with even more caution before agreeing to the face to face meeting at the Ateneo Law School. The prudent course of action for Justice Sabio under the circumstances was to ascertain first the nature of the urgent matter Mr. de Borja needed to discuss with him before acceding to the request for a meeting.

Consequently, if the July 1, 2008 meeting between Justice Sabio and Mr. de Borja turned sour and Justice Sabio felt insulted by Mr. de Borja's alleged attempt to bribe him, Justice Sabio shares part of the blame. Justice Sabio himself provided Mr. de Borja the opportunity to make him an offer. Justices and judges should be immediately wary of persons wishing to speak with them without being upfront regarding their motives [for the motives are likely to be unethical or dishonorable]. Indeed, one can even infer that Mr. de Borja was probably emboldened to make his offer in light of Justice Sabio's willingness to meet with him without even determining beforehand his true motives. It behooves this Court to remind all magistrates to guard their reputations jealously and not put themselves in a position that another person would have the opportunity to corrupt them or sully their good name. As this Court has often held, judges must be like Ceasar's wife - above suspicion and beyond reproach.8 As for the July 3, 2008 call of Justice Sabio to Mr. de Borja, Justice Sabio cites in his defense the circumstances that (a) it was the only time he ever initiated any call to Mr. de Borja; and (b) the purpose for the call was to tell Mr. de Borja to stop pestering him once and for all. Justice Sabio likewise takes exception to the following findings of the Panel: Justice Sabio, Jr. was allegedly shocked and insulted that De Borja would think that he (Justice Sabio, Jr.) could be bribed or bought. The Panel is, however, honestly perplexed why in spite of his outraged respectability, Justice Sabio, Jr. called up De Borja two (2) days later (on July 3, 2008), to tell De Borja to stop "pestering" him with his calls. The Panel is nonplussed because, normally, a person who has been insulted would never want to see, much less speak again, to the person who had disrespected him. He could have just shut off his cell phone to De Borja's calls.xxx9 In Justice Sabio's opinion, the conclusion of the Panel that he should have just ignored Mr. de Borja's texts or calls was unwarranted. He cites studies in the field of psychology to the effect that "to fight" is just as natural a reaction as "to flee" when a person is subjected to great stress. He claims that there is no scientific formula, no universal "common sense" reaction to a given situation. Justice Sabio argues his decision "to fight" (i.e. calling Mr. de Borja and demanding that he stop pestering him) was a valid reaction on his part. While it may be true that from a psychological stand point ordinary persons can have a wide variety of valid reactions to any given situation, Justice Sabio should bear in mind his high office as a magistrate of the appellate court sets him apart from ordinary persons. Being the subject of constant public scrutiny, members of the bench should freely and

willingly accept behavioral restrictions that may be viewed by ordinary citizens as burdensome.10 The Court is of the view that the best course of action on the part of Justice Sabio was to cut off all communications with Mr. de Borja after the first alleged bribery attempt. By calling his adversary, no matter what the reason, Justice Sabio merely set himself up for another insult or assault on his integrity. Again, Justice Sabio exhibited poor judgment in exposing himself to yet another compromising or humiliating situation. Taking his conversation with his brother and his encounters with Mr. de Borja together, Justice Sabio gives the impression that he is accessible to lobbyists who would unfairly try to manipulate court proceedings. Even assuming arguendo that Justice Sabio was not moved by his brother's request and that he rejected Mr. de Borja's bribe offer, the Court feels compelled to call Justice Sabio's attention to his own shortcomings under the circumstances. At the very least, Justice Sabio should have realized that his discussions of court matters, especially those that have not yet been made of public record, with persons who are interested in the case were incredibly indiscreet and tended to undermine the integrity of judicial processes. We see no reason to reverse the Panel's finding that Justice Sabio's conversations with his brother and Mr. de Borja were "indiscreet and imprudent." Justice Sabio's Refusal to Yield Chairmanship of the Special Division Handling the Meralco-GSIS case As defenses to this charge, Justice Sabio cites (a) the opinion of Justice Martin Villarama, Jr. that under the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals (IRCA) Justice Sabio should remain as chairman and (b) the suspicious actuations of Justice Reyes and Justice Roxas that constrained him (Justice Sabio) "to stand his ground" in order to protect the integrity of the CA. That another senior justice of the CA interpreted the rules in Justice Sabio's favor does not justify his unyielding and hostile stance. We point out that Justice Sabio refused to accept Justice Edgardo Cruz's earlier opinion in favor of Justice Reyes because it was allegedly made in a personal capacity and not as Chairman of the Rules Committee. In other words, Justice Sabio deemed Justice Cruz's personal opinion non-binding. If that is the case, then Justice Villarama's personal opinion or interpretation of the IRCA, even if he is a more senior justice, is likewise non-binding and did not settle the chairmanship dispute. Neither do Justice Sabio's suspicions of impropriety or wrongdoing on the part of the Justices Reyes and Roxas justify Justice Sabio's aggressive and combatant attitude. Again, what this Court finds unbecoming is the failure of Justice Sabio to cooperate with his colleagues in finding an amicable

resolution to the conflicting interpretations of the IRCA. Moreover, this Court cannot see why magistrates of the appellate court cannot respectfully disagree and civilly suggest solutions to the chairmanship dispute. Justice Sabio's "fighting stance" against Justice Reyes is unseemly and tends to demean the institution that he claims to protect. The Court took into account all relevant circumstances in determining the appropriate penalty for Justice Sabio. Finally, Justice Sabio points out that by writing to Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez to investigate the irregularities in the Meralco-GSIS case he spoke the truth at great personal risk to himself and his family. He further argues that the Panel's findings which highlighted the faults and ignored the good in the justices investigated send the wrong signal to the public. We must point out that the Court in fact took into account Justice Sabio's apparent lack of ill-motive and his effort to bring to light irregularities in the Meralco-GSIS case. However, we cannot close our eyes to the improprieties that Justice Sabio undisputedly committed notwithstanding his good faith. Any transgression or deviation from the established norm of conduct, work-related or not, amounts to misconduct.11 To constitute grave misconduct, the acts complained of should be corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law, or constitute a flagrant disregard of wellknown legal rules. It is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, willful in character and implies wrongful intent and not a mere error in judgment.12 In this instance, we found Justice Sabio liable for simple misconduct. Under Rule 140, simple misconduct is considered a less grave offense13 which is punishable by: (a) suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) month nor more than three (3) months; or (b) a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.14 However, the Court is of the considered view that the penalty of suspension of two (2) months without pay was appropriate in the light of the additional, albeit lighter, offense of conduct unbecoming of a CA Justice, for which we found Justice Sabio also liable. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF PRESIDING JUSTICE CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, JR. In his Motion for Reconsideration, Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. (Presiding Justice Vasquez) prays that the findings against him in our Decision be reconsidered and set aside and that the penalty of severe reprimand imposed upon him be removed. He relies upon the following grounds:

(a) The Panel did not inform him that he was to be a respondent in relation to any administrative charge or liability, to enable him to present a thorough explanation or account of his actions and actuations on the chairmanship impasse between Justices Sabio and Reyes. (b) The Panel's characterizations of his actions on the issue of the chairmanship and on the report of the bribe-offer as vacillation and temporizing was unwarranted, considering that he did everything possible and permissible as a primus inter pares to quickly and tactfully resolve the chairmanship impasse. On the report of the bribe offer, he had nothing to go by except the report of Justice Sabio, Jr. who did not share even the identity of the supposed offeror with anyone until the alleged bribe offeror himself came out with an affidavit on the issue. (c) The fact that he had two daughters, a sister and a niece employed in GSIS did not influence any action that he took in relation to the Meralco-GSIS case. First, we emphasize that the Panel was conducting a general investigation precisely to determine if improprieties were committed in relation to CAG.R. SP. No. 103692 and who were liable for such improprieties. Moreover, every person summoned to the Panel's investigation, including Presiding Justice Vasquez, was given the fullest opportunity to present his or her side. Each of them was given the chance to submit their sworn affidavits and other documentary evidence, to cross-examine the other witnesses and to present rebuttal evidence, if necessary. Second, in our Decision, although we noted with favor most of the Panel's findings, we cited Presiding Justice Vasquez only for his failure to timely and effectively act in the chairmanship dispute between Justices Sabio and Reyes, which greatly tarnished the image of the institution that he leads. As soon as it became evident that Justices Sabio and Reyes were unable to settle the matter on their own, he should have stepped in to prevent the dispute and enmity between the two from escalating. Even if he honestly believed at the time that the IRCA did not allow him to rule on the matter, Presiding Justice Vasquez could have ordered reconstituted the Rules Committee or submitted the matter to the court en banc. However, we do believe that he acted in good faith for the most part and that there is insufficient evidence that his actions were influenced by the fact that he had relatives in GSIS. Certainly, had we found otherwise, we would have meted out a much more severe penalty than a reprimand. Third, even after a careful consideration of his more extensive explanation of his actions or lack thereof as contained in his Motion for Reconsideration, we find no compelling reason to reverse our ruling that

he failed to act promptly and decisively in order to avert a situation that seriously damaged the reputation of the appellate court. A PLEA FOR COMPASSION AND CLEMENCY FILED BY JUSTICE MYRNA DIMARANAN VIDAL In her pleading, Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal (Justice Vidal) prays that the Court revoke and set aside the admonition meted out to her in our Decision dated September 9, 2008. In support of her plea for clemency, Justice Vidal cites the sufferings she and her family experienced with the promulgation of our Decision, her unblemished record of 43 years in government service marked by various citations and awards, the probative weight given by the Panel to her testimony against Justice Roxas and the alleged practice of CA Justices to dispense with actual deliberations and simply manifest concurrence or dissent to a ponente's draft. However, she admits to being remiss with respect to being compliant to the representations of Justice Roxas in the Meralco-GSIS case but asserts that she has learned her lesson and will be more circumspect and vigilant in the discharge of her duties. At the outset, we wish to clarify that our admonition of Justice Vidal was not in the nature of a penalty. What is considered a penalty under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court is an "admonition with warning" which should be distinguished from a plain admonition. This Court has held that an admonition is "a warning or reminder, counseling on a fault, error or oversight, an expression of authoritative advice or warning."15 It is in consideration of mitigating circumstances in the case of Justice Vidal that we settled on simply admonishing her for her lapses in the Meralco-GSIS case. We see no need to be even more compassionate than we already have when Justice Vidal herself admits to being "remiss" in this instance. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF MR. FRANCIS DE BORJA In his Motion for Reconsideration, Mr. Francis de Borja (Mr. de Borja) prays for the deletion or clarification of certain statements in our Decision on the grounds that such statements may be construed as our having prejudged his case in violation of his constitutional rights to be presumed innocent, to due process and to equal protection of the laws. He likewise prayed for referral of the actions of PCGG Chairman Camilo R. Sabio and Justice Sabio to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for appropriate action, referral of the actions of lawyers Estrella Elamparo Tayag and Jesus I. Santos to the Office of the Bar Confidant and the DOJ for appropriate action and the modification of the penalties imposed upon Justice Sabio and Presiding Justice Vasquez to dismissal from the service. First, we must clarify that Mr. Borja is neither a complainant nor a respondent in the present administrative matter, an investigation of the

alleged improprieties of certain CA justices in the Meralco-GSIS case. Under the circumstances, he has no personality to seek reconsideration of our Decision except insofar as it affects him directly or personally. Indeed, we do not see how he can be benefited or adversely affected by the findings regarding the other personalities in this case. On the other hand, his choice of persons to include in his prayer for further investigation or more severe sanctions tend to indicate that in filing this motion for reconsideration Mr. de Borja is not acting purely on his own interests but rather the interests of another party. As for his claim of prejudgment, we find the same unmeritorious. The Panel and this Court could not, and in fact did not, rule upon the criminal charge of attempt or offer to bribe a public officer against Mr. de Borja in these administrative proceedings. It is for this reason that the matter has been referred to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for appropriate action. It is for the DOJ to conduct its own proceedings and to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to find probable cause to hold Mr. de Borja liable for the said charge. We trust that the DOJ would accord Mr. de Borja the fullest opportunity to defend himself and would give due respect to all his constitutional rights. Mr. de Borja's fear that his case will be railroaded by the DOJ is speculative and does not warrant a reversal of our decision to refer the matter to that agency, which in the first place has jurisdiction over the criminal investigation. We find it unnecessary to pass upon the other arguments and reliefs prayed for by Mr. de Borja for lack of standing. This is, however, without prejudice to the continuation or resolution of any complaints that may already have been filed against the personalities mentioned in the motion. Parenthetically, one of the Justices submitted a separate concurring and dissenting opinion setting forth his observations and evaluation, as follows: 1. On Justice Vicente Q. Roxas Justice Vicente Roxas is guilty of various infractions of judicial ethics, rendering him unfit to continue as Associate Justice of the CA. The findings of the Panel on Justice Roxas' actions are sufficient to show his incompatibility with the high judicial office he holds. First, he ignored or refused to act on several pending motions before him. His excuse that he "believed" that he had already resolved the pending motions or that they had become moot16 is, at best, tenuous. It does not justify his non-feasance in his duties. Second, his dishonesty and deceit have no place in the Judiciary. He fabricated the "Transcript of Final Decision," to make it appear that deliberations had been conducted before the

drafting of the Meralco decision when, in fact, there had been none. His undue interest and improper haste in having the Meralco decision signed speak of his questionable partiality. His reason for personally bringing a draft of the decision to Justice Dimaranan Vidal is a lie. Moreover, he was utterly disrespectful to his colleagues, Presiding Justice Vasquez and Dimaranan Vidal. These constitute grave misconduct and abuses of judicial ethics that this Court cannot tolerate. 2. On Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. a. It was unethical for Justice Sabio to entertain and expose himself to pressure from PCGG Chairman Camilo Sabio. Justice Sabio's improper conversation with his brother, Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) Chairman Camilo Sabio, was a flagrant transgression of several judicial ethical principles. As found by the Panel, by allowing his brother to influence his conduct in the Meralco case, Justice Sabio violated17 Sections 1, 4, and 5, Canon 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, impressing upon magistrates the duty to uphold judicial independence. It raised serious questions on his integrity and independence. Justice Sabio, however, defends the phone call of his older brother by citing Filipino tradition and culture. According to him, "it would be unthinkable for a brother not to call another brother."18 He says it is assumed that relatives and friends will call up on a case but it is up to the Justice concerned whether to favor that relative or friend.19 Coming from a Justice of the CA, to find nothing improper or unethical about that phone call is appalling. It is a dangerous precedent when a magistrate himself justifies an improper conduct on the basis of filial relations. The Panel also established that Justice Sabio was remiss in his duty to inform Presiding Justice Vasquez of Chairman Sabio's phone call to him.20 While he was very vigilant in his crusade against Francis Roa De Borja's attempt to bribe him, he was selective with respect to his brother. It was only after the Meralco mess hit the fan that he disclosed his brother's unethical conduct. A judge should not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.21 By continuing his participation in the case,

he unduly gave the impression that he could be influenced by external factors or forces. b. It was highly inappropriate for Justice Sabio to communicate and discuss the Meralco case with De Borja. Even if We accept Justice Sabio's allegation that Francis Roa De Borja attempted to bribe him with P10 million to give up the chairmanship of the Special 9th Division, his own actuations after the offer showed grave misconduct. First, by meeting De Borja at the Ateneo Law School; entertaining his call on several instances; and discussing the Meralco case, Justice Sabio broke the shield of confidentiality that covers the disposition of cases in court.22 He transgressed Section 9, Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct which prohibits judges from using or disclosing any confidential information acquired by them for any other purpose related to their judicial duties. Second, it was highly improper for him to fraternize with De Borja, whom he knew from the past as a broker, who had actually given him monetary consideration while he was a sitting judge in Cagayan de Oro City, and who was now interested in the Meralco-GSIS case. His independence was rendered questionable, not merely by virtue of his conversations with Chairman Sabio, but also by his openness to De Borja who he said was brokering for Meralco. Justice Sabio breached Section 1, Canon 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, that "[j]udges shall exercise the judicial function independently x x x free of any extraneous influence, inducement, pressure, threat or interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter for any reason." Justice Sabio also ignored Section 3, Canon 3 of the same Code, mandating that judges "shall, so far as is reasonable, so conduct themselves as to minimize the occasions on which it will be necessary for them to be disqualified from hearing or deciding cases." c. Justice Sabio should have inhibited himself from the Meralco case; instead, he showed unusual interest as he suspiciously held on to it. When his brother tried to influence him to vote against the TRO, Justice Sabio should have voluntarily inhibited himself from the case. He should have voluntarily recused himself from participating in further proceedings. I agree with the Panel's finding on Justice Sabio's "unusual interest" in the Meralco case, viz.:

For his part, although Justice Sabio, Jr., against his brother's advice, did sign the TRO in favour of Meralco, his unusual interest in holding on to the Meralco case, seemed to indicate that he may have been actually influenced to "help GSIS" as Secretary Sabio had advised. This may be deduced from the following actuations: - (1) he adamantly refused to yield the chairmanship of the Special Ninth Division although the regular chairman, Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes had returned to duty on June 10, 2008; and, (2) he officiously prepared and signed a resolution (a chore for the ponente Justice V. Roxas to perform), requiring the GSIS and the SEC to comment on Meralco's "Motion for Justice B. Reyes to Assume the Chairmanship of the 9th Division," which he probably intended to delay the decision on the preliminary injunction beyond the life of the TRO to the prejudice of Meralco and the advantage of the GSIS.23 Justice Sabio ignored even the opinion of Justice Edgardo Cruz, the CA Rules Committee chairman,24 on the matter. This, despite Presiding Justice Vasquez' own endorsement of the impasse to Justice Cruz. On June 20, 2008, Justice Sabio received a letter from Justice Cruz addressed to the Presiding Justice, opining that Justice B.L. Reyes should preside over the June 23, 2008 hearing, viz.:25 It appears that because of your leave of absence in May 2008, Associate Justice Jose Catral Mendoza was designated as acting chairman. However, Justice Mendoza voluntarily inhibited himself from the case, resulting in his replacement by Associate Justice Jose Sabio, Jr., as acting chairman. It was during the stint of Justice Sabio as acting chairman that the TRO was issued. Sec 2(d), Rule VI of the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, as amended, reads: "Sec 2. Justices Who May Participate in the Adjudication of Cases. - In the determination of the two other Justices who shall participate in the adjudication of cases, the following shall be observed: xxxx (d) When, in an original action or petition for review, any of these actions or proceedings, namely: (1) giving due course; (2) granting writ of preliminary injunction; (3) granting new trial; and (4) granting execution pending appeal have been taken, the case shall remain with the

Justice to whom the case is assigned for study and report and the Justices who participated herein, regardless of their transfer to other Divisions in the same station." Issuance of a TRO is not among the instances where "the Justice who participated" in the case shall "remain" therein. Consequently, notwithstanding the issuance of the TRO (not writ of preliminary injunction) the case reverted to the regular chairman (Justice Bienvenido Reyes) of the ninth division upon his return.26(Emphasis supplied) Justice Sabio rejected Justice Cruz' opinion on the lame excuse that (1) it was rendered in Justice Cruz' personal capacity, and (2) Justice Cruz is merely his junior in the CA. These, however, do not detract from the fact that Justice Sabio's own superior, Presiding Justice Vasquez, recognized Justice Cruz' expertise on the matter. Being aware of the persuasions around him, Justice Sabio ought to have recused himself from the case to preclude all doubts on his ability to dispense justice impartially. In not doing so, Justice Sabio ignored the rule that a judge should not take part in a proceeding where his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.27 Too, by failing to distance himself from a case where his impartiality and integrity could be tainted, Justice Sabio ran afoul of Section 5, Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct which states that "[j]udges shall disqualify themselves from participating in any proceedings in which they are unable to decide the matter impartially or in which it may appear to a reasonable observer that they are unable to decide the matter impartially." d. Justice Sabio is not a genuine whistle-blower. His wrongful insistence to chair the Roxas division is the root cause of all this mess. Justice Sabio claimed that pressure from both sides was being exerted on him. He presumed the same or greater pressure on the other justices was not far behind. If Justice Sabio truly wanted to preserve the integrity of the CA, he should have exposed the attempts to influence him at the first instance and then distanced himself from the case. Sadly, that is not what happened here. He did not divulge his brother's phone call to influence his TRO vote, immediately after it was made on May 30, 2008. He waited from July 1, 2008 (the day De Borja allegedly offered the P10 million to him) to July 26,

2006 (when he finally wrote the Presiding Justice about the bribe offer), before finally going on record about the bribery attempt. His letter to the Presiding Justice regarding the bribe offer came only after Justice L. Bienvenido Reyes' 8th Division promulgated the decision on the Meralco case,28 leaving him and Justice Vidal out in the cold. What took him so long to publicly denounce these efforts to pressure him? Likewise, he first kept suspiciously silent on the name of the bribe-offeror.29 Justice Sabio's obstinate refusal to vacate the chairmanship of the Special 9th Division flames suspicion on his motive. As the Panel intimated, he may have been actually influenced "to help GSIS." Whistle-blowers are most certainly welcome. However, I cannot in good conscience appreciate it in this case, especially when the claim of whistle-blowing is belated, smacks of afterthought and reeks of dubious motives. e. Justice Sabio's other admissions show conduct unbecoming of a member of the Judiciary. During the hearings, De Borja alleged that he gave Justice Sabio P300,000 as token for his legal advice on a Roa property deal when Justice Sabio was still an RTC judge in Cagayan de Oro. Justice Sabio admitted receipt of the P300,000.00. That was an impermissible moonlighting. While the Panel was only tasked to determine the improprieties of the CA Justices in relation to the Meralco case, Justice Sabio's acceptance of the P300,000 gift is an impropriety that cannot be condoned. It goes into his very fitness to hold a seat in the Judiciary. Judges are prohibited from private practice of law while they are active members of the judiciary.30 This includes giving professional advice as members of the bar31 on cases, pending or otherwise, to litigants and third parties. Moreover, Justice Sabio himself in a motion admits a regrettable incident that occurred not long ago. During a meeting among division chairmen of the CA, Justice Sabio admitted having challenged the then Presiding Justice to a fistfight.32 It bears stressing that Justice B. L. Reyes was reprimanded for discourtesy for signing the Roxas ponencia without waiting for the belated action of the Presiding Justice. Justice Sabio's bullying, belligerent conduct towards a Presiding Justice is worse than a discourtesy. It is conduct unbecoming of a magistrate. f. Justice Sabio's gross improprieties and unethical conduct, aggravated by his teaching of Legal and Judicial Ethics, show that he is unfit to continue in the Judiciary.

Justice Sabio has violated several ethical principles, enshrined in the Canons of Judicial Ethics, Code of Professional Responsibility, and New Code of Judicial Conduct. The violations are not simple but grave misconduct. A brief suspension is disproportionate to the seriousness of the offenses. It is alarming that Justice Sabio even proudly proclaims his being a professor of Legal Ethics, a member of the Philippine Judicial Academy's (PHILJA) Ethics and Judicial Conduct Department, Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) lecturer and Ateneo Law School's Pre-bar reviewer in Legal and Judicial Ethics.33His breach of the ethical principles he ought to know by heart aggravates his offenses. 3. On Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. The Panel found that Presiding Justice Vasquez failed to provide the leadership expected of him as head of the CA.34 While he advances three arguments to strike that down, the finding has strong bases. First, the CA en banc's decision referring "the propriety of the actions of the Justices concerned" to this Court does not show that the investigation should exclude Presiding Justice Vasquez. No CA justices were specified, and in order to get to the bottom of the truth, the investigation had to be full-blown. In addition to being the Presiding Justice, Vasquez was also personally embroiled in the Meralco controversy. There was no reason for him to think his own actions would not be inquired into by the Panel, or that he would merely be considered a "resource speaker."35 He cannot justify his acts of omission by merely arguing that he was unable to render "more complete explanations or more focused justifications vis--vis the charge against"36him. All he had to do during the investigation was to tell the truth, and if the truth revealed lapses on his part, he should be responsible for his actions. Second, during the proceedings, Presiding Justice Vasquez showed his incapacity to lead the CA. As the Panel found, he was indecisive in dealing with the turmoil arising from the Meralco case. He vacillated and temporized in resolving the chairmanship impasse.37Having referred the matter to Justice Cruz, he ignored the latter's opinion and deferred to that of Justice Sabio. Worse, he refused to take action on the reported bribe offer by De Borja (or Meralco) to Justice Sabio. He hesitated to assert his authority even when the parties themselves repeatedly urged him to lay down the rule for him to follow.38 His justification that he wanted Justices B.L.

Reyes and Sabio to resolve the chairmanship issue between them39 precisely shows his lack of leadership. Also, his belief that the dispute was beyond his jurisdiction because it is a judicial matter,40 is disturbing as it reveals that he does not know what his duties are as Presiding Justice. As the Panel pointed out, he is authorized to act on any matter involving the court and its members.41 Verily, his failed leadership caused the Meralco situation to deteriorate. Third, intended efforts to clean up the CA will be pointless if not backed up by a strong and coherent leadership that will initiate and implement reforms. Presiding Justice Vasquez has proven himself inadequate in this respect. He cannot be expected to be the torchbearer and forerunner in reforming and restoring faith in the CA. How can the CA "overcome"42 the difficulties of public distrust and heal itself towards moral recovery with a weak leader at the helm? Vasquez' continued stay in the appellate court will be ineffective and selfdefeating. 4. On Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal Justice Vidal's acts were not merely lapses in judgment; they constitute failure to uphold independence in the Judiciary. Justice Dimaranan Vidal deviated from the IRCA when she allowed herself to be rushed by Justice Roxas into signing the Meralco decision without having read the parties' memoranda, and without deliberation among its members, given the significance of the case.43 She admits her lapse when she merely relied on the representation of Justice Roxas that it was urgent for her to immediately sign the decision. These are not mere accidents or mistakes made by an ordinary employee. These indicate lack of caution on the part of one who has been deigned to don the judicial robe. Thus, she should not expect to be treated with kid gloves for the reasons advanced in her motion for reconsideration, including the fact of her impending retirement. Accordingly, the writer of the separate opinion voted to deny the motions for reconsideration filed by Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, and Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr., Vicente Q. Roxas, and Myrna Dimaranan Vidal. Instead he voted: 1. to affirm the dismissal of Justice Roxas from the service, with forfeiture of all benefits, except accrued leave credits, if any. 2. to dismiss Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. from the service. 3. to order Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez' forced retirement with entitlement to leave credits and retirement

benefits, without prejudice to re-employment in the government service.44 4. to substitute reprimand for admonition to Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal. One more Justice who maintains his vote in the Court's per curiam decision wrote a separate concurring opinion, to wit: Another justice regards the extremely adverse comments and observations about Justice Sabio to be unwarranted nitpicking that sees all the imperfections of individual trees but completely misses the forest. More than anything else, this justice believes that the liability of the CA justices should be taken in the total context of what they did in relation with the problems that confronted them. More than anything else, this justice believes that the liability of the CA justices should be taken in the total context of what they did in relation with the problems that confronted them. What should not be missed with respect to Justice Sabio is the fact that he blew the whistle on what was happening, thus triggering the investigation that transpired. Without Sabio's whistleblowing, the whole Meralco-GSIS mess at the CA would have been effectively covered up, ending as one of the stories whispered about in judicial corridors and in gossip columns to the detriment of the whole judicial system. Justice Sabio's act was really the first of its kind in judicial history when one sitting justice spoke about an on-going corruption in the courts. To be sure, this is not the first incidence of corruption in the appellate court and in the judiciary as a whole. The distinguishing feature of this one is that a sitting justice openly spoke and made a proper report about it. As the committee's findings confirm, Justice Sabio reported the attempted bribery to Presiding Justice Vasquez and at some point exerted efforts to report it to the Chief Justice. That was how determined Justice Sabio was to fully expose the anomaly he found himself in. His passion for truth was such that he could have simply kept his brother's call to himself as nobody knew about it except the two of them. Yet, casting aside familial sympathies, he disclosed the matter if only to fully ventilate the totality of what he knew about the Meralco-GSIS affair. The apparently forgotten bottom line in Justice Sabio's action was the manner he voted; he voted against his brother's side by granting the temporary restraining order that Meralco prayed for. As a lesson from the whole affair, the commenting Justice bewails that whistle blowing has not been accorded the attention

it deserves in the Committee Report as well as in the Court's consideration of the matter. Even our laws have not given whistle blowers recognition although these same laws recognize the need and utilitarian value of state witnesses in criminal prosecutions and accordingly give them special treatment for their contribution. If this is done in the prosecution of crimes in general, with more reason should whistle blowing be given due recognition in graft and corruption cases where the whistle blower is not necessarily a party to the misdeed. Corruption, too, is never done in the open, only in darkness and secrecy where it can be effectively hidden. To effectively combat such easily concealed misdeeds, the law and this Court should not disregard the lights that whistle blowers offer, very often at substantial risk to themselves. Stated positively, these lights should be recognized and appreciated instead of being disregarded, or worse, snuffed out. Thus, Justice Sabio should be treated with understanding and leniency instead of being nitpicked and totally condemned. Apart from the above-mentioned separate concurring and dissenting opinion of one Justice, the Justices' votes and inhibitions remained unchanged. WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration dated September 24, 2008 filed by Justice Vicente Q. Roxas; Motion for Reconsideration dated September 15, 2008 filed by Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr.; Motion for Reconsideration dated September 24, 2008 filed by Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr.; A Plea for Compassion and Clemency dated September 22, 2008 filed by Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal; and Motion for Reconsideration dated September 26, 2008 filed by Mr. Francis de Borja are DENIED WITH FINALITY. SO ORDERED.

CANON 1 JUDICIAL Judge Inoturan vs. Judge Limsiaco, Jr. 2 consolidated cases filed against Judge Limsiaco, Jr. as Presiding Judge of MCTC in Negros Occidental o Case #1: involves failure of Judge to comply with the directives of SC o Case #2: involves failure of Judge to decide a case within the 90-day reglementary period

SC issued again Resolution requiring Judge Limsiaco to comply with the show cause resolution within 10 days from receipt under pain of imposing a stiffer penalty o Verification made from the postmaster showed Resolution was received by Judge Limsiaco o Report from the Documentation Division of OCA showed that the SC directives have not been complied with by Judge Limsiaco

Case #2 Case #1 Judge Limsiaco issued a Release Order in favor of an accused in a criminal case before him cause of action in complaint SC held judge guilty of ignorance of the law and procedure and of violating the Code of Judicial Conduct o Ordered to pay fine of P40,000 upon notice o Stern warning o Directed to explain within 10 days from notice why he should not be administratively charged for approving the applications for bail of the accused and ordering their release in various criminal cases before different courts Despite grant of Judge Limsiacos motion to for an extension of time to file a MR and to comply with the Courts directive to submit explanation twice, he failed to do so SC issued a show cause resolution for contempt and required Judge Limsiaco to explain his failure to comply with decision o Resolved to impose a fine of P1,000 and to reiterated directive to file explanation to show cause resolution Judge Limsiaco filed Manifestation and Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to File Explanation o Apologized to the Court and paid the P1,000 fine o Cited poor health as the reason for his failure to comply with the Resolution SC granted motion and gave 10 days from within which to file explanation but Judge Limsiaco failed to submit explanation Judge Limsiaco was charged with Delay in the Disposition of a Case by Sancho E. Guinanao (plaintiff in an ejectment case pending before his court) o Alleged Judge Limsiaco failed to seasonably decide ejectment case submitted for resolution as early as April 25, 2005 o Judge Limsiaco failed to file his comment OCA referred matter to SC Judge Limsiaco informed SC that he had already decided the case on February 2008 SC declared Judge Limsiaco in contempt and imposed fine of P1,000 for his continued failure to file the required comment o Judge Limsiaco paid fine but did not submit comment

SC ordered consolidation of Case #1 and #2 with case of Tobias v. Judge Limsiaco, Jr. (separately decided) SC: liable for unethical conduct and gross misconduct all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits are forfeited + barred from reemployment in government Judges duties to the Court o judge is the visible representation of the law and justice o must be the first to follow the law and weave an example for the others to follow Indifference of judge with SC directives = gross misconduct

o o o o o o

in previous case of Salvador vs. Judge Limsiaco, Jr., SC impressed upon judge the clear import of SC directives may even be considered as outright disrespect for Court office of the judge requires him to obey all the lawful orders of his superiors resolution of the Supreme Court is not a mere request and should be complied with promptly and completely failure to comply accordingly = betrayal and utter lack of interest to remain with, if not contempt of judicial system obedience to our lawful orders and directives should not be merely selective obedience, but must be full not a mere request

o o o

Judge Limsiaco in Case #2 admitted to having delayed deciding ejectment case (April 2005 to February 2008) judges to perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with promptness liable for gross inefficiency for failure to decide a case within the reglementary period

Violation of Section 7 and 8, Canon 1, Code of Judicial Conduct o compliance with the rules, directives and circulars issued by the Court is one of the foremost duties that a judge accepts upon assumption to office o Section 7: Judges shall encourage and uphold safeguards for the discharge of judicial duties in order to maintain and enhance the institutional and operational independence of the Judiciary. o Section 8: Judges shall exhibit and promote high standards of judicial conduct in order to reinforce public confidence in the Judiciary, which is fundamental to the maintenance of judicial independence. Violation of Canon 2 and Rule 2.01, Code of Judicial Conduct o obligation to uphold the dignity of his office and the institution which he belongs o Rule 2.01: judge to behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary o Public confidence in the judiciary can only be achieved when the court personnel conduct themselves in a dignified manner befitting the public office they are holding o should avoid conduct or any demeanor that may tarnish or diminish the authority of the SC Violation of Section 5, Canon 6 of Code of Judicial Conduct o Judges duty to his public office

Penalty Imposed o Rule 140 of the Rules of Court: violation of SC rules, directives and circulars, and gross inefficiency are categorized as less serious charges with the following sanctions: suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one or more than three months; or fine of P10,000 to P20,000 o Judge Limsiacos work history considered several administrative cases already decided against Judge Limsiaco that show his inability to properly discharge his judicial duties Salvador case: guilty of undue delay in rendering a decision P20,000 fine Gamboa-Mijares case: guilty of gross misconduct P20,000 fine Atty. Pamplona case: gross ignorance of the law and procedure P20,000 fine SC re-docketed, as regular administrative case, charge for oppression and grave abuse of authority in handling 2 criminal cases In Re: Withholding of Salary: delay in submission of monthly report of cases and ignorance of OCA directive twice P5,000 fin Tobias case: gross misconduct P25,000 fine 2 other administrative cases pending with SC Tapinco case for charge of grave misconduct, obstruction of justice, and abuse of authority in connection with his

o o o

invalid issuance of an order for the provisional release of an accused Unauthorized Hearings case for charge of violation of SCs Administrative Circular No. 3, dated July 14, 1978 which prohibits the conduct of hearings in another station without any authority from SC his conduct as repeat offender = unworthiness to don the judicial robes and merits a heavier sanction than that provided by law dismissal from the service However, judge retired on May 17, 2009 Since he has not yet applied for his retirement benefits, penalty = all his retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, forfeited + barred from re-employment in any branch or service of the government, including GOCCs

CANON 2 - JUDICIAL Lihaylihay vs. Judge Canda 2 complaints for grave misconduct Lihaylihay = Clrek III, RTC Br. 28, Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte Judge Canda = MCTC judge in Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte Sheriff IV vacant position o Sheriff Bandivas of RTC retired o Judge Canda asked Process Server Tenefrancia of RTC to apply for the vacant position o Alimpolo applied for position Judge Canda strongly opposed application Judge Canda was of the impression that Lihaylihay was assisting Alimpolo in his application o Judge Canda sent a text message to Lihaylihay which she interpreted as a threat o Lihaylihay reported it to the police + requested blotter o Judge Canda sent another text message stating, "For maliciously causing it to appear as threatening in the police blotter of what is otherwise a very harmless text message of appeal I consider the same as declaration of war, dont worry you will have your owned fair share of trouble in due time." Judge Canda sent letter to Executive Judge Tomarong of RTC accusing Lihaylihay of: 1. actively supporting Alimpolo 2. using the facilities of the RTC in preparing Alimpolos medical certificate 3. being at the beck and call of Alimpolo 4. blatantly disregarding the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel 5. fraudulently scheming against the court 6. performing highly contemptuous acts 7. being unworthy of her position as Clerk III 8. failing to distance herself from Alimpolo 9. failing to stay neutral 10. having a distorted sense of values that deserves disciplinary action

11. being arrogant, insolent and cocky 12. disrespecting him (Judge Canda) 13. personality does not speak well of her as court personnel: a. inappropriateness of attire exudes herself like a GRO or going to a party when going to work b. chain smoker akin to a whore and does not hesitate to smoke inside the office in the presence of office mates and the public c. repulsive "pakialamera" type very few would want to associate with Judge Canda sent 2nd letter (formal protest) to Judge Tomarong charging Lihaylihay with violation of reasonable office rules and regulations o Filed in his behalf and of all court employees withing administrative area of court o Lihaylihays actuations is highly offensive and demeaning to Court and entire judiciary o Reiterated charges in first letter as to inappropriateness of attire and as chain smoker Judge Tomarong made 1st Indorsement directing Lihaylihay to comment on Judge Candas 2 letters 2nd letter of Judge Canda was published in Mindanao Observer o Before Lihaylihay could comment on the letters, Judge Canda gave a copy of his 2nd letter to desk editor of Mindanao Observer and asked that it be published in the newspaper o Affidavit of Baguio (reporter and photographer of Mindanao Observer) confirmed as witness to incident o Front page headline: Huwes, niprotesta batok sa seksi nga docket clerk o Letter was printed with omission of words which were deemed unprintable Lihaylihays comment: o she did not participate in Alimpolos application o Judge Canda ridiculed, humiliated, and besmirched her reputation by publishing in the newspaper 2nd letter o Judge Candas text messages threatened her o she followed the office dress code

alleged that Judge Canda wanted Tenefrancia to apply for the position of Sheriff IV so that Tenefrancias position as process server would become vacant Judge Candas son, Alejandro Canda, was qualified for the position of process server alleged that before the present case started, Judge Canda sent her several indecent text messages stating, "Youre sexy today," "I missed your gorgeous face," and "I missed your golden voice when you sing." alleged that she was shocked and disgusted when Judge Canda invited her to go out of town with him

Lihaylihay agreed to be interviewed, photographed, and gave copy of her comment to Marapao (publisher and editor of Tingog Peninsula) o Marapao published her comment without seeking her permission Judge Canda filed a criminal case for libel against Lihaylihay Lihaylihay filed a complaint with OCA charging Judge Canda of same allegations she made in her comment Judge Canda filed a complaint with OCA charging Lihaylihay with conduct unbecoming a court employee for publishing her comment. Lihaylihays comment: o publishing of her 1st comment in the newspaper unlikely affected Judge Tomarongs impartiality and objectivity o Judge Canda published his 2nd letter in the newspaper o Tingog Peninsula published her comment without asking for her permission o Judge Canda was arrogant. Lihaylihay filed another complaint with OCA o same allegations in first complaint she filed o alleged that Judge Canda had several documents sworn to before MCTC Clerk of Court Manigsaca without paying the required legal fees Judge Canda denied additional allegation

OCA: -Lihaylihay admonished and her comment be treated as complaint for gross misconduct vs. Judge Canda Lihaylihay and Judge Canda failed to preserve the good image of the judiciary disgraceful behaviour Lihaylihay is not directly responsible for the publication of her comment but she should have exercised prudence in dealing with the media o Should have considered the interest generated by the publication of the complaint against her by Judge Canda o Should have known that the media would take advantage of the opportunity to sensationalize the case Judge Canda should not have caused the publication of his complaint against Lihaylihay o should have known that administrative proceedings before the Court are confidential in nature to protect respondent who may later turn out to be innocent o public airing of his complaint unnecessarily exposed the Court to the eyes of the public Judge Candas comments on consolidated complaints: o his description of Lihaylihay as a GRO and a whore was not a "malicious imputation" but a "formal accusation" o the publication of his letter in the newspaper was a "journalistic endeavour" o denied that he sent Lihaylihay indecent text messages o described his other text message as "brotherly" o his later text message was not intimidating but only reflected the natural reaction of an angry person

OCA: Judge Canda liable for using inappropriate language and gross misconduct P21,000 fine + comment on new consolidated cases of Lihaylihays comments which were converted to admin. complaints SC: P40,000 fine + stern warning Violation of Section 1 and 2, Canon 2 of Code of Judicial Conduct liable for gross misconduct o Judge Canda harassed and publicly humiliated Lihaylihay

o o

Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer behavior and conduct of judges must reaffirm the peoples faith in the integrity of the judiciary.

suspension from office without salary and other benefits for 3-6 months fine of P20,000 - P40,000 This is Judge Candas second offense Barbarona vs. Judge Canda: SC fined him for violation of Circular No. 1-90 + warning

Violation of Section 2, Canon 4 of Code of Judicial Conduct o judges must accept personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen o judges shall conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office Violation of Section 6, Canon 4, Code of Judicial Conduct o Judges are entitled to freedom of expression but shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of the judicial office o Judges shall be dignified and courteous o Judges are required to be temperate in their language at all times refrain from inflammatory or vile language o Should be dignified in demeanor and refined in speech, exhibit that temperament of utmost sobriety and selfrestraint, and be considerate, courteous, and civil to all persons Judicial office circumscribes the personal conduct of a judge and imposes restrictions o Irresponsible or improper conduct of judge erodes public confidence in the judiciary o Judges duty to avoid any impression of impropriety in order to protect the image and integrity of the judiciary o Image of the judiciary is reflected in the conduct of its officials o Judge Canda subjected the judiciary to embarrassment Determination of Penalty: o Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court classifies gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct as a serious offense punishable by: dismissal from the service, forfeiture of benefits, and disqualification from reinstatement to any public office

Charge of sending indecent text messages and failure to pay legal fees unsubstantiated dismissed o complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence (relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion) the allegations in the complaint o Court cannot rely on mere conjectures or suppositions

CANON 3 JUDICIAL Sy vs. Judge Dinopol Judge Dinopol = judge at RTC, Br. 24, Koronadal City, South Cotabato Charges: Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Judiciary and for Gross Ignorance of the Law, in relation to 2 cases between Sy and Metrobank Metrobank = mortgagee in good faith and for value of 23 parcels of land in Koronadal City mortgagors = Marvella Plaza Hotel, Sprinter Lumber, Hardware and Auto Parts, Inc. and/or Sps. Victoriano Sy and Loreta Cabaies-Sy and/or Sps. Vicente and Antonia Mandanas Metrobank foreclosed the mortgage for violation of the terms and conditions of the mortgage agreement Mortgaged lands were sold to Metrobank at public auction as highest bidder o Metrobank was issued a certificate of sale and registered with RD o mortgagors failed to redeem parcels of land within the redemption period Sps. Sy, and Sprinter Lumber filed complaint vs. Metrobank o Judge Dinopol was presiding judge in case o complaint or Annulment and/or Declaration of Nullity of Real Estate Mortgage, Extrajudicial Foreclosure Proceedings and Certificate of Sale, with Damages and Attorneys Fees and with prayer for the Issuance of a TRO and Preliminary Injunction Judge Dinopol inhibited himself o Ground: he received a call from a ranking officer of the PhilJA interceding in behalf of Metrobank and from a ranking personnel of the OCA, appealing in behalf of Sy o Claimed he wanted to avoid being charged with partiality either way he acted on the case

Metrobank filed with the RTC Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession over mortgaged parcels of land vs. mortgagors o Case was assigned to Judge Dinopol o Judge Dinopol granted petition and issued writ Sprinter Lumber filed with the RTC, Branch 8, Marawi City, petition for the Declaration of State of Suspension of Payments with Approval of Proposed Rehabilitation Plan o RTC stayed enforcement of all claims vs. debtor, its guarantors and sureties not solidarily liable with the debtor o approved rehabilitation plan o Sheriff Dapulang, Jr.s implementation of writ was returned unsatisfied in view of the stay order issued by the RTC, Branch 8 Metrobank assailed validity of stay order by RTC Branch 8 at CA Sy filed Motion to Suspend Proceedings due to the issuance of the stay order and approval of rehabilitation plan + motion for inhibition of Judge Dinopol for bias and partiality o Judge Dinopol denied motions o Deputy Sheriff Publico directed to re-implement the writ of execution earlier issued Sys allegations: o judge inhibited himself from acting on case they filed but subsequently handled petition filed by Metrobank, which is closely related with the case they filed o despite order made by the RTC, Branch 8 and Metrobanks petition before CA, Judge Dinopol ordered for implementation of writ of possession o while Sys case was pending with Judge Dinopol, judge asked him for commodity loans in the form of construction materials to be used in the construction of the judges house o Judge Dinopol also obtained cash loans from him on various occasions total amount of P121,000 + borrowed Suzuki Multi-cab and returned it after the judge was suspended o All transactions were evidenced by disbursement vouchers, official receipts and an acknowledgement

o Judge Dinopols comment: o stressed that he inhibited himself from Sys case and had not acted on the case since then o he handled case filed by Metrobank because nobody intervened and pleaded in behalf of Metrobank after it filed its case o he was not aware nor had he been given notice that Metrobank filed a petition before the CA nor did he receive any order from CA enjoining him to desist from performing or acting on the case o denied that he committed any breach of procedural rules o Sy did not allege any specific actuations of deceit, malice or intent to cause injury to Sy o he had acted fairly and objectively observed the requirements of the CPR as a lawyer in handling Metrobanks case o he obtained the commodity loans from Sy after he inhibited himself from handling Sys case denied that he received from Sy cash loans in the amount of P121,000 denied borrowing Sys Suzuki Multi-cab and claimed that it was Rogelio Villanueva who borrowed it o Judge alleged it was Sy who acted with sinister design and employed deceit and cunning to frustrate the administration of justice in the cases he handled

duty of the court to grant a writ of possession is a ministerial function court does not exercise discretion regardless of whether there is a pending suit for the annulment of the mortgage or the foreclosure itself, the purchaser is entitled to a writ of possession without prejudice to the outcome of the annulment case once writ of possession is issued, court has no alternative but to enforce writ without delay A stay order only affects claims filed against the assets and properties belonging to a debtor Properties that have already been foreclosed, and those whose titles have already passed on to the winning bidder are no longer considered properties of the debtor ministerial duty on the part of trial court to grant a possessory writ over foreclosed properties

OCA: no basis for charge of ignorance of law on part of Judge Dinopol but liable for conduct unbecoming of a judge SC: Dismissal from service + forfeiture of benefits + prejudice to employment in government Charge of Ignorance of the Law is Unfounded o Judge Dinopol inhibited himself from case filed by Sy o Judge not liable for handling of petition filed by Metrobank because of the essential nature of the proceeding itself o In issuing the writ of possession and in directing its reimplementation when it was returned unsatisfied, Judge Dinopol acted in accordance with rules and jurisprudence

Liable for conduct unbecoming of a judge Violation of Sections 2 and 3 of Canon 3, Section of Canon 1, Canon 2, and Canon 4 o Sys charge as to loans and borrowing of cab, despite denial of respondent, is supported by documentary evidence (receipts and acknowledgment from judges driver Villanueva as to cab) o judge admitted he wrote Sy regarding the purchase of materials for his house although he claimed that it was his wife who transacted with Sy and it was Sy himself who offered to deliver the materials to his residence o Judge Dinopol committed a serious impropriety in his or his familys financial or business dealings with Sy o Judge compromised his position as a judge when he received accommodations from Sy despite no pending case involving Sy it is neither impossible nor remote that a case might be filed in his court with complainant as a party respondents business and financial dealings with complainant would create a doubt about his fairness and impartiality in deciding the case and would tend to corrode the respect and dignity of the court.

o o o

Judge Dinopol admitted he talked with Sy on several occasions to discuss Metrobanks case created inference that at some point, he acceded to Sys requests to delay the proceedings Judge Dinopol admitted that Sy, in at least 2 instances, requested him to delay the resolution of the writ Judge Dinopol compromised his impartiality, independence and integrity as a judge His actions diminished public confidence and public trust gave the public the impression and the appearance that he can be influenced by extraneous factors

o o

Judge Dinopol committed impropriety o Talked with litigants outside court proceedings o aggravated by the fact that these conversations took place in the absence of the opposing litigants and/or the opposing counsel o employees of the court have no business meeting with litigants or their representatives under any circumstance o All employees in the judiciary should be examples of responsibility, competence and efficiency o As officers of the court and agents of the law, judges must discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence o judges are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that would enhance respect and confidence of the people in the judicial system o standards apply not only to the decision itself, but also to the process by which the decision is made Determination of Penalty Imposed: o track record as a judge shows he is a repeat offender Case #1: found guilty of gross ignorance of the law and was fined P20,000 Case #2: found guilty of gross ignorance of the law and abuse of authority, and was fined P20,000 Case #3: found liable for undue delay in rendering a decision and for violating the clear provisions of A.M. No. 01-1-07-SC, and was fined P11,000

Case #4: was strongly admonished, even as the complainant desisted from pursuing the complaint for gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of authority and discretion Case #5: reminded and warned against entertaining litigants outside court premises Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court classifies gross misconduct constituting a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct as a serious charge Under Section 11 of the same Rule, the respondent found guilty of a serious charge may be meted any of the following sanctions: dismissal and forfeiture suspension from office without salary and other benefits for 3-6 months fine P20,000 - exceedingP40,000

CANON 4 JUDICIAL Reyes vs. Judge Duque Reyes = party-in-intervention in Land Registration case filed by Philippine Savings Bank vs. Sps. Choi (petition for writ of possession over 3 properties in BF Resort Village, Las Pinas) Judge Duque = RTC, Br. 197, Las Pinas City Charge: Impropriety, Corruption and Gross Misconduct Judge Duque granted motion for issuance of a writ of possession o ordered Sps. Choi and all those claiming rights under them to vacate the properties Reyes filed "Urgent Petition for Lifting and Setting Aside of Writ of Possession and Quashal of Notice to Vacate" o claimed she bought the one of the properties from Sps. Choi and that she was in actual possession with full knowledge of the bank o Atty. Ubana (lawyer of Reyes) introduced her to Judge Duque who gave Reyes 30 days to settle with bank unable to re-negotiate Reyes received phone call from Judge Duque o Judge Duque instructed Reyes to go to his house and bring money so he can deny pending motion to open o Reyes told Judge Duque she would see him the next day as she did not have money yet (allotment still to arrive) Reyes received her allotment, withdrew P20,000 from PNB and went to house of Judge Duque o Was accompanied by her secretary and driver to judges house at BR Almanza, Las Pinas o son of Judge Duque opened the gate o Judge Duque demanded P100,000 Reyes gave P20,000 and asked for time to give the balance After a week, Reyes went to Judge Duques house o Atty. Ubana called Reyes telling her that Judge Duque was asking for her and waiting for the balance

o o

Reyes only gave P18,000 Judge Duque scolded her for not bringing the whole amount of P80,000 Reyes explained she had difficulty raising the amount

Judge Duque harassed Reyes while at his house o Judge locked main door asked Reyes to go to his office o Judge told Reyes to pay balance on December 26 (pointing at calendar on his wall) o Judge held the waist of Reyes, embraced and kissed her Reyes struggled o Judge raised her skirt, opened her blouse and sucked her breasts, touched her private parts and attempted to have sexual intercourse with her o Reyes shouted for help but the TV was too loud o Reyes appealed to Judge Duque saying: "kung gusto mo, huwag dito. Sa hotel, sasama ako sayo." o Judge Duque suddenly stopped his sexual advances and ordered Reyes to fix her hair Judge Duques comment: o since the Reyes complaint was filed after he retired, he was no longer under the jurisdiction of OCA o denied the charges o allegations against him were fabricated, false and malicious OCA Found Reyes actually filed 4 identical complaints: 1. Complaint dated Jan. 16, 2008 duly subscribed on Jan. 23 Reyes directed to comply w/ verification requirement 2. Verified Complaint filed with Office of Chief Justice and OCA in compliance with directive in 1st complaint filed 3. Verified complaint filed with OCA mere reiteration of her previous complaints 4. Present complaint OCA found Court has jurisdiction at time of filing of complaint o mere fact that Judge Duque had ceased to be in office during the pendency of the case not material o Case referred to CA

JUSTICE: Guilty of impropriety and gross misconduct P40,000 Fine to be deducted from retirement benefits

o Charge of graft and corruption not proven o Reyes presented photocopies of P1,000 bills as evidence of money Judge Duque demanded and received from her in consideration of a favorable ruling o however, no corroborating evidence of Reyes accusation doubtful whether they were the same bills used to pay off Judge Duque Charge of impropriety and gross misconduct established by substantial evidence o acts of Judge Duque were acts of lewdness that were obscene, detestable, and unwelcome o however, Reyes description of the sexual assault could not be deemed as attempted rape o

members of the Judiciary must conduct themselves as to be beyond reproach and suspicion free from any appearance of impropriety in their personal behaviour no position exacts a greater demand on the moral righteousness and uprightness of an individual than a seat in the Judiciary Judges are mandated to maintain good moral character and are at all times expected to observe irreproachable behavior so as not to outrage public decency magistrate is judged not only by his official acts but also by his private morals, to the extent that such private morals are externalized

Court Administrator: P40,000 fine to be deducted from retirement benefits confirmed that Judge Duque compulsorily retired from judiciary conduct of Judge Duque = impropriety and immorality actions of Judge Duque fell short of the exacting standards for members of the judiciary failed to behave in a manner that would promote confidence in the judiciary SC: P40,000 fine to be deducted from retirement benefits Court has jurisdiction: o Reyes filed 4 similar complaints vs. Judge Duque before the date of his retirement o According to OCA, Judge Duque was "inadvertently sent" a copy of the complaint Charge of graft and corruption unsubstantiated Guilty of impropriety and gross misconduct o Investigation shows and Judge Duque admits that Sy went to his house o Substantial evidence proves Judge Duque sexually assaulted Reyes Investigating Justices narration was sufficient and thorough

Restriction on Judges freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly o in exercising such rights, they should always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary o Judge Duque merely attempted to destroy the credibility of Reyes when he insinuated that she could be a "woman of ill repute or a high class prostitute" or one whose "moral value is at its lowest level" o No judge has a right to solicit sexual favors from a party litigant even from a woman of loose morals

CANON 4 JUDICIAL Perfecto vs. Judge Esidera Complainant = Publisher at Catarman Weekly Tribune Judge Esidera = RTC Br. 20, Northern Samar Charge #1: Solicitation o Judge solicited and received P1,000 at the Prosecutors Office from Atty. Yruma and P1,000 Prosecutor Diaz to defray expenses for religious celebration and fiesta o Complainant attached the Affidavit of Prosecutor Ching witnessed the first incident, without respondent issuing any receipt she heard that respondent also solicited the same amount from Prosecutor Diaz Charge #2: Issuance of Order directing petitioner to publish said order in newspaper of general circulation instead of Catarman Weekly Tribune Charge #3: Acts of impropriety o scolding her staff in open court o treating in an inhuman and hostile manner practitioners who are not her friends o arrogantly treats public prosecutors assigned to her sala Respondents answer: o As to charge #1: she went to Prosecutors office to follow up pledge of Adelaida Taldo Taldo = member of Catholic charismatic group of which she belongs to donate a Sto. Nio image Atty. Yruma, who had received a solicitation letter countersigned by Father Legaspi (parish priest of San Jose) overheard her and requested her to receive his donation of P1,000 through her Prosecutor Ching is of dubious personality and has a narcissistic personality disorder o As to charge #2:

the Catarman Weekly Tribune is not in circulation Respondent echoes her Comment in complaint previously filed by complainant regarding his claim that all orders of the court should be published in Catarman Weekly Tribune she listed pending cases the hearing of which had to be reset for failure of the Catarman Weekly Tribune to publish her orders on time Denies charge #3 and claims she has been maintaining a professional relationship with her staff and the lawyers who appear in her court

OCA: P5,000 fine + warning Guilty of impropriety Violation of Canon 4, Judicial o Fact that she is not the principal author of the solicitation letter or that the solicitation is for a religious cause is immaterial o going to the Prosecutors Office to receive donations from a private lawyer and a public prosecutor does not bode well for the image of the judiciary o judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities o Judge Esidera virtually used acerbic words against Prosecutor Tan-Ching for the her affidavit relative to the solicitation incident: Not all prosecutors are credible and have integrity and are in possession of their normal mental faculties. x x x Fiscal Ching is one whose personality is dubious. suffering from some sort of personality disorder and should be subjected to neurological, psychiatric or psychological examination the character of Fiscal Ching falls under the category of narcissistic personality disorder She was one of my students in Taxation in the UEP, College of Law, I was not a judge then. I gave her a 3 because when I checked her finals test booklet, her codigo was still inserted in the

examination booklet. Until now, that is one of the gossips she is spreading around. Judges are demanded to be always temperate, patient and courteous both in conduct and in language

Allegations of ignorance of the law and usurpation of authority devoid of merit o Even if Catarman Weekly Tribune is the only accredited newspaper of general publication in Catarman, it does not bar the publication of judicial orders and notices in a newspaper of national circulation o A judicial notice/order may be published in a newspaper of national circulation and said newspaper does not even have to be accredited Section 1, A.M. No. 01-1-07-SC o Petitioner in the subject special proceedings case where respondent Judge Esidera issued the directive did not contest the order calling for the publication of the courts order in a newspaper of national circulation

official duties, but also to his behavior outside his sala and as a private individual no dichotomy of morality public official is also judged by his private morality being the subject of constant public scrutiny judge should freely and willingly accept restrictions on conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen

SC: P10,000 fine + warning Guilty of Impropriety and Unbecoming Conduct Lack of discretion and vicious attack on Prosecutor Ching as characterized by her use of uncalled for offensive language Violation of Canon 2, Judicial Impropriety o respondent did not deny allegation of solicitation categorically merely brushed off Prosecutors Chings Affidavit as coming from one with a dubious personality and possessed of a narcissistic personality disorder respondent never disclaimed alleged solicitation from Prosecutor Diaz respondents admission of having received P1,000 from Atty. Yruma o reference made to: Annotation on Judges Fraternizing with Lawyers and Litigants by Jorge C. Coquia + Castillo vs. Calanog, Jr: judge must be free of a whiff of impropriety not only with respect to his performance of his

Violation of Canon 4 o Respondents act of proceeding to the Prosecutors Office under the guise of soliciting for a religious cause betrays lack of maturity as a judge + being impartial must be preserved at all times in eyes of public o gives impression that she was using her office to unduly influence or pressure Atty. Yruma a private lawyer appearing before her sala + Prosecutor Diaz to donate money through her charismatic group o judge must be like Caesars wife - above suspicion and beyond reproach o judge must be prudent and circumspect in both speech and action keeping in mind that her conduct in and outside the courtroom is always under constant observation

CANON 4 JUDICIAL Mar-Schumann vs. Judge Cacatian Schuchman = child of Norma Ebersole Del Mar plaintiff in case for reconveyance of ownership and possession of properties RTC of Santiago City, Branch 35 (presided by Judge Demetrio Calimag, Jr.) rendered a decision in favor of Norma Defendant Robert Del Mar appealed to CA o Dismissed due to appellant's failure to file an appellant's brief, in violation of Section 1 (e), Rule 50 of Rules of Civil Procedure Defendant Robert filed petition for certiorari at SC o Dismissed on the ground that certiorari was not a substitute for a lost appeal Judge Efren Cacatian issued a Writ of Execution o Upon motion of plaintiff o to implement decision of RTC Before the full implementation of the writ, Judge Cacatian asked from complainant and plaintiff fee o Complainant and plaintiff called by judge to chamber for conference o Judge proposed package deal for issuance of titles of subject properties in the names of the 3 heirs of judgment-plaintiff o P350,000 as fee for real estate research fixing was asked in exchange o Complainant immediately asked her niece, witness Alamar, to go to Colobong, who was working at the PNB, to obtain P50,000 given to Judge Cacatian o Complainant promised to give balance as soon as she returned from her trip to USA Complainant discovered settlement of the estate tax = P125,000 o Discovered upon inquiry from BIR o Complainant settled the amount immediately new certificates of titles were issued in their names

Motions filed by Robert were granted by Judge Cacatian: o Manifestation with Motion to Recall All Orders Issued by SC for the Enforcement of Judgment o Motion for Reconsideration o Motion to Suspend Further and/or Full Implementation of the Writ of Execution Register of Deeds ordered to reinstate certificates of titles in favor of Robert + cause the cancellation of titles in the name of deceased plaintiff Norma and all derivative titles therefrom Complainants charges: o judge exercised grave abuse of discretion issued 2 orders which, in effect, reversed and set aside the trial court's decision which was already rendered final by the SC in its decision o violated the Code of Judicial Conduct personally brokered the settlement of the estate of the plaintiff and the issuance of new certificates of titles, and solicited by way of research fee, the amount of P350,000 o rendered an unjust Interlocutory Order Judge Cacatians defense: o denied having extorted money much less receive P50,000 o he could not have transacted with complainant since he did not know her personally o he prohibited litigants from entering his chambers, thus, he could not have met complainant for purposes of carrying out the transaction being complained of corroborated by Atty. Obedoza (Branch Clerk of Court)

OCA: dismiss complaint lack of merit + judicial in nature Complainant submitted additional documentary evidence: o Affidavit of Roger P. Colobong o Affidavit of Helen Grace E. Alamar o witnesses corroborated complainant's allegation that Judge Cacatian received P50,000 from her

SC: adopted findings of OCA complaint dismissed Complainant sent letter alleging irregularitites in the handling of the complaint she filed against Judge Cacatian o manifested that the additional affidavits she submitted were not considered by the SC SC treated complainant's letter as an MR referred to OCA

o o

judgment in the subject case had long been final at the time when the alleged act of extortion transpired no allegation or finding that respondent judge actually threatened to reverse the writ of execution if she cannot provide the subject money

OCA: refer MR to Associate Justice of CA additional documents filed by complainant were actually received on time by the Court SC gave due course to MR referred to Associate Justice of CA

Associate Justice Elbinias: P11,000 fine Charge of extortion and knowingly rendering an unjust order or judgment dismissed insufficient evidence Violation of Rule 5.02 of Code of Judicial Conduct o engaged in a commercial transaction that affected his appearance of impartiality proposing or brokering to facilitate the transfer of titles of the properties of complainant's mother to complainant and her siblings o bare denial that he had a conference with complainant complainant and Alamar appeared candid and sincere in asserting that they have met Judge Cacatian o Atty. Obedoza also could not testify with certainty whether such conference took place he was manning two separate offices o failed to present his wife to refute allegation that she was also present during the alleged conference possible that alleged conference did took place

Accusation of extortion is easy to concoct and difficult to disprove o proceedings in such charges are highly penal in character and are to be governed by rules of law applicable to criminal cases o must be proven beyond reasonable doubt o what is imputed against judge connotes a misconduct so grave that if proven would entail dismissal from bench o finding of guilt should come from strength of complainant's evidence and not from weakness of respondent judge's defense complainant failed to satisfy this requirement Charge of knowingly rendering unjust judgment / order dismissed o to hold a judge liable, must be shown beyond reasonable doubt that the judgment or order: 1. is unjust 2. was made with a conscious and deliberate effort to do an injustice o proper recourse is through judicial remedies (to elevate assailed decision or order to the higher court for review and correction) Disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions against magistrates do not complement, supplement or substitute judicial remedies o Admin. sanction only on judicial errors tainted with: Fraud Dishonesty Gross ignorance Bad faith Deliberate intent to do an injustice Ground for the removal of a judicial officer should be established beyond reasonable doubt

SC: adopted findings of Justice Elbinias P11,000 fine + warning Allegation of extortion or unjust exaction of money is baseless o complainant failed to prove Judge Cacatian demanded money from her in exchange for a favorable decision

o o

rule where the charges on which the removal is sought is misconduct in office, willful neglect, corruption, incompetency, etc. general rule as to admissibility in evidence in criminal trials apply

2. to minimize the risk of conflict with his judicial duties 3. to allow him to devote his undivided attention to the performance of his official functions Code of Judicial Conduct has the force and effect of law o Code itself prov Id.s that judges are enjoined to strictly comply with its provisions o Otherwise judge may arrogate upon himself the discretion of determining when he may or may not act in a fudiciary capacity Determination of Penalty o Penalty for violation of SC rules constitutes less serious charge punishable Section 11 (B), in relation to Section 9 (4) of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC: 1. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for 1-3 months; or 2. P10,000 - P20,000 fine

Violation of Canon 5, Rule 5.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct o act of transacting with complainant in facilitating transfer of the titles of the properties from complainant's mother to complainant and her siblings during the conference in respondent judge's chamber in effect engaged in a commercial transaction that gave appearance of impropriety o judge shall refrain from financial or business dealings that tend to: 1. reflect adversely on the court's partiality 2. interfere with the proper performance of judicial activities 3. increase involvement with lawyers or persons likely to come before the court o judge should so manage investments and other financial interests as to minimize the number of cases giving ground for disqualification o court employees should have no business meeting with litigants or their representatives under any circumstance prohibition is more compelling when it involves a judge must strictly adhere to the highest tenets of judicial conduct as embodiment of competence, integrity and independence o trial judges are those directly in contact with the parties, their counsel and the communities which the Judiciary is bound to serve o judge must comport himself at all times in such manner that his conduct, official or otherwise, can bear the most searching scrutiny of the public should be above suspicion Prohibition in Canon 5 not qualified o intent of the rule: 1. to limit a judge's involvement in the affairs and interests of private individuals