Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Compiled Cases Ethics Discipline of Lawyers-Judges
Caricato da
noonalawTitolo originale
Copyright
Formati disponibili
Condividi questo documento
Condividi o incorpora il documento
Hai trovato utile questo documento?
Questo contenuto è inappropriato?
Segnala questo documentoCopyright:
Formati disponibili
Compiled Cases Ethics Discipline of Lawyers-Judges
Caricato da
noonalawCopyright:
Formati disponibili
In
Re
Almacen
ISSUE:WON
Almacen
should
be
disbarred
-‐-‐-‐
NO,
“disbarment
should
never
G.R.
No.
L-‐27654;
Feb.
18,
1970
be
decreed
where
a
lesser
sanction
would
accomplish
the
desired
end”.
Discipline
of
Lawyers;
Nature
of
Disciplinary
Proceedings
Against
Lawyers
Respondent
only
was
suspended
from
the
practice
of
law
until
further
+
Nature
and
extent
of
sanction
notice
Castro,
J.
RATIO:
The
discretion
to
assess
under
the
circumstances
the
imposable
FACTS:
1.)
Atty.
Vicente
Raul
Almacen
(passed
the
bar
in
1941)
was
counsel
sanction
is,
of
course,
primarily
addressed
to
the
sound
discretion
of
the
for
the
defendant
in
the
case
of
Virginia
Yaptinchay
v.
Antonio
H
Calero.
It
Court
which,
being
neither
arbitrary
and
despotic
nor
motivated
by
was
a
civil
case
which
the
trial
court
decided
against
Atty.
Almacen’s
client.
personal
animosity
or
prejudice,
should
ever
be
controlled
by
the
2.)
He
then
filed
motion
of
reconsideration
and
furnished
a
copy
of
it
to
the
imperative
need
that
the
purity
and
independence
of
the
Bar
be
adverse
party.
Such
copy
however
failed
to
state
the
time
and
place
of
the
scrupulously
guarded
and
the
dignity
of
and
respect
due
to
the
Court
be
hearing
thereby
making
it
a
“useless
scrap
of
paper.”
The
lack
of
proof
of
zealously
maintained.
service
meant
failure
to
perfect
the
motion
on
time
(Atty.
Almacen
served
it
late
and
therefore
had
no
more
time
to
correct
his
mistake).
ERRORS
OF
ALMACEN:
3.)The
issue
was
raised
to
the
CA
who
agreed
with
the
plaintiff
in
the
case
-‐ criticism
must
be
decent,
proper
and
intelligent
that
it
should
be
dismissed.
Atty.
Almacen
then
raised
the
issue
on
-‐ such
criticisms
should
be
done
in
a
respectful
manner
certiorari
to
the
SC
who
rejected
it
via
minute
resolution.
-‐ As
a
veteran
lawyer,
he
should
have
known
that
for
a
motion
for
4.)
It
was
at
this
point
that
Atty.
Almacen
expressed
his
disappointment
reconsideration
to
stay
the
running
of
the
period
of
appeal,
the
over
the
SC
via
filing
a
“Petition
to
Surrender
Lawyer’s
Certificate
of
Title”
movant
must
not
only
serve
a
copy
of
the
motion
upon
the
adverse
where
he
would
surrender
his
certificate
to
the
Clerk
of
Court
to
be
held
in
party
(which
he
did),
but
also
notify
the
adverse
party
of
the
time
trust
until
the
time
comes
when
he
shall
regain
faith
and
confidence
in
the
and
place
of
hearing
(which
admittedly
he
did
not).
He
has
only
SC
once
again
and
therefore
resume
his
practice
of
the
noblest
profession.
himself
to
blame
and
he
is
the
reason
why
his
client
lost
Such
petition
also
contained
lengthy
accusations
of
“constitutional
violations”
and
saying
that
the
justice
administered
by
the
SC
was
not
only
blind
but
also
“deaf
and
dumb”.
5.)
Asked
to
show
cause
as
to
why
he
should
not
be
disciplined
for
his
actions
he
replied
with
an
answer
that
was
undignified,
cynical
embellished
with
sarcasm
and
innuendo,
saying
things
like:
a.)
“We
condemn
the
SIN
not
the
SINNER.
We
detest
the
ACTS
not
the
ACTOR.
We
attack
the
decision
of
this
Court,
not
the
members.
x
x
x
We
were
provoked.”
b.)
“Did
His
Honors
care
to
listen
to
our
pleadings
and
supplications
for
JUSTICE,
CHARITY,
GENEROSITY
and
FAIRNESS?
Did
His
Honors
attempt
to
justify
their
stubborn
denial
with
any
semblance
of
reason,
NEVER.”
6.)
Atty.
Almacen
also
quoted
the
bible
as
opening
statement;
“But
why
doust
thou
see
the
speck
in
thy
brother’s
eye,
and
yet
dost
not
consider
the
beam
in
thy
own
eye?
x
x
x
Thou
hypocrite,
first
cast
out
the
beam
from
thy
own
eye,
and
then
thou
wilt
see
clearly
to
cast
out
the
speck
from
thy
brother’s
eys.”
Basically,
Atty.
Alamacen
felt
extremely
bitter
at
his
motion
being
denied
and
the
reason
for
such
denial
being
delivered
only
through
a
minute
resolution.
Gatchalian
Promotions
Talents
Pool,
Inc.
v.
Atty.
Naldoza
-‐
Burden
of
proof
differs
in
different
types
of
cases.
(crim:
beyond
Adm.
Case
No.
4017;
September
29,
1999
reasonable
doubt;
admin
case
for
disbarment
or
suspension:
clearly
Discipline
of
Lawyers;
Nature
of
Disciplinary
Proceedings
Against
Lawyers
preponderant
evidence
only)
Per
Curiam
-‐
For
issue
(1),
no
enough
evidence.
Issue
(2),
the
denial
of
accused
FACTS:
1.)
Petitioner
filed
a
petition
for
the
disbarment
of
the
atty-‐ was
not
convincing
and
actually,
he
indirectly
admitted
the
charge
when
he
respondent
because
in
his
previous
case
in
POEA,
(1)
he
appealed
despite
paid
the
complainant
P10k
for
“moral
obligation”.
Issue
(3),
bare
denials
knowing
that
the
decision
was
already
final
and
executory,
(2)
he
deceitfully
cannot
overturn
IBP’s
findings
obtained
US$2555
from
the
complainant
(which
he
represented)
allegedly
-‐
DISBARRED
faking
a
reason
to
get
money
from
his
client,
for
“cash
bond”,
and
(3)
issuing
a
spurious
receipt
to
conceal
his
illegal
act
misappropriating
it
and
falsifying
official
receipt.
[a
fake
Xerox
copy
of
an
alleged
SC
receipt]
2.)
Petitioner
denies
that
he
persuaded
complainant
to
file
an
appeal
and
other
allegations.
He
asserts
that
it
was
the
complainant
who
insisted
to
appeal
to
delay
the
execution
of
the
POEA
Decision
3.)
Meanwhile,
a
criminal
case
for
estafa
based
on
the
same
facts
was
filed
against
respondent
although
he
was
acquitted
on
reasonable
doubt.
He
was
only
declared
civilly
liable
in
the
amount
of
US$2555
4.)
In
the
IBP:
respondent,
raised
the
defense
that
he
had
already
been
acquitted
in
the
criminal
case
for
estafa.
Complainant
opposed,
but
IBP
recommended
that
respondent
be
suspended
for
1
year
saying
that
respondent
failed
to
prove
that
the
signature
in
the
fake
receipt
was
falsified
and
irregular,
and
respondent
also
does
not
deny
that
the
petition
was
prepared
and
signed
by
him.
Moreover,
the
respondent’s
contention
about
his
acquittal
was
brushed
aside
since
the
admin
complaint
was
completely
different
from
the
criminal
case.
He
further
noted
that
the
RTC
decision
itself
hinted
the
admin
liability
of
respondent
since
it
found
him
civilly
liable
ISSUE:
WON
respondent
should
be
sanctioned
despite
acquittal
in
the
estafa
case.
-‐-‐-‐
YES,
the
SC
agrees
with
the
IBP.
However,
the
recommended
penalty
is
believed
to
be
not
commensurate
to
the
gravity
of
the
wrong
perpetrated
-‐>
DISBARRED
RATIO:
-‐
The
argument
of
the
respondent
that
the
issue
involved
was
“the
very
same
issue
litigated
in
this
case”
and
that
his
acquittal
“was
a
result
of
a
full
blown
trial
on
the
merits
of
this
case”
is
unacceptable
because
the
acquittal
of
respondent
of
the
criminal
charge
is
not
a
bar
to
administrative
proceedings.
The
legal
standards
of
legal
profession
are
not
satisfied
by
conduct
which
merely
enables
one
to
escape
the
penalties
of
criminal
law.
Moreover,
the
Court
in
disbarment
proceedings
is
acting
in
an
entirely
different
capacity
from
that
which
courts
assume
in
trying
criminal
cases
(even
in
civil
cases).
Gerona
v
Atty.
Datingaling
(actually
allowed
in
a
jurisprudence),
SC
already
received
the
IBP
reports
Adm.
Case
No.
4801;
Feb.
27,
2003
when
it
was
filed.
Discipline
of
Lawyers;
Nature
of
Disciplinary
Proceedings
Against
Lawyers
-‐The
MR
was
found
to
be
w/o
merit.
Conviction
in
a
crim
case
is
not
Mendoza,
J.
necessary
for
finding
a
member
administratively
liable.
Findings
of
IBP
regarding
violation
of
Act.
No.
2103
(acknowledgement
must
be
made
FACTS:
1.)
Complaint
for
disbarment
of
Atty.
Datingaling
for
falsifying
a
before
a
notary
public
or
officer
duly
authorized
by
law)
are
fully
supported
complaint-‐affidavit
and
notarizing
it
afterwards
when
in
fact
the
by
evidence.
Respondent
was
also
not
able
to
controvert
complainant’s
complainant
and
siblings
did
not
appear
before
the
respondents.
This
evidence
regarding
falsifications
affidavit
concerns
“Consent
to
Quarry”,
and
agreement
of
complainant
and
her
party
composed
of
several
people
and
represented
by
Engr.
Melo
to
enter
or
occupy
a
portion
of
their
property
on
Batangas
and
engage
in
a
“QUARRY”
business
and
related
activities
2.)
Moreover,
in
the
complaint-‐affidavit,
the
nieces
of
the
complainant
who
did
not
have
legal
capacity
because
of
their
age
were
included
in
the
said
document.
Also,
the
parcel
of
land
mentioned
therein
was
never
been
agreed
on
by
the
parties.
3.)
Respondent
denied
allegations
and
stated
that
the
document
was
already
prepared
when
it
was
brought
to
his
law
office
by
Engr.
Melo
and
company
who
signed
in
their
office.
It
was
his
secretary
who
stamped
his
name
as
Notary
Public
but
accidentally
overlooked
that
date
July
02,
1997
thereof
as
the
date
of
actual
notarization
when
it
was
really
July
03,
1997
then.
This
was
corroborated
by
Melo
and
company.
4.)
The
provincial
prosecutor
found
probable
cause
against
respondent
and
recommended
the
filing
of
an
information
for
falsification
of
a
public
document
against
all
the
respondents
including
atty.
Datingaling
since
there
were
inconsistencies
between
the
document
and
the
testimony
of
the
complainant
5.)
Complainant
actually
filed
8
crim
cases
against
respondent
mostly
relating
to
violation
of
BP
22,
estafa,
and
estafa
through
falsification
of
a
public
document.
4
was
dismissed
while
the
other
4
was
pending.
6.)
IBP:
suspension
for
1
year
because
despite
presumption
of
innocence
as
far
as
the
crim
cases,
the
evidence
presented
by
the
complainant
vs
respondent’s
unconvincing
explanation,
silence
and
failure
to
file
rejoinder,
and
crim
cases
filed
against
him,
he
has
violated
CPR
(Canons
1
and
7)
ISSUE:
WON
respondent
shall
be
administratively
liable
-‐-‐-‐
YES,
but
SC
modifies
his
penalty
to
1-‐yr
suspension
with
disqualification
for
appointment
as
Notary
Public
for
2
years
from
receipt
of
notice
RATIO:
-‐
the
MR
filed
by
the
respondent
is
considered
in
the
SC
because
despite
the
silence
of
ROC
in
prohibition
of
MR
for
IBP
recommendations
In
Re
Atty.
Leon
G.
Maquera
WON
he
may
be
suspended
–
NO,
Maquera
has
not
yet
been
able
to
Bar
Matter
No.
793,
July
30,
2004
adduce
evidence
as
it
not
certain
that
he
did
receive
the
Notice
of
Hearing
Discipline
of
Lawyers;
Grounds
for
disciplinary
action
earlier
sent
by
the
IBP.
Tinga,
J.
RATIO:
Similar
prohibition
in
Guam
exists
in
the
Phil.
The
Civil
Code
FACTS:
1.)
Atty.
Maquera
was
suspended
in
the
practice
of
law
in
Guam
for
prohibits
lawyer’s
acquisition
by
assignment
of
client’s
property
which
is
2
years.
The
issue
of
WON
a
member
of
the
Philippine
Bar
who
was
subject
of
the
litigation.
The
prohibition
extends
to
sales
in
legal
disbarred
or
suspended
from
the
practice
of
law
in
a
foreign
jurisdiction
redemption.
This
express
prohibition
is
founded
on
public
policy
because
shall
be
sanctioned
similarly
as
a
member
of
the
Philippine
Bar
was
raised.
atty
may
easily
take
advantage
of
the
credulity
and
ignorance
of
his
client
Court
said
that
it
is
provided
that
the
ground
for
disbarment
constitutes
and
unduly
enrich
himself.
deceit,
malpractice,
or
other
gross
misconduct,
grossly
immoral
conduct
or
-‐
Moreover,
the
Superior
Court
of
Guam
hinted
that
Maquera
acquired
the
a
violation
of
the
lawyer’s
oath
(accdg
to
ROC)
right
of
redemption
with
deceit
and
bad
faith
2.)The
Guam
District
Court
do
not
contain
the
factual
and
legal
bases
for
Maquera’s
suspension
so
it
is
insufficient
to
enable
her
to
determine
WON
Maquera’s
acts
or
ommissions
are
likewise
violative
of
his
oath
as
a
member
of
the
Phil.
Bar.
And
so,
the
court
requested
Guam
for
certified
copies
of
the
record
of
the
disciplinary
case
against
Maquera
and
of
the
rules
violated
by
him.
3.)
With
the
records
received,
the
case
was
referred
to
the
IBP.
IBP
indefinitely
suspends
Maquera
from
practice
of
law
within
philippines
until
and
unless
he
updates
and
pays
his
IBP
membership
dues
in
full.
4.)
IBP
sent
Notice
of
Hearing
to
resp
requiring
him
to
appear
before
IBP
but
the
notice
was
unserved
because
he
cannot
be
located
for
he
moved
5.)
It
was
also
found
out
that
Maquerra
was
suspended
in
Guam
for
misconduct,
acquiring
his
client’s
property
as
payment
for
his
legal
services
then
sold
it
and
as
a
consequence
obtained
an
unreasonably
high
fee
for
handling
his
client’s
case
6.)
Maqura
did
not
deny
allegations
in
Guam
but
contended
that
the
transaction
was
made
3
days
following
the
alleged
termination
of
atty-‐
client
relationship
with
his
client
and
that
the
property
did
not
constitute
an
exorbitant
fee
for
his
legal
services.
The
court
found
that
the
atty-‐client
relationship
was
not
yet
completely
terminated
when
they
entered
into
the
oral
agreement
to
transfer
Castro’s
right
of
redemption
to
Maquera.
It
was
also
said
that
respondent
profited
too
much
from
the
property
for
he
was
able
to
sell
this
at
a
significantly
higher
price
(not
commensurate
to
the
legal
service
he
rendered)
7.)
Despite
the
Guam
District
Court’s
decision,
IBP
cannot
establish
that
respondent
committed
a
breach
of
ethics
in
the
Phil.
However,
still
suspended
him
for
nonpayment
of
dues.
ISSUE:
WON
respondent
violated
code
of
professional
ethics
in
the
Phil.
-‐-‐-‐
YES,
Canon
17
(fidelity
to
client’s
cause&trust
a)
and
Rule
1.01
(good
moral
character)
Roldan
v
Panganiban
discretion
based
on
the
facts
of
the
case.
In
this
case,
suspension
for
1
AC
No.
4552,
Dec.
14,
2004
month
is
found
to
be
apt
but
the
complainant’s
claim
for
damages
cannot
Discipline
of
Lawyers;
Nature
and
extent
of
sanction
be
entertained
in
this
disbarment
case
as
it
is
not
a
proper
forum
Austria-‐
Martinez,
J.
RATIO:
A
disbarment
case
is
a
proceeding
that
is
intended
to
protect
the
FACTS:
1.)
Complainant
Roldan
files
an
administrative
case
for
disbarment
Court
and
the
public
from
the
misconduct
of
its
officers;
to
protect
the
against
Resp
Attys.
Panganiban
and
Noel
misguiding
him
in
his
right
to
administration
of
justice
by
requiring
that
those
who
exercise
this
appeal
important
function
shall
be
competent,
honorable
and
reliable,
men
in
2.)
Atty.
Panganiban
denies
that
he
was
neither
aware
nor
did
he
whom
courts
and
clients
may
repose
confidence.
Disbarment
proceedings
participate
in
the
civil
case
of
Roldan
and
its
appeal
in
the
RTC.
They
do
not
belong
to
a
class
of
their
own,
distinct
from
that
of
a
civil
or
a
criminal
have
an
atty-‐client
relationship
because
he
is
on
leave
in
the
practice
of
law
action
and
is
still
an
associate
of
Atty.
Noel
[this
is
probably
the
reason
why
the
complainant
knows
him
since
he
would
also
pay
a
visit
in
the
office
from
time
to
time
wherein
they
would
engage
in
casual
conversations.
Respondent
also
did
not
receive
a
single
centavo
from
complainant.]
3.)
Atty.
Noel
alleges
that
he
agreed
to
represent
the
complainant
in
a
civil
complaint
for
recovery
of
ownership
and
possession
where
the
MTC
dismissed
the
case
on
the
ground
that
the
identity
of
the
subj
matter
of
the
action
was
not
clearly
established
so
he
filed
an
appeal
in
the
RTC
which
affirmed
the
MTC.
Then,
complainant
ordered
that
an
another
appeal
be
filed
in
the
CA
but
Atty.
Noel
honestly
believed
that
there
was
no
error
and
informed
the
complainant
through
his
secretary.
However,
the
secretary
informed
the
complainant
late
and
even
gave
him
the
wrong
info
telling
him
that
he
still
had
a
month
to
appeal.
The
complainant
never
had
the
chance
to
consult
with
Atty
Noel
again
and
asked
for
the
records
of
the
case
to
be
given
to
him
which
he
never
returned.
Atty
Noel
assumed
that
complainant
hired
another
lawyer
and
was
surprised
to
receive
the
resolution
of
the
Court
requiring
him
to
file
their
comment
on
the
complaint
of
Roldan.
4.)
In
the
IBP:
There
is
no
atty-‐client
relationship
between
complainant
and
Atty.
Panganiban
so
it
must
be
dismissed.
As
to
Atty.
Noel,
he
is
not
guilty
of
suppressing
evidence
because
the
Court
believes
that
the
subject
receipt
was
not
in
existence
at
the
time
he
prepared
the
complaint
or
even
during
the
presentation
of
evidence
but
guilty
of
failing
to
represent
his
client
with
zeal
within
the
bounds
of
the
law
5.)
The
court
did
not
accept
the
argument
that
their
atty-‐client
relationship
already
ended
with
the
RTC’s
decision
and
finds
that
respondent
has
neglected
a
legal
matter
entrusted
to
him
and
his
negligence.
Moreover,
despite
the
lack
of
their
agreement
regarding
filing
an
appeal
in
higher
courts,
it
is
still
his
duty
to
protect
the
interest
of
the
complainant
ISSUE:
WON
respondent
should
be
sanctioned
and
to
what
extent
–
YES,
the
determination
of
penalty
involves
the
exercise
of
sound
judicial
In
Re
Atty.
Tionko
RATIO:
The
serious
consequence
of
disbarment
or
suspension
should
follow
March
17,
1922
only
where
there
is
a
clear
preponderance
of
evidence
against
the
Discipline
of
Lawyers;
Nature
and
extent
of
sanction
respondent.
The
presumption
is
that
the
attorney
is
innocent
of
the
charges
Malcolm,
J.
preferred
and
has
performed
his
duty
as
an
office
of
the
court
in
FACTS:
1.)
Alvarado
and
Casion,
coming
to
the
attention
of
CFI
Judge
of
accordance
with
his
oath.
Surigao,
charges
atty.
Tionko
of
professional
misconduct,
and
after
due
hearing
an
order
was
issued
by
the
judge
suspending
the
respondent
until
*With
regard
to
the
Judge
who
decreed
his
indefinite
suspension,
it
was
not
the
further
order
of
the
SC
discussed
further
since
it
would
be
pointless
because
the
person
at
bar
is
2.)
The
charges
against
the
respondent
are:
(1)
the
neglect
of
the
interests
not
the
Judge
of
his
clients;
and
(2)
the
failure
of
respondent
to
turn
over
the
fees
advanced
to
him
by
his
clients
to
their
new
atty
and
his
deceit
in
formulating
the
receipt
for
this
money
with
a
wrong
date.
The
1st
charge
was
proven
while
the
2nd
was
not.
3.)
Atty.
Tionko
agreed
to
obtain
for
Alvarado
and
Casion
the
registration
of
2
parcels
of
land
and
for
which
he
received
legal
fee
of
P114.
4.)
After
more
than
a
year
of
not
hearing
from
him,
a
letter
was
sent
to
him
calling
his
attention
to
the
period
allowed
for
the
presentation
of
their
claims.
Still,
the
clients
did
not
receive
any
answer.
Another
letter
was
written
but
still
no
answer.
5.)
So,
they
hired
another
attorney,
Elumba.
The
clients
informed
Atty.
Tionko
abt
their
change
of
counsel
and
required
him
to
give
to
Elumba
the
fee
previously
paid
to
him.
However,
this
failed
to
bring
results.
6.)
It
is
fair
to
say
that
Atty.
Tionko
was
actually
diligent
in
taking
necessary
steps
to
obtain
the
plans
he
desired
from
the
Bureau
of
Lands
wherein
he
paid
certain
sums
of
money
for
the
plans
for
the
lands
of
his
clients
be
forwarded
to
him.
However,
this
does
not
relieve
him
of
all
responsibility
for
he
complacently
waited
for
2
years
for
the
2
plans.
He
was
also
guilty
of
repeatedly
disdaining
to
answer
the
communications
of
his
clients.
With
regard
to
the
2nd
allegation,
it
leads
to
a
question
of
veracity
between
attys.
Tionko
and
Elumba.
As
the
contested
receipt
signed
by
attorney
Elumba
contains
the
date
April
15,
1920,
and
as
this
bears
out
the
claim
of
atty
Tionko,
the
Court
is
content
to
let
the
point
rest
here
without
further
elaboration.
Also,
since
there
was
no
clear
preponderance
of
evidence
against
respondent.
ISSUE:
WON
the
SC
should
still
sanction
respondent
–
NO,
respondent
was
already
suspended
from
the
practice
of
law
for
nearly
5
months
and
the
Court
finds
this
period
amply
sufficient
and,
consequently,
refrain
from
further
disciplining
him
Atty.
Navarro
for
and
in
behalf
of
Pan
Asia
International
Commodities,
sole
witness
of
the
complainant
was
required
to
attend
the
next
scheduled
Inc.
v
Atty
Meneses
II,
CBD
hearing.
Several
postponements
happened.
Adm.
Case
No.
313,
January
30,
1998
8.)
So
the
commission
ruled
on
the
case
as
it
is.
The
Commission
ruled
that
Discipline
of
Lawyers;
Procedure;
how
instituted
and
who
may
file
the
refusal
and/or
failure
of
respondent
to
account
for
the
sum
Per
Curiam
of
P50,000.00
he
received
from
complainant
for
the
settlement
of
the
aforestated
case
of
Lai
Chan
Kow
and
Arthur
Bretaña
proves
beyond
any
FACTS:
1.)
complainant-‐affidavit
alleged
Frankwell
Management
and
shadow
of
a
doubt
that
he
misappropriated
the
same,
hence
he
deserved
Consultant,
Inc.,
a
group
of
companies
which
includes
Pan
Asia
engaged
to
be
penalized.
It
recommended
3
years
of
suspension
legal
services
of
Atty.
Meneses.
While
serving
as
counsel,
he
handled
9.)
Court
agrees
with
IBP
but
DISBARMENT.
various
cases
and
was
properly
compensated
in
accordance
with
their
retainer
agreement.
2.)
In
one
of
the
cases
he
handled,
“People
v.
Wilson
Lai
and
Arthur
ISSUE:
WON
Atty.
Navarro
may
file
for
Pan
Asia
-‐-‐-‐
YES
Bretaña”,
respondent
received
P50k
from
Bretaña
to
be
given
to
the
offended
party,
Gleason,
as
consideration
of
an
out-‐of-‐court
settlement
with
an
understanding
that
a
motion
to
dismiss
the
case
would
be
filed
by
The
argument
of
respondent
that
complainant
has
no
legal
personality
to
respondent
Meneses.
sue
him
is
unavailing.
Section
1
Rule
139-‐B
of
the
Rules
of
Court
provides
3.)
Despite
subsequent
repeated
requests,
respondent
failed
to
present
the
that
proceedings
for
the
disbarment,
suspension,
or
discipline
of
attorneys
receipt
to
this
client
acknowledging
that
Gleason
received
said
amount.
A
may
be
taken
by
the
Supreme
Court
motu
propio
or
by
the
Integrated
Bar
verification
by
the
RTC
also
revealed
that
there
was
no
motion
to
dismiss
of
the
Philippines
upon
the
verified
complainant
of
any
person.
The
right
to
filed
and
the
supposed
amicable
settlement
was
not
finalized
and
institute
a
disbarment
proceeding
is
not
confined
to
clients
nor
is
it
concluded.
necessary
that
the
person
complaining
suffered
injury
from
the
alleged
4.)
Despite
repeated
demands
in
writing
and
by
telephone,
resp
failed
to
wrongdoing.
Disbarment
proceedings
are
matters
of
public
interest
and
give
explanation
as
well
as
turnover
of
documents
the
only
basis
for
judgment
is
the
proof
or
failure
of
proof
of
the
5.)
Respondent
argued
that
Atty.
Navarro
had
no
legal
personality
to
sue
charge.
The
evidence
submitted
by
complainant
before
the
Commission
on
him
in
behalf
of
Pan
Asia
because
his
legal
services
were
retained
by
Bar
Discipline
sufficed
to
sustain
its
resolution
and
recommended
sanctions.
Frankwell;
that
Navarro
had
not
represented
Pan-‐Asia
International
Commodities,
Inc.
in
any
case
nor
had
been
authorized
by
its
board
of
directors
to
file
this
disbarment
case
against
respondent;
that
the
retainer
agreement
between
him
and
Frankwell
Management
and
Consultant,
Inc.
had
been
terminated
as
of
December
31,
1993
according
to
the
verbal
advice
of
its
Administrative
Officer
Estrellita
Valdez;
that
the
case
of
Arthur
Bretaña
was
not
part
of
their
retainer
agreement,
and
Bretaña
was
not
an
employee
of
Frankwell
Management
and
Consultant,
Inc.
which
retained
him
as
its
legal
counsel;
and
that
the
settlement
of
said
case
cannot
be
concluded
because
the
same
was
archived
and
accused
Bretaña
is
presently
out
of
the
country.
6.)
Complainant
stresses
that
respondent
is
resorting
to
technicalities
to
evade
the
issue
of
his
failure
to
account
for
the
amount.
7.)
Because
of
the
failure
of
the
respondent
to
attend
hearings,
the
commissioner
received
an
ex
parte
testimony
of
complainant’s
sole
witness.
Respondent
filed
a
so-‐called
“urgent
ex-‐parte
MR
with
motion
to
recall
complainant’s
witness
for
cross-‐examination”
which
was
granted.
The
Fernandez
v.
Novero,
Jr.
client’s
cause
and
18-‐
competence
and
diligence,
adequate
preparation,
not
Adm
Case
No.
5394;
Dec.
2,
2002
neglect
legal
matter)
-‐-‐-‐
SUSPENDED
FOR
1
MONTH
Discipline
of
Lawyers;
Procedure;
how
instituted
and
who
may
file
RATIO:
As
to
the
contention
of
respondent
that
the
Court
should
not
have
Mendoza,
J.
taken
cognizance
of
the
complaint
because
the
letter-‐complaint
was
not
FACTS:
1.)
A
complaint
was
filed
for
the
disbarment
of
Atty.
Novero,
Jr.
for
verified,
as
required
in
Rule
139-‐B,
§1
of
the
Rules
of
Court
on
Disbarment
alleged
patent
and
gross
neglect
in
the
handling
of
a
civil
case
which
and
Discipline
of
Attorney,
suffice
it
to
say
that
such
constitutes
only
a
complainant
Fernandez
had
filed
against
the
Bacolod
City
Water
District
formal
defect
and
does
not
affect
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Court
over
the
before
the
RTC
subject
matter
of
the
complaint.
“The
verification
is
merely
a
formal
2.)
(1)
Complainant
alleges
that
respondent
did
not
attend
a
scheduled
requirement
intended
to
secure
an
assurance
that
matters
which
are
hearing
nor
seek
a
postponement
thereof
for
which
reason
the
trial
court
alleged
are
true
and
correct
—
the
court
may
simply
order
the
correction
of
considered
respondent
to
have
waived
further
presentation
of
his
evidence
unverified
pleadings
or
act
on
it
and
waive
strict
compliance
with
the
rules
and
directed
him
to
formally
offer
his
exhibits
for
admission
on
a
later
date
in
order
that
the
ends
of
justice
may
be
served.
which
(2)
he
also
failed
to
do
so.
(3)
Moreover,
he
filed
a
MR
outside
of
the
reglementary
period
causing
it
to
be
denied.
(4)
When
the
complainant
asked
about
the
MR,
the
respondent
lied
that
it
had
not
yet
been
resolved
by
the
trial
court.
(5)
Respondent
also
tried
to
shift
the
blame
on
complainant
by
claiming
that
the
latter
insisted
on
presenting
his
sister
from
manila
as
their
last
witness
but
in
truth
complainant’s
sister
had
already
testified
and
there
was
no
more
witness
to
present.
(6)
resp
only
attended
1
hearin
3.)
Respondent
denied
allegations
also
raising
that
the
facts
raised
were
not
made
under
oath.
He
stated
that
his
services
was
only
engaged
after
the
first
counsel
of
the
complainant
withdrew
from
the
case
because
of
misunderstanding
and
that
he
had
no
knowledge
of
what
has
happened
in
the
case
before
he
handled
it
for
the
lack
of
documents
provided
by
the
complainant
despite
his
requests.
Moreover,
he
offered
the
exhibits
as
evidence
because
the
complainant
could
not
be
reached
when
he
was
needed
for
conference
and
the
latter
even
tried
to
take
over
handling
the
case
by
insisting
on
presenting
more
witnesses
who
nevertheless
failed
to
appear
despite
several
postponements
4.)
The
case
was
referred
to
the
Office
of
the
Bar
Confidant
(OBC)
which
found
the
respondent
guilty
of
violation
of
CPR
and
recommends
1
month
suspension.
5.)
Thereafter,
it
was
referred
to
the
IBP
which
recommended
6
months
of
suspension
with
warning
so
respondent
filed
a
MR
alleging
that
the
Court
should
not
have
taken
cognizance
of
the
complaint
because
it
was
not
verified.
He
says
that
the
complaint
was
merely
a
political
ploy
to
discredit
him
because
he
was
aspiring
for
a
congressional
seat
in
the
1998
elections
ISSUE:
WON
respondent
should
be
punished—YES.
The
Court
still
found
him
to
be
negligent
in
the
performance
of
his
duty
(canon
17-‐
fidelity
to
Bautista
vs
Gonzales
7. There
is
no
need
to
refer
the
case
to
the
IBP
since
at
the
time
of
the
effectivity
of
Rule
139-‐B
[June
1,
1988]
the
investigation
conducted
by
1. Gonzales
was
charged
with
malpractice,
deceit,
gross
misconduct
by
the
Office
of
the
Solicitor
General
had
been
substantially
completed.
Bautista.
Section
20
of
Rule
139-‐B
provides
that
only
pending
cases,
the
2. Court
granted
Gonzales’
motion
to
make
Bautista’s
complaint
more
investigation
of
which
has
not
been
substantially
completed
by
the
specific
Office
of
the
Solicitor
General,
shall
be
transferred
to
the
IBP.
there
is
3. Bautista’s
complaint
contained
the
following
charges:
accepting
case
no
need
for
further
investigation
since
the
Office
of
the
Solicitor
with
Fortunados
agreeing
to
pay
all
expenses
for
a
50%
contingent
fee,
General
already
made
a
thorough
and
comprehensive
investigation
of
acted
as
counsel
for
Lopez
(opponent
of
Fortunados
in
another
case)
the
case
without
the
1st
case
being
terminated,
transferred
properties
of
8. Gonzales
also
committed
acts
of
misconduct-‐
the
properties
transferred
Fortunados
while
the
case
is
pending,
introduced
Bautista
into
a
to
him
as
payment
were
still
the
subject
of
a
pending
case
contract
over
the
property
in
the
pending
civil
case,
submitted
falsified
9. However,
respondent
notes
that
Canon
10
of
the
old
Canons
of
documents
to
the
CFI,
acts
of
treachery
and
disloyalty
against
Bautista,
Professional
Ethics,
which
states
that
"[t]he
lawyer
should
not
purchase
harassing
Bautista
by
filing
complaints
against
him,
mislead
the
CFI
by
any
interests
in
the
subject
matter
of
the
litigation
which
he
is
false
assertions,
Filing
petitions
"cleverly
prepared
(so)
that
while
he
conducting,"
does
not
appear
anymore
in
the
new
Code
of
Professional
does
not
intentionally
tell
a
he,
he
does
not
tell
the
truth
either."
Responsibility.
He
therefore
concludes
that
while
a
purchase
by
a
4. Gonzales
alleged
that
the
preliminary
investigation
conducted
by
the
lawyer
of
property
in
litigation
is
void
under
Art.
1491
of
the
Civil
Code,
Solicitor
General
was
limited
to
the
determination
of
whether
or
not
such
purchase
is
no
longer
a
ground
for
disciplinary
action
under
the
there
is
sufficient
ground
to
proceed
with
the
case
and
that
under
Rule
new
Code
of
Professional
Responsibility.-‐
This
contention
is
without
139
the
Solicitor
General
still
has
to
file
an
administrative
complaint
merit.
The
very
first
Canon
of
the
new
Code
states
that
"a
lawyer
shall
against
him.
Respondent
claims
that
the
case
should
be
referred
to
the
uphold
the
Constitution,
obey
the
laws
of
the
land
and
promote
respect
IBP
since
Section
20
of
Rule
139-‐B
provides
that:
for
law
and
legal
process”
(violated
Art.
1491
of
the
Civil
Code)
This
Rule
shall
take
effect
on
June
1,
1988
and
shall
supersede
the
10. Gonzales
also
contended
that
the
transfer
was
not
implemented-‐
but
it
present
Rule
139
entitled
DISBARMENT
OR
SUSPENSION
OF
is
clear
from
their
agreement
that
they
intended
such
transfer
ATTORNEYS.
All
cases
pending
investigation
by
the
Office
of
the
11. Gonzales
also
failed
to
disclose
to
bautista
that
the
property
was
Solicitor
General
shall
be
transferred
to
the
Integrated
Bar
of
the
Philippines
Board
of
Governors
for
investigation
and
disposition
already
sold
at
a
public
auction-‐
Gonzales
denies
atty-‐client
relationship
as
provided
in
this
Rule
except
those
cases
where
the
and
that
such
was
already
annotated
at
the
back
of
the
title-‐
there
is
investigation
has
been
substantially
completed.
atty-‐client
relationship,
still
his
duty
to
inform
5. contrary
to
respondent's
claim,
reference
to
the
IBP
of
complaints
12. Submitted
falsified
documents
to
CFI
making
it
appear
that
Fortunados
against
lawyers
is
not
mandatory
upon
the
Court
signed
when
in
fact,
they
only
signed
the
photocopy
6. Under
Sections
13
and
14
of
Rule
139-‐B,
the
Supreme
Court
may
conduct
disciplinary
proceedings
without
the
intervention
of
the
IBP
by
referring
cases
for
investigation
to
the
Solicitor
General
or
to
any
officer
of
the
Supreme
Court
or
judge
of
a
lower
court.
In
such
a
case,
the
report
and
recommendation
of
the
investigating
official
shall
be
reviewed
directly
by
the
Supreme
Court.
The
Court
shall
base
its
final
action
on
the
case
on
the
report
and
recommendation
submitted
by
the
investigating
official
and
the
evidence
presented
by
the
parties
during
the
investigation.
Investment
and
Management
Services
Corp.
vs
Roxas
Court
En
Banc;
(3)
In
case
both
suspension
and
a
fine
are
involved,
resolution
shall
be
by
the
Court
En
Banc
if
the
suspension
exceeds
one
1. A
case
was
filed
by
Investment
Corp
against
Roxas
in
1975
for
managing
(1)
year
or
the
fine
exceeds
P10,000;
(4)
In
case
of
two
or
more
3
corporations
(Worldwide
Paper
Mills,
Prime
Trading,
Luzon
Leather)
suspensions
of
the
lawyer,
service
of
the
same
will
be
successive,
not
2. while
he
was
still
Investment’s
Administrative
and
Legal
Officer
he
simultaneous
“misappropriated
or
appropriated
for
his
own
use
and
benefit
certain
12. IBP
decision
ordering
the
one-‐month
suspension
of
respondent
to
be
sums
of
money
or
checks
which
he
received
in
trust
from
the
3
merely
recommendatory.
corporations
13. But
Roxas
clearly
had
no
intention
to
squarely
face
the
charges
against
3. And
he
issued
bouncing
checks
to
pay
for
personal
obligations
him.
By
repeatedly
changing
his
address
without
informing
the
4. Court
required
Roxas
to
file
an
answer
and
the
resolution
was
sent
to
investigating
officials
or
the
Court
he
somehow
managed
to
evade
the
his
addres
at
Paranaque.
There
was
no
response.
administrative
investigation
for,
after
years
of
delay,
no
longer
could
5. After
2
½
years,
Roxas
file
a
motion
for
substitution
of
Xerox
copy,
complainant
corporation
be
reached
to
substantiate
its
charges.
The
because
the
copy
sent
to
him
was
allegedly
not
legible
(to
be
sent
to
his
Court
cannot
take
the
matter
lightly.
new
address
at
Malate)-‐
but
after
Investment
sent
the
new
copy,
it
was
14. Suspended
for
6
months
returned
unclaimed
6. The
court
then
sent
the
copy
of
the
petition
to
his
Batangas
address
(permanent
address
form
Bar
Exam
petition)
and
gave
him
10
days
to
file
an
answer
7. Court
then
resolved
to
refer
the
case
to
OSG
and
Assistan
SolGen
recommended
suspension
of
5
years
and
also
filed
a
complaint
against
Roxas
8. In
another
resolution,
Court
required
Roxas
to
file
an
answer
to
the
complaint
of
OSG
within
15
days.
In
his
answer
Roxas
denied
the
charges
and
said
they
were
merely
used
to
harass
and
embarrass
him
9. The
court
recommended
the
case
to
the
IBP-‐
ORDERED
Roxas’
1
month
suspension
(case
should
be
dismissed
for
lack
of
evidence
but
because
of
Roxas’
actions,
suspension
is
proper)
10. Under
Rule
139-‐B
of
the
Rules
of
Court
governing
Disbarment
and
Discipline
of
Attorney’s,
if
the
IBP
Board
of
Governors,
by
a
majority
vote
of
its
total
membership,
determines
that
a
lawyer
should
be
suspended
from
the
practice
of
law
or
disbarred,
it
shall
issue
a
resolution
setting
forth
its
findings
and
recommendations.
The
resolution,
together
with
the
whole
record
of
the
case,
shall
then
be
transmitted
to
the
Supreme
Court
for
final
action
11. In
the
Court’s
1992
resolution,
imposed
several
rules:
(1)
If
the
penalty
of
suspension
is
imposed
for
a
period
of
one
(1)
year
or
less,
the
resolution
of
a
case
shall
be
by
the
Division
concerned;
if
the
penalty
exceeds
one
(1)
year,
resolution
shall
be
by
the
Court
En
Banc;
(2)
If
the
penalty
imposed
is
a
fine
of
P
10,000
or
less,
the
resolution
shall
be
by
the
Division
concerned;
if
more
than
P10,000
resolution
will
be
by
the
Dumadag
vs
Lumaya
he
(Atty.
Lumaya)
had
received
from
Deputy
Sheriff
Rogelio
Dongiapon
for
herein
complainant.
1. Lumaya
was
charged
for
unethical
practices,
conflict
of
interest
and
12. even
a
respondent
consistently
denied
liability
to
Dumadag,
his
former
disloyalty
by
Dumadag.
client,
the
records
abundantly
point
to
his
receipt
of
and
failure
to
2. Lumaya
was
counsel
of
Dumadag
in
a
civil
case
involving
a
parcel
of
deliver
the
amount
of
P4,344.00
to
his
client,
the
herein
complainant,
a
land
which
was
terminated
by
a
compromise
agreement
(that
clear
breach
of
the
canons
of
professional
responsibility.
Avellanosa
would
pay
Dumadag
and
he
would
execute
a
deed
of
13. Suspended
indefinitely
conveyance
of
the
land,
in
case
of
her
failure
to
pay,
Dumadag
would
possess
the
land)
3. Atty.
Lumaya
allegedly
failed
to
file
motion
for
execution
and
that
he
allegedly
connived
with
a
Deputy
Sheriff
by
selling
a
portion
of
the
land
to
Astudillo
without
Dumadag’s
consent
and
said
deed
was
notarized
by
Lumaya
4. And
Avellanosa
allegedly
paid
P4,344
Atty.
Lumaya
but
he
did
not
deliver
it
to
Dumadag
5. After
the
comment
and
reply
of
both
parties
were
filed,
the
referred
to
the
OSG.
After
hearings,
OSG
filed
its
complaint
and
report
6. Lumaya
alleged
that
it
was
the
judge
who
settled
the
proceedings
between
Dumadag
and
Avellanosa,
although
there
are
no
records
to
prove
the
same;
and
that
Dumadag
has
received
all
payments
made
by
Avellanosa,
and
that
his
only
mistake
was
that
he
merely
noted
at
the
back
of
his
copy
of
the
judgment
the
sums
received
by
Dumadag
without
any
receipt
and
denied
being
required
by
Dumadag
to
file
a
motion;
The
sale
between
Avellanosas
to
Astudillo
was
a
private
sale
and
Dumadag
was
not
a
party
there,
and
was
unaware
of
the
motion
of
execution
filed
by
Dumadag
when
the
deed
was
presented
by
him
for
notarization,
and
notarized
it
without
intent
to
cause
damage
7. In
the
court’s
resolution,
Lumaya
was
required
to
answer
OSG’s
complaint
and
merely
reiterated
his
previous
explanation
(that
the
deed
of
sale
was
already
prepared
when
the
sheriff
Avellanosa
and
Astudillo
came
to
his
office
for
notarization;
he
did
not
go
over
the
contents
and
merely
asked
whether
the
signatures
were
theirs;
and
did
not
know
that
the
proceeds
were
supposedly
for
Dumadag’s
claim.)
8. OSG
recommended
suspension
for
5
years
9. Dumadag
had
to
file
a
separate
civil
case
to
recover
the
amount
of
P4,344.00
from
his
previous
counsel,
herein
respondent,
Atty.
Lumaya.
10. Rule
16.01
—
A
lawyer
shall
account
for
all
money
or
property
collected
or
received
for
or
from
the
client.
11. RTC
in
its
decision
also
ordered
co-‐defendant
(herein
respondent)
Atty.
Lumaya
to
pay
the
plaintiff
(herein
complainant)
the
sum
of
P4,344.00
Ingles
vs
Serna
appeal
of
the
complainant
filed
within
15
days
from
notice
of
the
dismissal
of
the
complaint.
`No
investigation
shall
be
interrupted
or
1. Ingles
charged
Dela
Serna
for
violation
of
Canon
8,
Rule
8.01
terminated
by
reason
of
the
desistance,
settlement,
compromise,
2. Dela
Serna
submitted
a
memorandum
in
a
civil
case,
stating,
restitution,
withdrawal
of
the
charges,
or
failure
of
the
complainant
to
“Apparently,
these
lawyers
were
themselves
fooling
Cattleya
so
that
prosecute
the
same
they
can
get
their
commission
and
overprice
immediately”
11. SEC.
8.
Investigation.
–
Upon
joinder
of
issues
or
upon
failure
of
the
3. Ingles
averred
that
the
statements
were
false
and
malicious,
respondent
to
answer,
the
Investigator
shall,
with
deliberate
speed,
memoranda
should
contain
only
a
summation
of
facts
and
the
laws
proceed
with
the
investigation
of
the
case.
He
shall
have
the
power
to
applicable
issue
subpoenas
and
administer
oaths.
The
respondent
shall
be
given
4. Dela
Serna
said
that
the
proper
forum
to
consider
the
complaint
is
the
full
opportunity
to
defend
himself,
to
present
witnesses
on
his
behalf
RTC
and
not
the
IBP
where
he
could
have
been
cited
for
contempt
and
be
heard
by
himself
and
counsel.
However,
if
upon
reasonable
notice,
the
respondent
fails
to
appear,
the
investigation
shall
proceed
5. Director
of
Bar
Discipline
issued
a
resolution,
approving
the
ex
parte.
recommendation
of
commissioner
Navarro
to
suspend
Dela
Serna
for
6
The
Investigator
shall
terminate
the
investigation
within
three
(3)
months
months
form
the
date
of
its
commencement,
unless
extended
for
good
6. Dela
Serna
appealed
and
said
that
no
formal
investigation
was
cause
by
the
Board
of
Governors
upon
prior
application.
conducted
by
the
IBP
Willful
failure
to
refusal
to
obey
a
subpoena
or
any
other
lawful
order
7. A
review
of
the
records
would
indeed
show
that
no
formal
investigation
issued
by
the
Investigator
shall
be
dealt
with
as
for
indirect
contempt
of
was
conducted
by
the
IBP.
Court.
The
corresponding
charge
shall
be
filed
by
the
Investigator
8. Complaints
against
lawyers
for
misconduct
are
normally
addressed
to
before
the
IBP
Board
of
Governors
which
shall
require
the
alleged
the
Court.
If,
at
the
outset,
the
Court
finds
a
complaint
to
be
clearly
contemnor
to
show
cause
within
ten
(10)
days
from
notice.
The
IBP
wanting
in
merit,
it
outrightly
dismisses
the
case.
If,
however,
the
Court
Board
of
Governors
may
thereafter
conduct
hearings,
if
necessary,
in
deems
it
necessary
that
further
inquiry
should
be
made,
such
as
when
accordance
with
the
procedure
set
forth
in
this
Rule
for
hearings
before
the
matter
could
not
be
resolved
by
merely
evaluating
the
pleadings
the
Investigator.
Such
hearing
shall
as
far
as
practicable
be
terminated
within
fifteen
(15)
days
from
its
commencement.
Thereafter,
the
IBP
submitted,
a
referral
is
made
to
the
IBP
for
a
formal
investigation
of
the
Board
of
Governors
shall
within
a
like
period
of
fifteen
(15)
days
issue
a
case
during
which
the
parties
are
accorded
an
opportunity
to
be
resolution
setting
forth
its
findings
and
recommendations,
which
shall
heard.
An
ex
parte
investigation
may
only
be
conducted
when
forthwith
be
transmitted
to
the
Supreme
Court
for
final
action
and
if
respondent
fails
to
appear
despite
reasonable
notice.
warranted,
the
imposition
of
penalty.’
9. SEC.
3.
Duties
of
the
National
Grievance
Investigator.
–
The
National
12.
The
procedures
outlined
by
the
Rules
are
meant
to
ensure
that
the
Grievance
Investigators
shall
investigate
all
complaints
against
innocents
are
spared
from
wrongful
condemnation
and
that
only
the
members
of
the
Integrated
Bar
referred
to
them
by
the
IBP
Board
of
guilty
are
meted
their
just
due.
Obviously,
these
requirements
cannot
Governors.
be
taken
lightly.
10. SEC.
5.
Service
or
dismissal.
–
If
the
complaint
appears
to
be
13. Subject
to
such
highly
exceptional
cases
as
it
might
deem
warranted,
meritorious,
the
Investigator
shall
direct
that
a
copy
thereof
be
served
the
Court
here
reiterates
the
indispensability
for
a
formal
investigation
upon
the
respondent,
requiring
him
to
answer
the
same
within
fifteen
of
complaints
against
members
of
the
Bar
particularly,
such
as
in
this
(15)
days
from
the
date
of
service.
If
the
complaint
does
not
merit
instance,
where
the
IBP
would
recommend
the
serious
penalty
of
action,
or
if
the
answer
shows
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
Investigator
suspension
from
the
practice
of
law.
that
the
complaint
is
not
meritorious,
the
same
may
be
dismissed
by
the
Board
of
Governors
upon
his
recommendation.
A
copy
of
the
resolution
of
dismissal
shall
be
furnished
to
the
complainant
and
the
Supreme
Court
which
may
review
the
case
motu
proprio
or
upon
timely
Talens-‐Dabon
vs
Arceo
11. Another
employee
Garcia,
testified
that
the
affidavit
she
submitted
was
false
and
that
she
was
forced
by
Arceo
to
make
it
1. Atty.
Joy
Talen-‐Dabon
a
Clerk
of
Court
filed
a
case
against
Judge
Arceo
12. Talens-‐Dabon
filed
a
criminal
charge
of
acts
of
lasciviousness,
violation
for
gross
misconduct
and
immorality
of
anti-‐sexual
harassment
law
and
this
administrative
case
against
2. The
investigating
justice
submitted
a
report:
3
days
after
Joy
first
Arceo,
started
working
at
the
Office,
she
was
summoned
by
Judge
Arceo
and
13. Responded
denied
most
of
the
allegations
and
defended
that
the
jokes
asked
her
in
a
loud
voice
what
she
wanted
and
looked
at
her
from
head
were
green
but
not
vulgar,
that
the
rude
words
were
intended
as
a
to
toe
as
if
he
was
“undressing
her”.
He
told
her
she’s
going
to
be
joke,
and
it
was
Joy
who
asked
him
to
make
the
poem,
and
the
incident
assigned
as
his
assistant,
but
she
was
hesistant
because
of
his
was
a
mere
fabrication.
And
that
there
was
a
gardener
outside
his
reputation
as
“manyakis”
and
“bastos”
office,
that
if
she
screamed
it
would
have
been
heard
3. As
his
assistant
she
was
assigned
work
of
the
Clerk
but
Arceo
was
rude
14. Investigating
Justice
said
there
was
sufficient
evidence,
the
witnesses
to
her
and
other
court
personnel,
called
them
“tanga”
and
told
green
and
complainant
were
credible,
poem
showed
his
sexual
intentions,
it
jokes
and
stories
and
made
negative
and
harsh
comments
about
court
would
be
impossible
for
her
to
fabricate
the
story
personnel,
he
would
often
make
bodily
contact
with
her
&
other
female
15. The
integrity
of
the
Judiciary
rests
not
only
upon
the
fact
that
it
is
able
employees
(chancing),
and
one
time
kissed
her
on
the
cheek
(other
to
administer
justice
but
also
upon
the
perception
and
confidence
of
employees
also);
Also
one
time,
played
a
VHS
tape
with
explicit
sex
the
community
that
the
people
who
run
the
system
have
done
justice.
scenes
In
order
to
create
such
confidence,
the
people
who
run
the
judiciary,
4. Another
court
employee
Leander
testified
having
experience
the
particularly
judges
and
justices,
must
not
only
be
proficient
in
both
the
chancing
and
that
one
time,
she
was
summoned
to
his
chambers
and
substantive
and
procedural
aspects
of
the
law,
but
more
importantly,
found
him
wearing
only
his
brief,
he
told
her
“why
are
you
afraid.
After
they
must
possess
the
highest
integrity,
probity,
and
unquestionable
all,
this
is
for
you."
moral
uprightness,
both
in
their
public
and
private
lives.
5. When
her
wedding
was
nearing
he
allegedly
told
her
"Ikay,
ang
dami
ko
Rule
1.01:
A
Judge
should
be
the
embodiment
of
competence,
integrity
pa
namang
balak
sa
'yo,
kinuha
pa
naman
kita
ng
bahay
sa
isang
and
independence.
subdivision,
tapos
sinayang
mo
lang,
tanga
ka
kasi!"
This
is
admitted
by
Rule
2.00:
A
Judge
should
avoid
impropriety
and
the
appearance
of
respondent
who
said
it
was
only
a
joke.
impropriety
in
all
activities.
6. She
hesitated
in
filing
a
complaint,
of
fear
becasuse
Arceo
was
a
very
Rule
2.01:
A
judge
should
so
behave
at
all
times
as
to
promote
public
influential
person
confidence
in
the
integrity
and
impartiality
of
the
judiciary.
7. One
day,
at
his
office,
he
handed
her
a
Tagalog
poem,
where
he
professed
his
love
and
said
that
he
was
disappointed
that
she
was
16.
A
magistrate
is
judged
not
only
by
his
official
acts
but
also
by
his
already
married
private
morals,
to
the
extent
that
such
private
morals
are
externalized
8. When
she
was
about
to
leave
the
office,
she
found
the
door
locked,
he
17.
He
should
not
only
possess
proficiency
in
law
but
should
likewise
embraced
and
tried
to
kiss
her
possess
moral
integrity
for
the
people
look
up
to
him
as
a
virtuous
and
9. She
tried
to
run
away
but
he
chased
her
and
embraced
and
kissed
her.
upright
man.
In
the
ensuing
struggle,
complainant
slipped
and
fell
on
the
floor,
her
18. The
Code
of
Judicial
Ethics
mandates
that
the
conduct
of
a
judge
must
elbows
supporting
the
upper
part
of
her
body
while
her
legs
were
be
free
of
a
whiff
of
impropriety
not
only
with
respect
to
his
outstretched
between
respondent's
feet
performance
of
his
judicial
duties,
but
also
to
his
behavior
outside
his
10. As
complainant
continued
to
struggle,
respondent
suddenly
stopped
sala
and
as
a
private
individual.
There
is
no
dichotomy
of
morality;
a
and
sat
on
the
chair
nearest
the
door
of
the
inner
room
with
his
face
public
official
is
also
judged
by
his
private
morals.
The
Code
dictates
red
and
breathing
heavily.
Complainant
angrily
shouted
"maniac,
that
a
judge,
in
order
to
promo
demonyo,
bastos,
napakawalanghiya
ninyo".
Respondent
kept
19. But
the
very
act
of
forcing
himself
upon
a
married
woman,
being
muttering
"I
love
you"
and
was
very
apologetic
offering
for
his
driver
to
himself
a
married
man,
clearly
diverts
from
the
standard
of
morality
take
her
home.
expected
of
a
man
of
less
than
his
standing
in
society.
This
is
exacerbated
by
the
fact
that
by
doing
the
acts
complained
of,
he
has
tempted
the
morals
of
not
only
the
complainant
but
also
the
young
Mrs.
Marilyn
Leander
and
the
other
employees
in
the
court
over
whom
he
exercised
power
and
influence
as
Executive
Judge.
20. Respondent
may
indeed
be
a
legally
competent
person
as
evidenced
by
his
published
law
books
(translations
from
English
to
Tagalog)
and
his
legal
studies
abroad,
but
he
has
demonstrated
himself
to
be
wanting
of
moral
integrity.
He
has
violated
the
Code
of
Judicial
Conduct
which
requires
every
judge
to
be
the
embodiment
of
competence,
integrity,
and
independence
and
to
avoid
impropriety
and
the
appearance
of
impropriety
in
all
activities
as
to
promote
public
confidence
in
the
integrity
and
impartiality
of
the
judiciary.
Director
of
Prisons
vs
Ang
Cho
Kio
1. Ang
Cho
Kio
was
convicted
of
various
crimes
and
suffered
45
years
of
imprisonment,
life
imprisonment
and
damages
2. The
President
granted
Ang
Cho
Kio
and
several
others
a
conditional
pardon,
then
he
left
for
China
3. After
a
while
he
went
back
to
Manila
as
a
stopover
for
his
roundtrip
ticket
and
used
the
name
Ang
Ming
Huy.
4. When
he
went
to
the
Bureau
of
Immigration,
he
was
arrested
because
he
was
recognized
by
the
officer,
by
order
of
the
executive
secretary,
he
was
recommitted
to
prison
to
serve
his
unexpired
portion
of
the
sentence
for
violation
of
the
conditional
pardon
(…upon
the
condition
that
he
will
voluntarily
leave
the
Philippines
upon
his
release
and
never
to
return
to
this
country)
5. CFI
held
that
he
was
validly
recommitted
to
prison
CA
affirmed
and
dismissed
the
petition
of
Ang
Cho
Kio
but
recommended
his
release
upon
the
first
booked
flight
out
of
the
country
6. Sol
Gen
filed
an
appeal
to
remove
such
recommendation,
because
the
Courts
do
not
have
the
power
to
recommend
to
the
president
thus
not
binding
7. The
recommendation
by
the
Court
is
only
limited
to
Art.
5
of
the
RPC
8. The
Court
of
Appeals
was
not
called
upon
to
review
any
sentence
that
was
imposed
on
Ang
Cho
Kio.
It
was
simply
called
upon
to
determine
whether
Ang
Cho
Kio
was
illegally
confined,
or
not.
It
is
improper
that
the
majority
of
the
justices
in
the
special
division
make
a
recommendation
that
would
suggest
a
modification
of
the
act
of
the
Chief
Executive,
after
the
same
justices
have
said
in
their
opinion
"that
the
Chief
Executive
may
determine,
alone
and
by
himself,
whether
the
condition
attached
to
a
pardon
given
by
him
had
been
violated;
and
in
the
exercise
of
this
prerogative,
the
courts
may
not
interfere,
however
erroneous
the
findings
may
be."
9. It
may
be
said
that
the
recommendation
simply
represents
the
private
opinion
of
the
three
justices,
however,
the
better
practice
should
be
that
the
decision
of
a
court
should
contain
only
opinion
that
is
relevant
to
the
question
that
is
before
the
court
for
decision.
After
all,
courts
are
not
concerned
with
the
morality
of
laws,
but
only
in
the
interpretation
and
application
of
the
law.
We
believe
that
judges
should
refrain
from
expressing
irrelevant
opinions
in
their
decisions
which
may
only
reflect
unfavorably
upon
their
competence
and
the
propriety
of
their
judicial
actuations.
Pico
vs
Combong
independence
and
so
to
behave
at
all
times
as
to
promote
public
confidence
in
the
integrity
and
impartiality
of
the
judiciary.
1. Pico
filed
a
case
for
the
brutal
killing
of
his
brother
and
certain
rebels
12. Respondent
Judge
manifested
to
this
Court
that
accused
Villegas
whom
were
responsible
for
the
shooting.
he
had
released
on
bail,
was
shot
dead.
If
true,
this
circumstance
2. Fiscal
of
Negros
Occ
filed
an
information
with
the
court
charging
Eddie
renders
review
and
setting
aside
of
respondent
Judge's
order
fixing
bail
Villegas
with
the
murder
of
Fr.
Pico
and
recommended
that
no
bail
be
academic
and
unnecessary;
otherwise,
recall
of
the
order
of
release
of
allowed
accused
Eddie
Villegas
and
(if
necessary)
his
arrest,
and
the
setting
for
3. Judge
Combong
then
issued
a
warrant
for
Villegas
and
in
the
warrant
immediate
hearing
of
the
application
for
provisional
liberty
would
be
said
“no
bail
recommended”
necessary.
4. Pico
then
went
to
the
RTC,
and
found
that
bail
was
granted
to
Villegas
13. Judge
was
fined
and
censured
5. Pico
then
charges
Judge
Combong
with
serious
misconduct
with
grave
abuse
of
discretion
for
granting
bail
without
notice
or
hearing,
and
said
bail
was
granted
on
the
same
day
the
motion
was
filed
without
giving
the
prosecution
the
opportunity
to
challenge
the
application
for
provisional
liberty
6. And
a
copy
of
the
motion
was
only
received
by
the
prosecution
a
few
days
after.
Pico
also
said
that
Judge
issued
an
order
rescheduling
the
arraignment
due
ot
lack
of
proof
of
the
arrest
or
detention
of
the
accused
7. Judge
denied
that
he
granted
the
bail
prior
to
the
arrest
of
Villegas,
however
admits
having
failed
to
hold
a
hearing
on
the
application
for
bail.
He
claims
that
his
failure
to
require
defense
counsel
to
show
proof
that
the
accused
had
been
taken
into
custody
by
the
police
authorities,
was
due
to
oversight
on
his
part,
and
that
he
had
not
been
motivated
by
any
illegal
or
immoral
consideration
when
he
granted
bail
and
ordered
the
release
of
accused
Villegas.
He
had
deliberarely
omitted
holding
a
hearing
because
he
had
been
fully
convinced
that
the
possibility
of
the
accused
jumping
bail
"was
practically
nil."
8. A
person
applying
for
admission
to
bail
must
be
in
the
custody
of
the
law
or
otherwise
deprived
of
his
liberty.
9. Judge
should
have
diligently
ascertained
the
whereabouts
of
the
applicant
and
that
he
indeed
had
jurisdiction
over
the
body
of
the
accused
before
considering
the
application
for
bail.
10. It
is
well-‐settled
that
an
application
for
bail
from
a
person
charged
with
a
capital
offense
(now
an
offense
punishable
by
reclusion
perpetua)
must
be
set
for
hearing
at
which
both
the
prosecution
and
the
defense
must
be
given
a
reasonable
opportunity
to
prove
(in
the
case
of
the
prosecution)
that
evidence
of
guilt
of
the
applicant
is
strong,
or
(in
the
case
of
the
defense)
that
such
evidence
of
guilt
was
not
strong.
11. Judge's
acts
were
inconsistent
with
the
Code
of
Judicial
Conduct.
That
Code
requires
judges
to
act
with
competence,
integrity
and
Office
of
the
Court
Administrator
vs
Estacion
1. SC in an earlier decision dismissed Jude Estacion from the service for
gross misrepresentation-‐ He concealed from the appointing authority,
at the time he applied for the judicial post until his appointment,
information regarding the criminal charges for homicide and attempted
homicide filed against him.
2. The court has already denied thrice his motions for reconsideration and
now comes his "Motion To Request For Clemency, Compassion and
Mercy With Leave" highlighting his active membership and involvement
in certain religious and civic organizations/activities, to support his plea
of reinstatement
3. After taking another hard look at the records of the case, still, we are
not inclined to accede to respondent's renewed plea. Respondent's
purported good reputation in his community hardly mitigates the
gravity of the offense he committed.
4. What respondent did, or omitted to do, was a calculated deception
committed not only against the Court but against the public as well,
clearly indicative of his lack of moral rectitude to sit as magistrate, and
sufficiently repulsive that it detracts from public confidence in the
integrity of the judiciary. Dismissal indeed is the appropriate retribution
for such kind of transgression.
5. judges are held to higher standards of integrity and ethical conduct
than attorneys or other persons not invested with the public trust
Gutierrez vs Belan do with it since all he does is to receive the bonds and sign the release
papers
1. Gutierrez and Narvasa charged Judge Belan with conduct prejudicial to 8. A careful review of the records indicates that there is a prima
the best interest of the service facie showing that respondent judge is administratively liable.
2. They said that in his application to the JBC, Belan concealed his pending 9. While the charge concerning extortion by respondent of a percentage
criminal case of Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Serious Physical of premiums paid on bonds has not been substantiated by
Injuries” and that he solicited the help of other judges to dismiss his complainants, certainly we find the complaint for misrepresentation in
criminal case, and he also kept percentages of the bail bonds approved his application for appointment to the bench and perjury to be
by him meritorious.
3. It was found, then, that the criminal case was dismissed 10. Question No. 24 asked applicant if he had any criminal or administrative
4. Judge assailed the complaint for being merely the "product of the case or complaint (including disbarment) pending before any court,
warped imaginings of the complainants" and suggested that members government office or with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, to
of the judiciary should be insulated from “unfair and cruel” which respondent answered `NONE’
accusations. According to respondent Judge, he never concealed 11. Judge Cosico (Binan Laguna) said the criminal case was already decided
anything in his application before the Judicial and Bar Council. He by Judge Quinanola (San Pedro Laguna) when the case was pending in
denied that he had tried to influence Judge Quiñanola in any way on Binan
the proper disposition of the criminal case or that he had taken any 12. Judge Quinanola explained that Judge Cosico, his executive, assigned
sum relative to the approval of bail bonds. the case to him and he decided it based on the evidence
5. Mrs. Sison testified sauing that as Clerk Interpreter, she was under 13. Regardless of the date the case was dismissed, this fact he did not
Judge Belan and that she was aware of the criminal charges and such disclose in his sworn Personal Data Sheet submitted to the Judicial and
was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence, and she had no knowledge Bar Council.
of the 8% bailbond and she has no knowledge about the charge that all 14. Judge Belan has committed dishonesty that renders him totally unfit for
practising lawyers in Biñan are complaining about the money making of appointment to the judiciary. His protestation that he did not recall
Judge Belan and his appointed Clerk of Court. Atty. Fuentes, the public that he was criminally charged so that he could not have concealed this
attorney at PAO also testified the same. Atty. Pampolina Jr. a fact borders on the outrageous, being a paltry attempt to dissimulate
practitioner in Binan also testified the same and play down his execrable misrepresentation.
6. In a report of Judge Cosico, it said that Judge may not be liable for 15. every applicant to the judiciary has a duty to inform the recommending
perjury because he never concealed in his personal data sheet that he and appointing authorities and the Court his involvement in any
was charged before. His answer to the query whether he has been criminal case in whatever stage it may be, whether pending or
charged or convicted of violating any law, decree, ordinance or terminated by dismissal, acquittal or conviction, to enable these bodies
regulations by any court in the Philippines x x x or found guilty of an to fully evaluate and pass upon his eligibility for the position sought.
administrative offense was: `Yes, complaint for disbarment-‐acquitted 16. The defense of the respondent that the complaint should be under oath
by the Supreme Court on July 16, 1991.' And the testimony of the to be worthy of consideration by the Court is untenable.-‐ not a strict
witness cannot substantiate the charges rule under the Rules of Court
7. Judge Belan argues that-‐ as to the allegation that a criminal case against 17. SC affirms the recommendation of OCA
him was pending for resolution with MTC, Biñan, Laguna at the time he 18. While not all the accusations against respondent Judge were
was applying for appointment to the bench, respondent declares that substantiated, one charge, however, remained incontrovertible-‐
Judge Quiñanola had already dismissed the case. Respondent however dishonesty in his personal data sheet
did not disclose the date of dismissal; neither did he furnish the Court 19. It is clear that respondent Judge has deliberately attempted to mislead
copy of the decision dismissing his case; With regards to the charge the Judicial and Bar Council and for that matter, the appointing
relative to the filing of bonds respondent claims that he has nothing to authority, in his bid to gain an exalted position in the judiciary
20. The fact that respondent Judge has been acquitted ultimately in the Albos vs Alaba
criminal case against him is of no moment. He is not being chastened
for having had a pending criminal case at the time of his application for 1. Albos charged Alaba with misconduct, oppression and gross inefficiency
a judicial position but for his act of dishonesty and misrepresentation in 2. Albos allegedly filed a complaint against Songalia with the MTC. When
the process of seeking that office. Neither would it matter that this they went to the MTC, they were told that the complaint was not yet
information has reached the Court via an unsubscribed complaint for signed by Judge Alaba, (because he was conducting lecutures) they
while such complaints are ordinarily received with caution, when, confronted Judge and he told them "(h)ere they are; I am returning
however, their contents are documented or easily verifiable, it would them to you anyway, they are useless. You will lose in your case."
be unwarranted to ignore them entirely. 3. He filed another case against Songalia and filed to inhibit Judge from
21. Dismissed from service trying the case, Judge refused to act for failure to comply with
procedure and even challenged the counsel of Albos to a fight, then he
dismissed the case because in a hearing Albos and counsel failed to
appear 3 hearing already
4. The cause of all this trouble is the failure on the part of respondent
Judge Eugenio Alaba to inhibit himself from acting on the case despite
the motion for inhibition filed by the private prosecutor Atty. Custodio
Cañete. Respondent Judge Eugenio Alaba contended that the motion
should bear the approval of the public prosecutor arguing that the
private prosecution shall always be under the supervision and control
of the public prosecutor.
5. Recommendation of Judge Francisco-‐ no grave Misconduct or Conduct
Unbecoming of a Judge nor is there Oppression or Gross Inefficiency on
the part of respondent Judge Eugenio Alaba.
6. A judge is bound never to consider lightly a motion for his inhibition
that questions or puts to doubt, however insignificant, his supposed
predilection to a case pending before him. While he must exercise great
prudence and utmost caution in considering and evaluating a challenge
to his impartiality, he is expected, nevertheless, to act with good
dispatch. Any delay, let alone an inaction, on his part can only fuel,
whether justified or not, an intensified distrust on his capability to
render dispassionate judgment on the case.
7. True, judge cannot be said to have been completely out of line in
conducting lectures to various barangay units on the rudiments of the
Barangay Law. After all, judges are, and they should be, encouraged to
engage in any lawful enterprise that may help bring about an improved
administration of justice. But, be that as it may, judges must not allow
themselves to be thereby distracted from the performance of their
judicial tasks which must remain at all times to be their foremost and
overriding concern.
8. Reprimanded
Parayno vs Meneses 9. Judge’s inhibition is improper. Petition of Parayno is granted
1. Mayor Parayno (Pangasinan) and other petitioners filed a petition for
certiorari to set aside the orders of Judge Meneses voluntarily inhibiting
himself from hearing the election cases and denying their motion for
reconsideration
2. The case was originally raffled to Judge Villanueve but Parayno filed a
motion to inhibit him which was granted and was assigned to Judge
Domagas, but Parayno claimed that there was impropriety in the
assignment of the case so it was re-‐assigned to Judge Meneses
3. Mateo (Parayno vs Mateo) said the 2 cases involving Parayno was
presided by Judge Meneses, and that there seems to be a degree of
“sympathy” to the protestee
4. Judge Meneses then issued an order inhibiting himself from the 2 cases
and the motion for reconsideration was denied by him
5. Section 1, Rule 137, of the Rules of Court: Disqualification of judges. —
No judge or judicial officer shall sit in any case in which he, or his wife
or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, or creditor or
otherwise, or in which he is related to either party within the sixth
degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth
degree, computed according to the rules of the civil law, or in which he
has been executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in
which he has presided in any inferior court when his ruling or decision is
the subject of review, without the written consent of all parties in
interest, signed by them and entered upon the record. A judge may, in
the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a
case, for just or valid reasons other than those mentioned above.
6. The underlying reason for the above rule is obviously to ensure that a
judge, sitting in a case, will at all times be free from inclinations or
prejudices and be well capable to render a just and independent
judgment. A litigant, we often hear, is entitled to nothing less than the
cold neutrality of a judge.
7. Verily, a judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, inhibit
himself voluntarily from sitting in a case, but it should be based on
good, sound or ethical grounds, or for just and valid reasons. It is not
enough that a party throws some tenuous allegations of partiality at the
judge. No less than imperative is that it is the judge's sacred duty to
administer justice without fear or favor.
8. We take note that the electoral protests here involved have remained
unresolved for quite some time now. Any further delay in the
disposition of the cases, particularly election protests where public
interest is heavily involved, cannot be countenanced.
People vs Sesbreno 15. With the details of the testimony, we cannot fault the trial court for
giving credence to the testimony of the prosecution’s witnesses.
1. Atty. Sesbreno was convicted of murder, he shot Amprado. 16. However, it should only be homicide because the requisites for evident
2. Sesbreno filed a motion to quash warrant of arrest/ to grant bail, but premeditation and treachery are not present.
the prosecution opposed. Court denied application for bail
3. Prosecution presented Yapchangco as witness, he was wih Amprado
when he was shot
4. Sesbreno denied the allegations, and alleged that while he was present
at the place and time of the incident in question, it was not he who shot
the victim but an unidentified person. He said that Amprado and the
others were robbers and the only weapon he was carrying was a
samurai, because he left his gun at the office.
5. RTC-‐ guilty
6. He appealed alleging among others that the judge erred in refusing to
disqualify himself from hearing the case
7. None of the grounds cited in Sec 1 Rule 137 of the Rules of Court was
applicable, Though the Rule provides other just and valid grounds on
which a judge may disqualify himself, they are addressed to his sound
discretion, and there was no abuse of said discretion. We can only
conclude that the trial judge, contrary to appellant’s claim, did not err
in refusing to inhibit himself in the case at bar.
8. the trial judge opted to believe the prosecution’s evidence rather than
that of the defense is not a sign of bias.
9. the trial court erred in refusing to agree to re-‐raffle the case is, in our
view, baseless. There is no showing that appellant raised the issue of
lack of notice of raffle at the earliest opportunity. It was filed after
appellant was already arraigned, and prosecution presented its witness
10. On the 90 day requirement asailed by him, SC said that it begins from
the cday case is submitted for decision, not on the day of trial
11. appellant alleges that certain members of media with whom he had a
“long-‐standing battle, were pressuring the trial court to convict the
accused.”-‐ media practitioners in contempt is not a reversible error that
would warrant the acquittal of the accused.
12. “[T]o warrant a finding of prejudicial publicity there must be allegation
and proof that the judges have been unduly influenced, not simply that
they might be, by the barrage of publicity.”
13. Pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to
fair trial.
14. Despite admonitions of the trial court, he persisted in his decision to try
his own case. Appellant is now estopped from claiming that the trial
court violated his right to be represented by counsel of his own choice.
Maliwat
vs
CA
connected
with
or
arising
from
the
performance
of
his
official
duties
as
Clerk
of
Court,
without
any
reference
to
or
pronouncement
as
to
the
1. Maliwat
was
convicted
of
falsification
of
public
documents
by
the
CA
innocence
or
guilt
of
the
accused
2. He
claimed
that
his
constitutional
right
to
due
process
was
impaired
14. The
guiding
rule
is
that
a
judge
must
not
only
render
a
just,
correct
and
when
Judge
Diaz,
while
he
was
still
Clerk
of
Court
testified
against
him
impartial
decision
but
should
do
so
in
such
a
manner
as
to
be
free
from
3. 2
complaints
were
filed
against
Maliwat
for
falsification,
where
he
any
suspicion
as
to
his
fairness,
impartiality
and
integrity.
As
applied
to
falsified
a
blank
TCT
where
he
made
himself
the
registered
owner
of
a
the
case
at
bar,
the
attitude
exhibited
by
Judge
Diaz
speaks
more
of
land,
when
in
truth
it
was
owned
by
someone
else.
He
did
the
same
act
extraordinary
leniency
to
the
accused
in
granting
all
his
requests
for
with
another
blank
TCT
postponements,
even
to
the
extent
of
reconsidering
his
orders
4. RTC
found
him
guilty.
declaring
the
accused
as
having
waived
his
right
to
present
further
5. Atty.
Santiago,
Register
of
Deeds,
was
asked
by
Maliwat
to
locate
the
evidence.
originals
of
the
said
titles,
but
it
could
not
be
found,
upon
examination
15. Under
Rule
137,
Sec.
1
of
the
Rules
of
Court,
Judge
Diaz'
previous
of
the
“copies”
actuations
did
not
render
him
legally
disqualified
from
sitting
and
6. She
reported
to
the
NBI
after
her
associate
Atty
Gutierrez
approved
the
deciding
the
case.
The
suggestion
that
he
is
not
wholly
free,
reconstitution
of
the
title
disinterested
and
independent
could
have
been
buttressed
by
the
7. Atty
Cuevas’
signature
was
also
forged
on
the
title,
according
to
him
exercise
of
his
sound
discretion
in
voluntarily
disqualifying
himself.
Yet,
8. Maliwat
denied
making
the
documents
and
claimed
that
he
bought
it
the
manner
in
which
he
exhibited
himself
during
the
trial
negates
any
from
a
certain
Aseo
suspicion
of
prejudgment
in
the
case.
9. The
Court
notes
that
from
the
time
of
petitioner's
arraignment
on
2
16. SC
affirmed
guilt
of
Maliwat-‐
a
closer
scrutiny
of
the
numbering
of
the
August
1978
up
to
the
time
the
prosecution
offered
its
evidence,
and
titles
in
question
which
accused
alleges
to
have
gotten
from
the
office
rested,
the
hearings
were
either
reset
or
cancelled
no
less
than
thirty
of
the
Register
of
Deeds
of
Cavite
Province
when
he
registered
the
sale
(30)
times
owing
to
a
variety
of
reasons
proffered
by
petitioner.
executed
in
his
favor
by
Benigno
T.
Aseo
shows
the
letters
'RT'
precedes
10. defense
also
failed
to
file
any
written
objections
to
the
prosecution's
the
number
which
the
Court
can
take
judicial
notice
of
that
the
letters
formal
offer
of
evidence.
When
Judge
Diaz
took
over
the
case
on
12
RT
stand
for
reconstituted
title
and
these
initials
with
the
April
1983,
Maliwat
moved
to
postpone
for
yet
another
eight
(8)
times,
corresponding
number
follow
the
original
number
of
the
title
issued,
prompting
Judge
Diaz
to
issue
an
order
on
17
October
1983
declaring
but
in
this
case
the
same
is
missing
and
does
not
state
the
original
Maliwat
to
have
waived
his
right
to
present
further
evidence.
number
of
the
title
which
is
out
of
the
ordinary
procedure
of
the
11. Owing
to
Maliwat's
manifestation
that
he
was
suffering
from
chronic
Register
of
Deeds.
malaria,
Judge
Diaz
reconsidered[21]
and
set
the
case
for
hearing
on
26
17. The
Court
observes
that
the
titles
presented
by
Maliwat
for
March
1984.
When
Maliwat
and
counsel
still
failed
to
appear
on
said
reconstitution
were
allegedly
owner's
duplicate
reconstituted
titles,
date,
Judge
Diaz
deemed
the
case
submitted
for
decision,
but
again
since
the
numbers
were
preceded
by
the
letters
RT.
This
fact,
assuming
reconsidered
and
set
another
hearing
on
11
June
1984
to
allow
the
it
to
be
true,
negates
petitioner's
allegation
that
these
titles
were
defense
to
present
additional
evidence.
When
both
accused
and
obtained
from
the
Registry
of
Deeds
by
canceling
Aseo's
(the
vendor's)
counsel
still
failed
to
appear,
Judge
Diaz
deemed
the
case
submitted
for
titles
which
were
not
reconstituted
titles.
decision
and
required
the
parties
to
file
their
respective
memoranda.
Maliwat's
lawyer
appealed
this
order
to
the
Court
of
Appeals
but
the
appeal
was
deemed
abandoned
and
dismissed
on
24
October
1987
12. Maliwat
certainly
cannot
claim
that
he
was
denied
due
process.
13. The
records
show
that
Rolando
Diaz,
then
Clerk
of
Court
of
the
CFI
of
Cavite
City,
indeed
testified
for
the
prosecution.
But
as
explained
by
the
Solicitor
General,
his
testimony
was
limited
to
certain
facts
directly
Villaluz
vs
Mijares
examination,
respondent
admitted
that
she
ordered
Domingo
to
receive
and
issue
receipts
for
said
rental
deposits.
Further,
in
her
1. Villaluz
charged
Judge
Mijares
with
dishonesty,
corrupt
practices,
grave
affidavit,
respondent
disclosed
that
it
was
her
personal
check
misconduct
and
immorality
for
P222,377.18,
representing
the
accumulated
rental
deposits,
that
2. That
Judge
allegedly
place
the
rental
deposits
in
a
case
to
her
private
was
first
transmitted
to
the
Clerk
of
Court
and
when
it
was
refused,
bank
account;
she
decided
a
case
involving
the
entry
of
birth
record
of
respondent
had
it
replaced
with
a
manager’s
check;
her
grandson;
in
the
declaration
of
presumptive
death
of
Primitivo
11.
It
was
highly
irregular
for
respondent
to
have
issued
her
own
check
for
Mijares,
where
she
was
the
petitioner,
she
falsely
declared
her
address
the
rental
deposits.
Assuming
arguendo
that
salary
checks
of
the
other
to
be
at
Manila;
and
had
a
false
declaration
of
her
residence
in
her
court
employees
got
mixed
with
the
deposits,
respondent
should
have
marriage
license
application
issued
her
check
only
for
the
amount
of
said
salary
checks;
3. She
denied
the
charges:
with
the
rental
deposits,
she
showed
evidences
12. We
affirm
the
above
findings
of
Justice
Valdez
which,
after
an
to
support
the
same
(including
a
letter
from
the
Bank);
exhausting
review,
we
find
to
be
amply
supported
by
the
evidence
on
4. On
the
birth
records
of
her
grandson,
she
said
that
the
rule
on
record.
However,
we
take
note
of
Justice
Valdez’s
own
admission
that
disqualification
of
judges
under
Sec.
1,
Rule
137
of
the
Rules
of
Court
“except
for
the
testimony
of
Anita
Domingo,
there
is
no
direct
and
hard
does
not
apply
since
the
proceedings
called
simply
for
the
clarification
evidence
that
Judge
Mijares
got
and
made
personal
use
of
the
rental
and
correction
of
an
erroneous
entry
in
the
birth
certificate
of
Joshua
deposits
before
they
were
turned
over
to
the
Clerk
of
Court.
We
hold
Anthony
M.
Gurango
regarding
his
father’s
nationality.
that
by
his
actuations,
respondent
placed
his
honesty
and
5. She
denied
the
false
declaration
on
the
petition,
she
denied
and
integrity
under
serious
doubt.
explained
that
she
was
indeed
a
Manila
resident
13. SECOND
ISSUE:
Respondent
conduct
is
inexcusable.
6. As
to
her
marriage
license
application,
she
said
that
Pasay
is
her
second
14. Section
1,
Rule
137
of
the
Rules
of
Court
provides:
Disqualification
of
home,
because
she
used
to
be
RTC
Pasay’s
judge
judges
–
No
judge
or
judicial
officer
shall
sit
in
any
case
in
which
he,
or
7. Justice
Valdez
recommended
her
dismissal
his
wife
or
child,
is
pecuniary
interested
as
heir,
legatee,
creditor
or
8. Domingo,
the
former
“property
custodian”
of
Judge
Mijares
testified
otherwise,
or
in
which
he
is
related
to
either
party
within
the
sixth
that
Mijares
ordered
them
to
give
to
her
the
rental
deposits
and
degree
of
consanguinity
or
affinity,
or
to
counsel
within
the
fourth
presented
several
evidences
degree,
computed
according
to
the
rules
of
the
civil
law,
or
in
which
he
9. By
way
of
defense,
Mijares
said
that
there
was
a
compromise
has
been
executor,
administrator,
guardian,
trustee
or
counsel,
or
agreement
between
the
parties
in
the
case
and
the
members
of
Tengco
which
he
has
presided
in
any
inferior
court
when
his
ruling
or
decision
is
Homeowners
Assn
requested
their
money
to
be
deposited
in
court
to
the
subject
of
review,
without
the
written
consent
of
all
parties
in
turn
over
to
Susana
Realty.
Domingo
as
custodian
received
the
money
interest,
signed
by
them
and
entered
upon
the
record.
A
judge
may,
in
and
receipts
were
issued.
But
the
compromise
failed
and
since
salary
the
exercise
of
his
sound
discretion,
disqualify
himself
from
sitting
in
a
checks
were
included
in
the
payment,
Mijares
suggested
that
one
check
case,
for
just
or
valid
reasons
other
than
those
mentioned
above.
(issued
by
her)
be
delivered
to
the
Clerk
of
Court
and
on
the
same
day,
15. Respondent
is
clearly
disqualified
from
trying
the
case
under
the
exchanged
for
cash
the
check
with
Tengco
aforequoted
section
and
also
under
Rule
3.12
(d),
Canon
3
of
the
Code
10. There
was
a
“marked
variance”
between
respondent’s
comment
and
of
Judicial
Conduct
rejoinder
on
one
hand,
and
her
affidavit
which
served
as
her
direct
16. While
respondent
or
her
daughter
may
not
have
pecuniary
interest
in
testimony
and
her
testimony
during
cross-‐examination,
on
the
the
case
as
heir,
legatee,
creditor
or
otherwise,
which
is
her
contention
other.
In
the
former,
respondent
denied
any
involvement
in
the
rentals
for
her
exculpation,
what
is
violated
in
Section
1
of
Rule
137
was
her
deposited
by
the
Tengco
Homeowners
Association
with
Anita
taking
cognizance
of
the
case
despite
her
relationship
to
a
party
within
Domingo.
Particularly
in
her
rejoinder,
respondent
stated
that
“she
the
sixth
degree
of
consanguinity
or
affinity.
never
had
the
chance
to
order
Anita
Domingo
to
receive
or
issue
17. Rule
2.03,
Canon
2
of
Code
of
Judicial
Conduct
which
states
that:
“A
receipt
for
the
deposits
made
by
the
members
of
Tengco
judge
shall
not
allow
family,
social
or
other
relationships
to
influence
Homeowners.”
However,
in
her
affidavit
and
during
her
cross-‐ 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
CIR
v
CA
permit
others
to
convey
the
impression
that
they
are
in
a
special
FACTS:
1.)
OSG
alleged
that
Justice
Kapunan
has
close
association
with
Atty
position
to
influence
the
judge.”
Mendoza,
counsel
for
private
respondents
who
was
supposedly
18. Even
on
the
assumption
that
the
petition
for
correction
of
entry
of
instrumental
in
his
appointment
to
the
CA,
and
that
they
are
business
respondent’s
grandson
is
not
controversial
in
nature,
this
does
not
partners
(Café
Faura)
where
they
were
often
seen
meeting
and
socializing.
detract
from
the
fact
that
she
cannot
be
free
from
bias
or
partiality
in
And
that,
being
the
apex
of
public
esteem,
the
Court
shall
not
just
do
right
resolving
the
case
by
reason
of
her
close
blood
relationship
to
him.
In
but
it
is
also
necessary
that
it
gives
the
appearance
that
it
will
always
do
fact,
bias
was
clearly
demonstrated
when
she
waived
the
requirement
right
so
the
OSG
wants
Justice
Kapunan
to
inhibit
from
the
case
of
publication
of
the
petition
on
the
dubious
ground
of
enabling
the
2.)
Justice
Kapunan
questioned
why
the
OSG
only
filed
this
present
motion
parents
of
the
minor
(her
daughter
and
son-‐in-‐law)
to
save
the
after
the
case
at
bar
had
been
decided
by
the
1st
division
of
this
Court
and
publication
fee
as
they
were
then
just
“starting
to
have
a
family.”
the
Justice
had
duly
participated
and
cast
his
vote
with
no
objections
from
19. Even
if
the
proceedings
contemplated
in
Rule
108
are
not
controversial
any
source
in
nature,
they
are
still
adversarial,
hence,
the
need
of
notice
and
3.)
Moreover,
he
raises
the
argument
that
the
fact
that
Atty.
Mendoza
was
publication
of
the
hearing.
once
his
superior
and
assuming
that
he
recommended
him
to
the
CA
20. Fined
and
warned
cannot
be
ground
for
his
inhibition.
It
was
a
matter
of
Atty
Mendoza’s
responsibility
to
attract
competent
lawyers.
Atty
Mendoza
did
not
do
any
personal
favor
to
the
Justice,
in
the
same
way
that
every
appointment
to
the
public
office
should
not
be
considered
as
a
personal
favor
to
the
appointee
because
public
office
is
a
public
trust
and
the
public
official
should
discharge
his
duties
for
the
public
good.
Moreover,
if
the
Solicitor
General's
argument
is
followed
to
its
logical
conclusion,
then
all
the
members
of
this
Court
who
have
been
appointed
by
the
President
should
inhibit
themselves
in
the
cases
where
the
Government
is
a
party.
4.)
He
also
denies
the
business
connection
with
Atty.
Mendoza
ISSUE:
WON
Justice
Kapunan
should
be
disqualified
from
this
case
–
NO,
In
response
to
the
motion
for
his
inhibition,
Justice
Kapunan
has
formally
submitted
his
Resolution,
which
was
included
in
the
Court's
Agenda
of
21
January
1997
for
deliberation.
He
explained
that
there
are
no
grounds
whatsoever
to
warrant
his
inhibition.
He
bewailed
that
the
motion
to
disqualify
him
dated
26
April
1996
was
so
belatedly
filed,
just
after
the
First
Division
voted
3
to
2
on
24
April
1996
to
dismiss
the
petition
filed
by
petitioners,
when
the
petition
had
been
pending
before
the
First
Division
since
29
March
1995,
or
for
more
than
a
year,
thus,
the
effect
of
the
motion
for
disqualification
was
to
nullify
a
valid
vote.
RATIO:
-‐The
Court
believes
that
the
intended
effect
of
the
motion
was
to
nullify
a
vote
already
made.
It
is
observed
that
“a
magistrate
sits
with
the
court
and
the
question
is
decided
by
it
as
a
body.”
-‐“A
litigant…
cannot
be
permitted
to
speculate
upon
the
action
of
the
court
and
raise
an
objection
of
this
sort
after
decision
has
been
rendered
Javier
vs
Guzman
15. Although
Usury
Law
is
now
inexistent,
it
cannot
be
denied
that
the
interest
was
out
of
proportion.
1. Javier
instituted
disbarment
proceedings
against
De
Guzman,
as
Judge
16. The
case
was
filed
in
Makati
RTC
where
he
works
waiving
the
venue
for
dishonorable
conduct
stipulated
in
the
agreement.
2. Javier
alleged
that
he
and
his
mother
borrowed
P200,000
from
Judge
17. Considering
the
above-‐cited
stipulation,
it
might
be
said
that
with
10%
interest.
They
issued
a
check
in
payment
of
Judge
Guzman.
respondent
was
acting
in
the
legal
exercise
of
the
option
granted
to
him
3. And
they
were
then
required
by
him
to
sign
a
Memorandum
of
in
the
Agreement.
Nonetheless,
respondent
had
fallen
short
of
what
is
Agreement,
which
they
did.
Two
of
the
conditions
imposed
were
expected
of
him
as
a
Judge
and
officer
of
the
court
among
whose
duties
interest
at
the
rate
of
twenty
per
cent
(20%)
per
month,
compounded
it
is
to
see
to
it
that
public
confidence
in
the
honor,
dignity,
integrity
monthly,
and
should
they
fail
to
pay
the
loan
and
its
interest
upon
and
independence
of
the
judiciary
is
not
eroded,
pursuant
to
Canons
3
maturity
on
7
January
1988
and
the
check
is
deposited
and
dishonored,
and
25
of
the
Canons
of
Judicial
Ethics-‐
would
naturally
be
an
appropriate
charge
for
violation
of
Batas
Pambansa
Blg.
22
may
be
apprehensive
that
respondent
might
exert
influence
to
favor
himself,
to
filed
at
Respondent's
option.
the
detriment
of
his
said
adversary.
4. They
defaulted,
and
only
P177,000
was
paid
and
the
check
they
issued
18. The
continued
prosecution
of
the
criminal
charge
for
violation
of
Batas
defaulted.
Pambansa
Blg.
22
against
Complainant
Efren,
despite
subsequent
5. Guzman
instituted
a
suit
for
collection
of
money,
judgment
was
knowledge
that
the
latter
was
not
the
drawer
of
the
check
but
his
rendered
ordering
Javiers
to
pay
P608,871.67
brother-‐in-‐law,
although
Efren
had
filled
out
the
check
himself,
again
6. Then
he
filed
2
criminal
complaints:
BP
22
and
estafa
(both
dismissed)
exhibits
reproachable
conduct.
Respondent
could
have
moved
for
the
7. He
also
filed
administrative
charges
against
Pedro
Javier
with
BIR
where
dismissal
of
the
case,
considering
his
professional
responsibility
not
to
he
was
employed
and
the
CSC
against
him
and
his
wife
encourage,
for
any
motive
or
interest,
any
suit
or
proceeding
8. Feeling
harassed,
Complainants
filed
this
administrative
charge
against
19. A
Judge's
official
conduct
should
be
free
from
the
appearance
of
Respondent
Judge
on
four
counts
of
"dishonorable
conduct”:
usurious
impropriety,
and
his
personal
behavior,
not
only
upon
the
bench
and
in
interest
on
the
debt;
filed
several
complaints,
making
false
and
the
performance
of
judicial
duties,
but
also
in
his
everyday
life,
should
fraudulent
claims;
harassment
for
filing
criminal
cases;
and
that
he
be
beyond
reproach
failed
to
reveal
the
true
facts
of
the
case
when
he
filed
the
admin
cases
20. So
exacting
are
the
standards
of
judicial
department
that
a
Judge
is
9. Respondent
denied
that
he
lent
any
money
to
the
Javiers
alleging
that
it
even
enjoined
from
making
investments
in
any
enterprise
that
is
likely
was
his
wife
who
had
asked
her
first
cousin,
Mrs.
Hedy
Laca,
to
make
to
be
involved
in
litigation.
available
the
amount
of
P200,000.00.
(who
was
the
real
lender)
21. "A
judge
shall
refrain
from
financial
and
business
dealings
that
tend
to
10. When
the
Javiers
failed
to
repay
the
loan,
they
were
compelled
to
pay
reflect
adversely
on
the
court's
impartiality,
interfere
with
the
proper
back
the
amount
to
Mrs.
Laca.
Respondent,
therefore,
became
the
performance
of
judicial
activities,
or
increase
involvement
with
lawyers
creditor
of
the
Javiers
"by
force
of
circumstances."
or
persons
likely
to
come
before
the
Court.
A
judge
should
so
manage
11. Respondent
also
stressed
that
the
rate
of
interest
of
twenty
per
cent
investments
and
other
financial
interests
as
to
minimize
the
number
of
(20%)
per
month,
compounded
monthly,
was
not
usurious
for
the
cases
giving
grounds
for
disqualification"
reason
that
said
rate
was
designed
more
as
a
penalty
in
order
to
force
22. All
told,
traces
of
animosity
and
harassment
on
the
part
of
Respondent
the
Javiers
to
pay
back
the
loan
as
soon
as
possible.
Judge
are
all
too
evident,
in
sharp
contrast
to
what
a
Judge
should
—
be
12. With
regard
to
the
administrative
charges,
which
he
had
filed
against
the
embodiment
of
what
is
judicious,
proper
and
fair
Complainant
Pedro,
Respondent
maintains
that
the
latter
was
not
really
23. Severely
censured
an
innocent
party
to
the
whole
transaction,
but
the
"prime
mover."
13. Investigating
justice
said
there
were
valid
grounds
for
the
first
3
charges
14. He
was
found
to
be
the
lender
because
of
the
Agreement,
and
that
the
check
was
named
after
him,
he
made
the
collections
and
the
charges
against
them
DAWA
V.
DE
ASA
her
chin
and
kissed
her.
Barreto
asked,
“what
are
you
doing?”
but
respondent
kissed
her
again,
tapped
her
shoulder
and
said
“Sigue
na,
nina.
Okay
na.”
-‐Armando
de
Asa,
presiding
judge
of
Branch
51
and
Acting
executive
Judge
of
the
Metropolitan
Trial
Court
of
Caloocan
was
charged
with
sexual
harassment
*OTHER
WITNESSES
SUPPORTED
THE
TESTIMONIES
OF
THE
COMPLAINANTS.
and/or
acts
of
lasciviousness
by
Dawa,
Jorgensen
and
Barreto.
Meanwhile,
Atty.
Buencamino,
Maria
Teresa
Carpio,
Ma.
Victoria
Soriano-‐Cruz,
Judge
Atty.
Mona
Lisa
Buencamino,
who
assisted
the
aforesaid
complainants
also
files
Santiago.
a
complaint
against
the
respondent
for
sexual
harassment
under
RA
7877
or
acts
of
lasciviousness,
grave
or
serious
misconduct,
and
for
violation
od
the
TESTIMONIES
OF
THE
WITNESSES
OF
THE
RESPONDENT-‐JUDGE
high
standard
of
morals
demanded
by
judicial
ethics.
Both
cases
were
*ARNIE
APOSTOL-‐
38
y/o
married,
sheriff
in
respondent’s
branch.
consolidated.
-‐He
declared
that
the
respondent
was
an
official
who
was
faithful
to
TESTIMONIES
OF
THE
COMPLAINANTS
AND
THEIR
WITNESSES:
his
job,
he
observed
office
hours
religiously,
helpful
to
his
personnel
and
was
*FLORIDE
DAWA-‐
24
y/o
single,
stenographic
reporter
very
approachable.
The
workers
were
free
to
enter
his
office
and
it
was
always
open
and
it
was
not
soundproof.
If
anything
improper
happened
inside,
it
could
-‐de
Asa
was
talking
with
a
man
in
the
backdoor
of
his
chamber
when
be
heard
outside.
she
saw
him.
She
nodded
to
the
respondent
out
of
respect
and
she
went
to
the
comfort
room.
When
she
emerged
from
the
same,
the
respondent,
who
was
-‐He
has
not
heard
of
the
respondent
being
guilty
of
any
improper
still
at
the
backdoor,
asked
her
if
the
toilet
was
clean.
She
said
it
was
dirty.
conduct.
The
respondent
also
was
an
obect
of
praise
in
his
work
even
as
a
Respondent
then
called
her
and
when
she
approached
him,
de
Asa
put
his
arm
lawyer
and
a
fiscal.
on
her
shoulder
and
led
her
to
his
chamber.
Ince
inside,
he
placed
his
arm
-‐
He
had
not
seen
the
respondent
do
anything
indelicate
to
Barreto,
around
her,
held
her
jaw
and
kissed
her
on
the
lips.
This
happened
twice.
Jorgensen,
and
Dawa.
He
allege
that
whenever
Barreto
came
to
Branch
51
to
*NORALIZ
JORGENSEN-‐
28y/o
married
to
a
policeman.
see
the
respondent,
she
would
greet
him
with
a
‘Hello
Judge,
I
am
sexy
now.’
Jorgensen,
on
the
other
hand,
was
always
smiling
whenever
she
goes
in
and
-‐
Her
duty
was
to
prepare
and
follow
up
payrolls
of
the
Metropolitan
out
of
the
respondent’s
office.
And
Apostol
stated
that
he
only
saw
Dawa
go
to
Trial
Judges.
Upon
the
approval
of
the
said
payrolls,
it
was
her
duty
to
receive
the
respondent’s
office
only
once
and
with
the
company
of
other
employees
of
cash
from
the
cashier
and
deliver
them
to
the
individual
judges.
She
allege
that
branch
52.
during
3
instances
where
she
had
gone
to
the
office
of
the
respondent
to
either
ask
for
his
signature
on
the
payroll
or
deliver
the
cash,
the
respondent
*LIZA
MORENO-‐
47y/o
married,
Court
stenographer
of
Branch
51.
approached
her
and
suddenly
kissed
her.
(1st
meeting-‐
kissed
her
on
the
cheek,
-‐during
the
5
years
she
had
been
under
the
respondent,
no
one
had
2nd-‐
kissed
her
and
licked
her
left
ear
saying
‘I
love
you’,
and
kissed
her
on
the
charged
him
administratively.
The
respondent
was
friendly
and
helpful.
HE
was
lips,
he
said
‘open
your
mouth’
hugged
and
kissed
her,
kissed
her
before
the
always
open
to
his
subordinates
and
that
the
office
is
not
sound
proof.
She
respondent
sign
the
payroll
and
invited
him
to
eat
at
Max
restaurant,
3rd-‐
declared
that
Barreto
used
to
come
to
Branch
51
to
cut
the
hair
of
certain
Roderick
Corral
was
inside
the
respondent’s
office
but
the
respondent
employees
including
the
respondent
while
Dawa
onlu
came
once
with
her
co-‐
dismissed
corral,
leaving
the
respondent
and
Jorgensen
alone
in
the
former’s
employees.
office.
When
they
were
alone,
respondent
held
her
jaw
and
kissed
her.)
*MARIO
MUNCAL-‐
47y/o,
single.
*FEMENINA
LAZARO-‐BARRETO-‐
30y/o,
married,
Court
stenographer
in
Branch
53
of
MTC
in
Caloocan.
-‐He
said
that
he
had
gone
to
the
respondent’s
office
to
see
him
about
a
job
in
the
MeTC.
When
he
entered
the
office,
Buencamino
was
there.
-‐
She
was
assigned
to
Branch
51
at
the
time
wherein
respondent
Respondent
recommended
Muncal
to
Buencamino.
However,
he
was
taken
dictated
an
‘Order’
in
open
court.
She
transcribed
her
stenographic
notes
and
aback
when
Buencamino
told
him
that
although
the
respondent
recommended
left
them
with
the
Branch
Clerk.
After
being
told
that
there
were
mistakes,
she
him,
she
will
still
be
her
superior.
typed
and
submitted
it
again.
She
brought
the
final
draft
to
the
respondent’s
office
for
his
signature.
After
signing
the
Order,
the
respondent
stood
up,
held
*DE
ASA-‐
the
charges
were
obviously
instigated
and
orchestrated.
Alleging
-‐It
is
highly
improbable
that
the
three
complainants
would
perjure
that
Buencamino
was
the
‘primemover
of
this
cabal’
and
that
there
were
other
themselves
only
to
accommodate
Atty.
Buencamino
who
may
have
had
some
people
behind
the
conspiracy
who
had
yet
to
be
uncovered.
The
complaints
real
or
imagined
resentment
against
the
respondent.
were
set
up,
hatches
and
designed
to
destabilize
and
destroy
his
good
image.
-‐Respondent’s
denials
cannot
overcome
the
probative
value
of
the
positive
-‐He
allege
that
the
Office
of
Clerk
of
Court
was
not
an
independent
body.
Also,
assertions
of
their
witnesses.
monthly
meetings
with
the
clerk
of
Court
were
scheduled,
to
address
important
concerns
and
problems
of
their
offices.
Buencamino
was
apprised
-‐All
his
witnesses
could
attest
to
was
that
they
had
nit
seen
respondent
and
directed
to
closely
monitor
problems
regarding
reports
of
immoral
acts
do
anything
obscene
to
the
complainants
nor
others.
The
fact
that
they
did
not
and
loose
moral
values.
see
such
lewd
acts
is
not
proof
that
they
did
not
occur
especially
so
because
they
were
all
done
in
the
privacy
of
respondent’s
chambers.
-‐An
installation
of
an
office
for
the
executive
judge
was
conceived
and
such
problem
was
apparently
disliked.
-‐de
Asa
denied
the
allegations
of
Dawa
against
him.
He
stated
that
he
• Respondent
dismissed
from
the
service
for
gross
misconduct
and
had
come
to
work
between
9:30-‐10:00
am,
neither
Apostol
nor
Fernandez
met
immorality,
with
forfeiture
of
all
retirement
benefits
and
with
him
and
he
found
that
his
backdoor
was
locked
and
could
not
be
opened.
He
prejudice
to
reemployment
in
any
branch
of
the
government
and
said
he
did
not
see
Dawa
near
the
comfort
room
that
morning.
Also,
a
GOCCs.
verfification
of
the
site
would
show
that
the
barckdoor
of
the
respondent’s
• The
people’s
confidence
in
the
judicial
system
is
founded
not
only
on
office
leads
to
a
wide
public
hallway
where
people
come
and
go.
Hence,
the
the
magnitude
of
legal
knowledge
and
the
diligence
of
the
members
of
circumstances
of
persons,
time
and
place
cannot
fit
under
such
frameset.
the
bench,
but
also
on
the
highest
standard
of
integrity
and
moral
uprightness
they
are
expected
to
possess.
-‐de
Asa
alleged
that
Jorgensen
was
reportedly
separated
from
her
• A
judge
must
not
only
appear
to
be
a
‘good
judge’
but
also
a
‘good
husband
and
he
also
questioned
her
credibility
because
she
was
said
to
have
person’.
unchaste
relationship
with
her
co-‐employee.
Also,
the
respondent
allege
that
id
• CANON
1
CJC-‐
A
jusge
should
uphold
the
integrity
and
independence
one
was
a
victim
of
such
sexual
harassment
or
lascivious
conduct,
why
would
of
the
Judiciary.
she
return
for
the
third
time
and
allow
herself
suffer
the
same
fate.
It
was
also
• Rule
1.01-‐
a
judge
should
be
the
embodiment
of
competence,
integrity
allege
that
such
duty
of
delivering
of
cash
and
asking
judges
to
sign
payrolls
and
independence.
was
not
an
exclusive
affair
of
Jorgensen.
• Canon
2-‐
A
judge
should
avoid
impropriety
and
the
appearance
of
impropriety
in
all
activities.
-‐Respondent
also
allege
that
Lazaro’s
complaint
appears
to
be
a
mere
patch-‐up
(Lazaro,
another
alleged
victim
of
the
respondent).
He
alleged
that
he
developed
the
attitude
of
transparency
in
his
dealings
with
the
public
and
his
personnel.
ISSUE:
WON
de
Asa
should
be
disciplined.
HELD:
Yes.
-‐There
is
sufficient
evidence
to
create
a
moral
certainty
that
respondent
committed
acts
he
is
charged
with.
-‐Respondent
has
not
proven
any
vicious
motive
for
complainants
to
invent
their
stories.
BALAYON
v.
OCAMPO
respondent
issued
an
arrest
warrant
against
the
latter
who
was
later
imprisoned
but
was
released
after
posting
bail.
Atty.
Balayon
charges
atty.
Ocampo
of
MTC
Tupi,
south
Cotabato
with
gross
⁃ It
was
only
after
his
release
that
Tony
Joven
engaged
the
legal
services
of
the
ignorance
of
the
law
and
grave
misconduct.
This
charge
is
grounded
on
eight
complainant.
complaints:
⁃ Complainant
filed
an
Urgent
motion
to
Quash
Search
Warrant
and
Warrant
of
Arrest
on
the
ground
that
the
applicant
and
his
witness
have
no
FIRST
COMPLAINT
personal
knowledge
of
the
facts
and
the
circumstances
which
formed
⁃ Gross
ignorance
of
the
law
and
grave
misconduct.
the
basis
of
such
issuances.
⁃ Ronilo
Hijastro
sought
the
help
of
respondent
judge
for
protection
while
his
⁃ Respondent
issued
a
resolution
annulling
search
warrant
but
not
the
arrest
dispute
with
one
Romeo
Panes
(complainant’s
client),
who
was
warrant.
allegedly
withholding
some
sacks
of
Copra
from
Ronilo
was
pending.
⁃ Respondent
was
charged
for
alleged
illegal
issuance
of
a
search
warrant
and
Romeo
was
not
interested
in
the
service
of
a
lawyer.
warrant
of
arrest
⁃ The
judge
wrote
one
Lt.
Sulam
a
letter
for
the
latter
and
his
police
station
to
⁃ Respondent
contends
that
the
said
resolution
was
accomplished
not
solely
lend
assistance
to
Ronilo.
on
the
basis
of
the
said
motion
of
the
complainant…
but
on
the
⁃ Complainant
contends
that
what
respondent
did
amounts
to
private
practice
inherent
power
of
the
court
to
amend
its
orders
and
processes
to
which
is
in
conflict
with
his
position
as
a
municipal
judge.
He
further
conform
to
law
and
justice.
Complainant’s
allegation
is
therefore
self
accuses
the
respondent
of
using
his
influence
to
pressure
the
Police
serving
assertions
on
his
personal
view.
Station
Commander
which
resulted
to
the
sale
of
sacks
of
Copra
and
⁃ after
such
motion,
he
inhibited
himself
from
continuing
with
the
further
the
respondent
was
given
shares
of
proceeds
thereof.
proceedings
of
this
case
in
the
exercise
of
sound
discretion.
⁃ Respondent
admits
having
written
the
letter
but
denies
the
accusation
of
the
-‐Every
court
has
the
power
and
indeed
the
duty
to
review
and
amend
or
complainant
of
ulterior
motive
on
his
part.
He
does
not
know
Ronilo
reverse
its
findings
and
conclusions
when
its
attention
is
timely
called
to
any
and
he
advised
him
to
see
a
counsel
who
can
lend
him
some
legal
error
or
defect
therein.
assistance,
but
Ronilo
said
he
only
needed
police
assistance.
He
-‐In
the
case
at
bar,
the
motion
to
quash
the
search
warrant
and
warrant
of
contends
that
he
did
it
in
full
and
absolute
good
faith.
arrest
filed
by
complainant
was
favorably
considered
by
respondent
Judge
⁃ NOT
GUILTY
OF
GRAVE
MISCONDUCT.
which
resulted
in
the
quashal
of
the
search
warrant.
The
non-‐quashal
of
the
⁃ for
serious
misconduct
to
exist,
there
must
be
reliable
evidence
showing
that
warrant
of
arrest
was
due
to
the
fact
that
complainant's
client
has
already
the
judicial
acts
complained
of
were
corrupt
or
inspired
by
an
intention
posted
bail.
to
violate
the
law,
or
were
in
persistent
disregard
of
all
well-‐known
legal
rules.
-‐Absent
any
showing
that
respondent
judge
acted
with
malice
or
bad
faith
in
⁃ No
showing
with
the
intention
to
violate
the
law
the
issuance
of
the
subject
warrants,
the
presumption
is
that
official
duty
has
⁃ mere
suspicion
without
proof
cannot
be
a
basis
for
conviction
been
regularly
performed
by
him.
THIRD
COMPLAINT
RULING:
Respondent
is
advised
to
co
conduct
himself
accordingly.
-‐
A
criminal
complaint
for
theft
was
filed
by
Lt.
Sulam
on
the
basis
of
sworn
SECOND
COMPLAINT
statements
of
two
prosecution
witnesses.
-‐Although
respondent
was
satisfied
that
there
existed
probable
cause,
he
still
conducted
a
summary
clarificatory
examination
of
Romulo
Severino,
a
jeepney
⁃ Criminal
complaint
for
qualified
theft
was
filed
by
lt.
Sultam
before
the
driver
and
one
of
the
accuse,
Jose
Catapang.
Thereafter,
he
issued
an
arrest
respondent
Judge’s
sala.
warrant
against
Jose
Catapang
and
Norberto
Solis.
⁃ On
the
same
date,
Lt.
Sulam
filed
an
application
of
search
warrant.
Respondent
issued
the
search
warrant.
-‐
Catapang
was
arrested
but
Norberto
Solis
was
at
large.
⁃ The
implementation
of
the
search
warrant
resulted
in
the
seizure
of
two
piglets
found
at
tony’s
(accessory
after
the
fact)
back
yard.
Thereafter
-‐
the
complainant
was
assigned
as
counsel
de
oficio
of
Catapang.
-‐the
accused
posted
bail
and
was
released.
of
almost
daily
appearances
in
the
courts
of
South
Cotabato
and
GenSan,
not
to
mention
his
occasional
trips
to
manila.
The
herein
complainant
on
the
other
-‐THe
complainant
filed
an
urgent
motion
to
dismiss
the
case
on
the
ground
that
hand
although
residing
at
tupi,
holds
his
office
at
South
Cotabato
and
goes
the
arrest
of
hid
client
was
unlawful.
It
was
granted.However,
upon
the
MR
of
a
home
late
in
the
afternoon
or
evening.
Therefore
they
are
not
in
a
position
to
private
prosecutor,
respondent
judge
reconsidered
his
order
of
dismissal
render
regular
legal
services
that
may
be
asked
of
them
in
tupi.
-‐
Complainant
charges
respondent
Judge
with
gross
ignorance
of
the
law
in
-‐The
1989
Code
of
Judicial
Conduct
not
only
enjoins
judges
to
regulate
their
ordering
the
arrest
of
accused
Jose
Catapang
on
mere
suspicion,
hence,
extra-‐judicial
activities
in
order
to
minimize
the
risk
of
conflict
with
their
judicial
resulting
in
the
illegal
arrest
and
arbitrary
detention
of
the
accused
because
the
duties,
but
also
prohibits
them
from
engaging
in
the
private
practice
of
law.
sworn
statements
of
the
two
prosecution
witnesses
were
not
based
on
their
-‐
personal
knowledge
of
facts
and
circumstances.
municipal
judges
may
not
engage
in
notarial
work
except
as
notaries
public
ex-‐
officio.
As
notaries
public
ex-‐officio,
they
may
engage
only
in
the
notarization
-‐THere
is
no
showing
that
malice
or
bad
faith
attended
the
issuance
of
the
of
documents
connected
with
the
exercise
of
their
official
functions.
warrant
of
arrest.
-‐However,
taking
judicial
notice
of
the
fact
that
there
are
still
municipalities
which
have
neither
lawyers
nor
notaries
public,
the
Supreme
Court
ruled
that
MTC
and
MCTC
judges
assigned
to
municipalities
or
circuits
with
no
lawyers
or
FOURTH
COMPLAINT
notaries
public
may,
in
their
capacity
as
notaries
public
ex-‐officio,
perform
any
-‐complaint
states
that
respondent
Judge,
with
gross
ignorance
of
the
law,
act
within
the
competency
of
a
regular
notary
public,
provided
that:
(1)
all
allowed
a
witness
to
testify
during
the
trial
without
previously
submitting
his
notarial
fees
charged
be
for
the
account
of
the
Government
and
turned-‐over
to
affidavit
as
required
under
Section
14
of
the
Rules
on
Summary
Procedure
the
municipal
treasurer
and
(2)
certification
be
made
in
the
notarized
documents
attesting
to
the
lack
of
any
lawyer
or
notary
public
in
such
-‐in
Orino
v.
Judge
Gervasio,
the
SC
held
that
even
if
a
witness
has
not
properly
municipality
or
circuit.
submitted
his/her
affidavit,
he
may
be
calles
to
testify
in
conncection
with
a
specific
factual
matter
relevant
to
the
issue.
-‐It
is
only
when
there
are
no
lawyers
or
notaries
public
that
the
exception
applies.
-‐the
respondent
may
not
therefore
be
guilty
of
ignorance
of
the
law
-‐RESPONDENT
TO
PAY
FINE
OF
P10000
FIFTH
COMPLAINT
SIXTH
COMPLAINT
-‐complaint
alleges
that
respondent
Judge
continuously
notarized
documents
not
connected
with
the
exercise
of
his
official
functions
and
thus
earning
extra
Criminal
complaint
for
grave
threats
was
filed
with
the
respondent
judge’s
sala.
money
out
of
the
same,
even
if
there
were
two
duly
commissioned
notaries
-‐
after
the
submission
of
the
affidavits
and
counter-‐affidavits,
the
respondent
public
in
the
municipality
rendered
a
decision
convicting
the
accused
of
light
threats.
On
appeal
to
the
-‐Respondent
Judge
denies
the
alleged
continuous
notarization.
RTC,
the
decision
of
the
respondent
was
reversed,
acquitting
the
accused
on
reasonable
doubt.
-‐He
admits
that
he
had
notarized
six
documents
in
1990
and
three
documents
in
1991.
The
aforesaid
documents
were
notarized
by
respondent
by
reason
of
-‐Complainant
contends
that
with
the
acquittal
of
his
client
in
the
grave
threats
the
unavailability
of
notaries
public
and
the
urgent
need
by
the
parties
therein.
case,
respondent
Judge
had
shown
his
utter
lack
of
correct
appreciation
of
The
fees
thereon
were
paid
to
the
Government
as
certified
to
by
the
Clerk
of
evidence.
It
is
also
a
manifestation
of
respondent
Judge's
habit
of
deciding
Court.
cases
on
his
own
personal
view
and
not
based
on
the
evidence
adduced.
-‐Judge
admits
that
there
are
2
lawyers
and
notaries
public
in
his
station,
Atty.
-‐There
is
no
showing
that
respondent
Judge
decided
the
case
in
bad
faith.
It
will
Solilapsi
and
the
herein
complainant.
Atty.
Solilapsi
is
rarely
present
by
reason
be
noted
that
complainant's
client
was
acquitted
on
reasonable
doubt.
Hence,
there
was
evidence
indicating
that
he
committed
the
crime
but
that
the
evidence
presented
by
the
prosecution
was
not
enough
to
convict
complainant's
client
beyond
reasonable
doubt.
-‐Criminal
complaint
for
theft
was
filed
charging
the
accused
for
stealing
coconut
trees.
-‐Complainant
(defense
counsel)
filed
a
demurrer
alleging
that
private
SEVENTH
COMPLAINT
complainant
had
no
legal
personality
to
sue
because
he
was
no
longer
the
owner
of
the
land
where
the
coconut
trees
were
stolen.
-‐A
letter
of
complaint
for
theft
was
filed
by
Rodolfo
Lizada
against
Feliciano
Angeles
et
al.
This
was
based
on
alleged
illegal
taking
by
the
accused
of
the
-‐Demurrer
was
denied.
Complainant
filed
an
urgent
motion
for
galvanized
iron
roofing
sheets
of
a
government
warehouse.
reconsideration.
Denied.
-‐respondent
judge
conducted
an
oculat
inspection.
-‐Complainant
filed
a
special
action
for
certiorari
with
the
RTC
contending
that
respondent
judge
committed
grave
abuse
of
discretion
(GADALEJ)
in
denying
-‐Respondent
issued
a
resolution
dismissing
the
case
and
remanded
the
records
complainant’s
demurrer
to
evidence.
thereiof
to
the
Office
of
the
Provincial
Prosecutor
of
Marbel,
South
Cotabato.
-‐Complainant
charges
the
respondent
with
gross
ignorance
of
the
law
an/or
The
Respondent
Ruled:
The
court
does
not
fins
a
prima
facie
case
for
theft.
grave
misconduct
in
denying
his
demurrer
to
the
evidence.
-‐Respondent
judge
is
being
charged
with
gross
ignorance
of
the
law
and
grave
-‐THe
charge
has
no
factual
basis.
Not
every
error
of
judgment
can
be
abuse
of
discretion
attributable
to
a
judge's
ignorance
of
the
law.
Until
the
alleged
error
shall
have
been
properly
raised
on
appeal
and
resolved
by
the
proper
appellate
court,
it
is
-‐Complainant
alleges
that
respondent
Judge
abused
his
discretion
in
dismissing
generally
premature
to
say
that
the
error
was
due
to
the
Judge's
ignorance
of
the
case
for
theft
and
had
no
jurisdiction
in
ruling
that
no
malicious
mischief
the
law.
was
committed
considering
that
the
case
at
bar
was
for
theft
and
that
another
one
for
malicious
mischief
was
pending
in
his
sala.
-‐Judicial
action
on
a
motion
to
dismiss
or
demurrer
to
evidence
is
left
to
the
exercise
of
sound
judicial
discretion.
Unless
there
is
a
grave
abuse
thereof,
-‐Complainant
further
accuses
respondent
Judge
of
having
dismissed
the
case
amounting
to
lack
of
jurisdiction,
the
tria
on
the
ground
that
one
of
the
accused,
Normita
Cornejo,
is
the
daughter-‐in-‐law
of
respondent
Judge's
good
friend
-‐report
shows
that
all
the
elements
of
theft
are
present
in
the
case.
Contrary
to
respondent
Judge's
basis
for
dismissal,
the
element
of
intent
to
gain
was
present
therein.
The
wife
of
the
accused
admitted
having
used
five
galvanized
iron
sheets
for
their
house.
-‐Although
a
judge
may
not
always
be
subjected
to
disciplinary
action
for
an
error
of
judgment
or
lack
of
awareness
of
the
appropriate
legal
rules,
that
does
not
mean
that
he
should
not
exercise
due
care
in
performing
his
adjudicatory
prerogatives.
He
should
study
the
principles
of
law
and
be
diligent
in
endeavoring
to
ascertain
the
facts
-‐respondent
judge
admonished
to
exercise
more
prudence
and
circumspection
in
the
performance
of
his
duties
as
a
municipal
judge.
EIGHTH
COMPLAINT
ALFONSO
V
JUANSON
HELD:
NO.
1. Complainant
a
doctor
of
medicine
by
profession
filed
with
this
court
a
• It
must
be
stressed
that
the
respondent
is
not
charged
with
immorality
sworn
complaint
charging
the
respondent
with
immorality
and
or
misconduct
committed
before
he
was
appointed
to
the
judiciary.
As
violation
of
the
Code
of
Judicial
Ethics.
He
accuses
the
respondent
of
to
the
post-‐appointment
period,
we
find
the
evidence
for
the
maintaining
illicit
sexual
relations
with
his
wife
Sol
Alfonso.
complainant
insufficient
to
prove
that
the
respondent
and
Sol
2. Complainant
received
a
phone
call
from
the
wife
of
the
respondent,
continued
their
extramarital
affair.
In
fact,
no
love
notes
written
by
Mrs.
Juanson
who
informed
him
that
Sol
and
respondent
judge
have
her
after
Nov.
1990
was
presented
during
trial
that
is
dated
after
the
been
carrying
on
an
affair
and
that
she
has
in
her
possession
the
love
appointment.
Sol’s
admission
that
she
had
carnal
knowledge
of
the
letters
of
Sol
which
she
wants
to
show
to
the
complainant.
When
he
respondent
on
five
occasions
made
no
reference
to
specific
dates
and
told
this
to
Sol,
she
denied
it.
(Complainant
recognized
the
handwriting
is
hearsay.
in
the
letters
as
his
wife’s
and
the
GAIN
memo
pad
used
because
it
is
a
• There
no
direct
and
competent
evidence
against
the
respondent
that
prescription
pas
of
the
complainant
to
his
patients.)
he
had
illicit
sex
with
Sol.
It
cannot
be
safely
presumed
that
the
3. Sol
and
complainant
left
for
the
USA.
However,
Sol
returned
ahead
of
respondent
committed
any
of
the
sexual
indiscretions
after
he
became
complainant.
While
they
were
in
the
US,
Mrs.
Juanson
called
up
father
a
judge.
Respondent
is
not
charged
for
immorality
committed
before
of
complainant
and
divulged
to
the
latter
the
illicit
affair
between
his
appointment.Proof
of
prior
immoral
conduct
cannot
be
a
basis
for
respondent
judge
and
Sol.
The
father
of
complainant
engaged
the
his
administrative
discipline
in
this
case.
The
respondent
judge
may
services
of
a
private
investigator
who
discovered
that
Sol,
after
arrival
have
undergone
moral
reformation
after
his
appointment.
from
USA
met
with
respondent
judge
at
an
apartment
in
Mandaluyong
• The
imputation
of
the
sexual
acts
upon
the
incumbent
must
be
proven
and
stayed
there
for
3
hours.
(Investigation
of
the
CA,
according
to
the
by
substantial
evidence,
which
is
the
quantum
of
proof
required
in
private
investigator:
Sol
and
the
judhge
also
went
to
robinson’s
galleria
admin
cases.
This
the
complainant
failed
to
do.
after,
they
went
to
the
supermarket
and
they
were
seen
holding
• However,
considering
their
prior
relationship,
the
respondent
and
Sol’s
hands)
meetings
could
reasonably
incite
suspicion
of
either
its
continuance
or
4. Complainant
upon
knowing
this,
complainant
confronted
Sol.
At
first
revival
of
their
relationship.
Judge
should
be
held
liable
for
becoming
she
denied
it
but
later,
however,
admitted
having
an
illicit
sexual
affair
indiscreet.
Such
indiscretions
indubitably
cast
upon
his
conduct
an
with
the
judge.
(sol
also
admitted
that
when
she
went
to
Hong
Kong
appearance
of
impropriety.
He
violated
Canons
3 1
and
2 2
requiring
on
Dec.
1989,
she
was
with
the
respondent
judge.)
judge’s
official
conduct
to
be
free
from
appearance
of
impropriety.
The
5. Respondent
judge
denied
the
allegations
and
claimed
that
they
have
ethical
principles
and
sense
of
propriety
of
a
judge
are
essential
to
the
been
communicating
with
each
other
casually
and
innocently
and
not
preservation
of
the
faith
of
the
people
in
the
judiciary.
as
lovers.
He
alleges
that
he
came
to
know
of
Sol
when
Sol
engaged
• Respondent’s
diseases-‐
no
expert
testimony
was
presented
to
prove
his
professional
services
prior
to
appointment
to
the
office
of
RTC
the
stage,
extent
or
degree
of
seriousness
of
the
diseases
and
their
judge
and
in
June
1992,
Sol
asked
for
his
advice
regarding
the
letter
effects
on
his
capacity
to
copulate.
the
former
received
from
the
Security
Bank
requiring
her
to
explain
• Immorality3,
for
which
the
respondent
is
charged,
is
not
bases
alone
on
why
she
should
not
be
declared
absent
without
leave
for
leaving
her
illicit
sexual
intercourse.
work
without
her
approved
leave
of
absence.
• Sentence
to
fine
of
P2,000.
• He
is
already
56
years
old.
• He
also
denies
having
gone
to
Hong
Kong.
• He
further
suggests
that
it
was
impossible
for
him
to
have
sexual
intercourse
with
Sol
because
he
was
suffering
from
two
1
debilitating
diseases,
diabetes
mellitus
(he
was
taking
insulin)
and
A
judge’s
official
conduct
should
be
free
from
the
appearance
of
impropriety,
and
his
personal
behavior,
not
only
upon
the
bench
and
in
the
performance
of
judicial
duties,
but
also
in
his
everyday
life,
prostatitis—which
have
seriously
affected
his
sexual
potency.
should
be
beyond
reproach.
2
A
judge
should
avoid
impropriety
and
the
appearance
of
impropriety
in
all
activities.
3
Immorality
has
not
been
confined
to
sexual
matters,
but
includes
conduct
inconsistent
with
rectitude,
ISSUE:
Is
the
judge
guilty
of
the
charge
of
immorality?
or
indicative
of
corruption,
indecency,
depravity,
dissoluteness;
or
is
willful,
flagrant,
or
shameless
conduct
showing
moral
indifference
to
opinions
of
respectable
members
of
the
community
and
as
an
inconsiderate
attitude
toward
good
order
and
public
welfare.
CO
v.
CALIMAG
at
bar,
there
is
no
dispute
that
the
complainant
was
given
opportunity
to
be
heard.
1. In
June
23,
1998,
Respondent
Judge
Calimag
was
assigned
as
acting
• With
respect
to
the
charge
of
extortion,
complainant’s
allegation
was
presiding
judge
of
the
RTC
of
Echague
Isabela
in
addition
to
his
regular
only
supported
by
Norma
Cariño’s
affidavit
to
the
effect
that
she
duties.
However,
later
that
year,
Judge
Bonifacio
Ong
took
over
as
the
delivered
an
envelope
containing
money
to
respondent
but
the
same
regular
judge
of
the
Echague
Court.
was
returned.
2. On
Dec.
2,
1998,
Eva
Co
filed
a
complaint
for
legal
separation
against
o There
is
no
proof
that
said
envelope
was
even
handled
by
the
complainant,
Jaime
Co.
She
also
prayed
the
a
TRO
be
issued.
respondent
complainant
not
having
subjected
to
fingerprint
Despite
Judge
Ong’s
having
already
assumed
the
office,
Calimag
still
analysis
by
experts.
The
court
is
disinclined
to
believe
Norma
took
cognizance
over
the
case.
because
she
is
an
employee
of
the
complainant
and
that
she
3. Complainant
filed
a
motion
to
suspend
the
hearing
and
an
objection
to
was
also
earlier
removed
from
employment
by
Eva
Co.
These
the
TRO/injunction
and
Administration.
Eva
Co,
on
the
other
hand,
circumstances
render
suspect
the
veracity
of
the
narrative.
filed
a
supplemental
motion
for
the
issuance
of
a
preliminary
o Castaños
v.
Escaño-‐
Evidence
other
than
the
doubtful
and
injunction.
questionable
verbal
testimony
of
a
lone
witness
should
be
4. Complainant
alleges
that
respondent
called
him
to
tell
that
he
would
adduced.
Entrapment
should
have
been
pursued.
Evidence
of
not
issue
an
injunction
in
exchange
for
some
money
to
be
purportedly
a
reasonable
report
to
police
authorities
should
been
used
for
respondent’s
confinement
in
the
hospital.
presented.
Record
of
where
the
bribe
money
came
from,
its
5. The
next
day,
complainant
gave
an
envelope
continaining
P10,000
anf
specific
denominations
and
the
manner
respondent
accepted
gave
it
to
Norma
Cariño,
respondent’s
employee.
However,
it
was
and
disposed
of
it
should
have
been
clearly
shown.
returned
because
the
amount
therein
was
not
the
amount
agreed
Complainant
has
failed
to
comply
with
any
of
the
above
upon
by
the
complainant
and
the
respondent.
Hence,
respondent
requirements,
thereby
constraining
this
Court
to
give
but
issued
a
writ
of
temporary
injunction
and
immediately
furnished
the
scant
consideration
to
his
charge
of
extortion
copy
of
the
same
after
signing
it.
• In
the
absence
of
proof,
the
fact
that
respondent
believed
the
6. Complainant
charges
the
respondent
of
serious
misconduct
for
the
allegations
of
complainant’s
wife
in
the
legal
separation
case,
enough
latter’s
alleged
lack
of
authority
to
take
cognizance
of
the
legal
to
issue
a
temporary
restraining
order,
is
hardly
ground
for
subjecting
separation
case
and
for
the
alleged
extortion
attempt.
respondent
to
disciplinary
action.
ISSUE:
WON
respondent
is
guilty
of
serious
misconduct.
• The
Court,
however,
found
sufficient
ground
to
support
the
charge
of
inefficiency
filed
against
the
respondent,
for
his
failure
to
observe
HELD:
YES.
proper
Court
procedure
in
the
issuance
of
order
of
injunction.
• On
the
issue
of
lack
of
Jurisdiction
of
the
respondent
judge
to
take
Respondent’s
act
of
personally
furnishing
a
party
copies
of
orders
cognizance
of
the
legal
separation
case,
it
must
be
pointed
out
that
issued,
without
the
same
passing
through
the
court
docket,
is
highly
Judge
Ong
did
not
hear
and/or
try
cases
from
November
9
to
irregular,
giving
rise
to
the
suspicion
that
the
judge
is
partial
to
one
of
December
1998
because
he
was
still
undergoing
orientation
and
the
parties
in
the
case
pending
before
him.
immersion
during
the
said
period.
The
respondent
still
had
the
• Canon
2
of
the
Code
of
Judicial
Conduct
enjoins
judges
to
avoid
not
authority
to
take
cognizance
of
the
old
and
newly
filed
cases
in
the
just
impropriety
in
their
conduct
but
even
the
mere
appearance
of
Echague
court
during
that
period,
notwithstanding
the
appointment
of
impropriety.
Respondent’s
act
of
immediately
furnishing
complainant’s
a
new
judge
to
said
sala.
wife
a
copy
of
the
injunction
order
hardly
qualifies
with
the
above
• Complainant
alleged
that
he
was
denied
due
process
when
the
standard.
respondent
judge,
instead
of
conducting
a
hearing,
required
them
to
submit
an
affidavit/counteraffidavit.
The
requirement
that
all
petitions
for
preliminary
injunction
must
undergo
a
trial-‐type
hearing
is
not
in
all
instances
essential
to
due
process.
Due
process
means
giving
every
contending
party
the
opportunity
to
be
heard
and
the
court
to
consider
every
piece
of
evidence
presented
in
their
favor.
In
the
case
RE:
Badoy
Jr.
study
the
Pre-‐trial
Order.
Notwithstanding
the
objection,
Justice
Badoy
terminated
the
pre-‐trial
and
set
the
trial
proper
on
October
1,
3
and
4,
1. Haled
in
these
two
consolidated
administrative
cases,
A.M.
No.
01-‐12-‐ 2001
and
thereafter,
every
Monday,
Wednesday
and
Thursday
of
the
01-‐SC
and
A.M
No.
SB-‐02-‐10-‐J,
are
Sandiganbayan
Justices
Anacleto
D.
week,
all
at
1:00
o’clock
in
the
afternoon.
Badoy,
Jr.
(Ret.)
and
Teresita
Leonardo-‐De
Castro.
e. On
October
1,
2001,
the
defense
lawyers
did
not
2. The
facts
of
A.M.
No.
01-‐12-‐01-‐SC.
appear.
Determined
to
proceed
with
the
trial,
As
a
last
recourse,
a. Justice
Badoy
went
to
GMA
Broadcast
station,
riding
an
Justice
Badoy
appointed
lawyers
from
the
Public
Attorneys
Office
ambulance
for
a
live
interview
on
the
news
program
saksi,
to
(PAO)
as
counsel
de
officio
for
the
Estradas.
announce
the
loss
of
a
resolution
in
connection
with
the
f. Feeling
aggrieved,
former
President
Estrada,
“Jinggoy”
Estrada
plunder
case
of
former
President
Erap
Estrada.
and
all
their
counsel
of
record
in
Criminal
Case
No.
26558
filed
the
b. Media
sarcastically
criticizes
such
event
which
led
the
Court
to
instant
administrative
complaint
charging
Justices
Badoy
and
De
Castro
direct
Judge
Badoy
to
show
cause
why
he
should
not
be
with:
admonished.
i. dishonesty
and
misrepresentation
for
incorporating
c. Judge
Badoy
allege
that
he
could
not
find
the
resolution
in
the
Pre-‐trial
Order
a
statement
that
“the
defense
ordering
former
Pres.
Estrada
be
detained
at
Fort
Sto.
admitted
Plaintiff’s
Exhibit
A
up
to
Exhibit
C-‐45
and
its
Domingo.
He
decided
to
go
to
GMA
7
and
report
its
loss
for
submarkings
as
to
its
existence”
notwithstanding
the
the
public
to
know
that
he
is
honest
because
someone
might
fact
that
they
did
not
admit
the
same;
claim
that
he
sold
such
for
a
fee.
In
going
there,
he
chose
to
ii. oppression
and
gross
misconduct
for
“throwing”
Atty.
use
an
ambulance
because
he
felt
very
sick
and
cold
and
he
Saguisag
out
of
the
courtroom;
intends
to
proceed
to
a
hospital
after
the
interview.
iii. violation
of
Supreme
Court
rules,
directives
and
3. The
facts
of
A.M
No.
SB-‐02-‐10-‐J
circulars
for
setting
the
hearing
of
the
plunder
case
a. Subsequent
to
the
descent
of
former
President
Estrada
from
three
times
a
week,
at
one
o’clock
in
the
afternoon,
power,
the
Office
of
the
Ombudsman
filed
several
criminal
without
prior
consultation
with
the
defense
counsel;
cases
against
him,
his
family,
and
friends.
One
of
them
is
iv. denial
of
the
accused’s
right
to
counsel
for
Criminal
Case
No.
26558
wherein
he,
his
son
Jose
“Jinggoy”
appointing
PAO
lawyers
as
counsel
de
officio
of
the
Atty.
Edward
Serapio
stand
accused
for
violation
of
Republic
Estradas
during
the
hearing
of
October
1,
2001;
and
Act
No.
7080,
the
Anti-‐Plunder
Law.
v. penchant
for
late
rulings
b. After
the
termination
of
a
series
of
pre-‐trial
conference
ISSUE:
WON
Judge
Badoy
should
be
disciplined.
between
the
parties,
the
Sandiganbayan
furnished
them
and
HELD:
their
counsel
with
a
copy
of
the
Pre-‐trial
Order
for
their
First
case
signatures.
The
defense
panel
composed
of
Atty.
Rene
A.V.
• Canon
2
of
the
Code
of
Judicial
Conduct
provides
that
“a
judge
should
Saguisag,
Justice
Serafin
R.
Cuevas,
Attys.
Jose
B.
Flaminiano,
avoid
impropriety
and
the
appearance
of
impropriety
in
all
Felix
D.
Carao,
Jr.,
Cleofe
V.
Verzola,
and
Delia
H.
Hermoso,
activities.”
He
should
so
behave
at
all
times
as
to
promote
public
refused
to
sign
it.
confidence
in
the
integrity
of
the
Judiciary
c. In
the
course
of
an
argument
between
Sandiganbayan
Justice
• Concomitant
with
this
is
the
express
mandate
of
the
Canons
of
Judicial
De
Castro
and
Justice
Cuevas,
Atty.
Saguisag
intervened.
In
Ethics
that
“justice
should
not
be
bounded
by
the
individual
the
process,
he
argued
simultaneously
with
Justice
idiosyncrasies
of
those
who
administer
it.”
A
judge
should
adopt
the
Cuevas.
Despite
Justice
De
Castro’s
request
to
wait
for
his
usual
and
expected
method
of
doing
justice,
and
not
seek
to
be
turn,
Atty.
Saguisag
persisted,
prompting
her
to
bang
the
gavel
spectacular
or
sensational
in
the
conduct
of
his
court.
twice
and
order
him
to
stop
arguingThis
led
Justice
Badoy
to
• Justice
Badoy
tramples
upon
the
foregoing
judicial
norms.
We
see
no
order
four
Sheriffs
to
take
Atty.
Saguisag
out
of
the
reason
why
he
should
rush
to
the
GMA-‐7
Broadcast
Station
just
to
courtroom.
inform
the
public
about
the
loss
of
a
Resolution.
This
is
an
internal
d. Thereafter,
Justice
De
Castro
ruled
in
open
court
that
the
office
incident
which
should
not
be
reported
to
the
whole
nation.
Not
assailed
portion
of
the
Pre-‐trial
Order
could
be
deleted.
However,
Atty.
only
did
his
conduct
give
an
image
that
he
could
not
manage
his
work
Flaminiano
objected,
insisting
that
the
defense
needs
more
time
to
effectively,
but
it
also
indicated
that
he
had
corrupt
• The
“consultations”
referred
to
in
the
foregoing
provisions
does
not
personnel.
Moreover,
it
dragged
innocent
parties
as
possible
necessarily
mean
that
the
court
has
to
secure
first
from
the
culprits.
prosecution
and
defense
their
approval
before
it
can
set
the
date
of
• The
fact
that
Justice
Badoy,
just
three
(3)
weeks
prior
to
the
hearing.
“ambulance
incident,”
was
strictly
ordered
by
Chief
Justice
Hilario
G.
• Our
minds
cannot
sit
easy
with
regard
to
the
charge
of
violation
of
the
Davide,
Jr.,
“to
cease
and
desist
from
holding
press
conferences,
issuing
accuseds’
right
to
counsel.
A
PAO
lawyer
is
considered
as
independent
press
statements,
or
giving
interviews
to
the
media
on
any
matter
or
counsel
within
the
contemplation
of
the
Constitution
considering
that
incident
related
to
the
issues
subject
of
the
controversy”
all
the
more
he
is
not
a
special
counsel,
public
or
private
prosecutor,
counsel
of
the
punctuates
his
indiscretion.
police,
or
a
municipal
attorney
whose
interest
is
admittedly
adverse
to
SECOND
CASE
that
of
the
accused.
• The
administration
of
justice
is
primarily
a
joint
responsibility
of
the
• Fine
13000
judge
and
the
lawyer.
The
judge
expects
a
lawyer
to
properly
perform
his
role
in
this
task
in
the
same
manner
that
the
lawyer
expects
a
judge
to
do
his
part.
Their
relation
should
be
based
on
mutual
respect
and
on
a
deep
appreciation
by
one
of
the
duties
of
the
other.
Only
in
this
manner
can
each
minimize
occasions
for
delinquency
and
help
attain
effectively
the
ends
of
justice.
• On
complainants’
refusal
to
sign
the
Pre-‐trial
Order,
Section
2,
Rule
118
of
the
Revised
Rules
of
Criminal
Procedure
provides
that
“All
agreements
or
admissions
made
or
entered
during
the
pre-‐trial
conference
shall
be
reduced
in
writing
and
signed
by
the
accused
and
counsel,
otherwise,
they
cannot
be
used
against
the
accused.”
Considering
that
the
Pre-‐trial
Order
contains
the
recital
of
the
actions
taken
by
the
parties,
agreements
and
admissions,
the
facts
stipulated,
and
the
evidence
marked,[45]
the
parties
must
sign
it.
• Records
show
that
Atty.
Saguisag
was
asking
the
court
for
a
copy
of
the
Pre-‐trial
Order
so
that
he
could
follow
up
the
court’s
discussion.
He
kept
on
speaking
simultaneously
with
Justice
Cuevas
and
refused
to
yield
to
the
court’s
repeated
order
to
stop.
Such
actuation
must
have
constrained
respondents
to
lose
their
cool
and
order
the
sheriffs
to
take
him
out
of
the
courtroom.
At
that
point,
what
respondents
should
have
done
was
to
cite
him
in
direct
contempt
of
court.
• Judicial
officers
are
given
contempt
powers
in
order
that
without
being
arbitrary,
unreasonable
or
unjust,
they
may
endeavor
to
hold
counsel
to
a
proper
appreciation
of
their
duties
to
the
court.
Respondent
judge
could
very
well
have
cited
complainant
in
contempt
of
court
instead
of
indulging
in
tantrums
by
banging
his
gavel
in
a
very
forceful
manner
and
unceremoniously
walking
out
of
the
courtroom.
• Rule
3.04
of
the
Code
of
Judicial
Conduct
states:
“A
judge
should
be
patient,
attentive
and
courteous
to
all
lawyers,
especially
the
inexperienced,
to
litigants,
witnesses,
and
others
appearing
before
the
court.
A
judge
should
avoid
unconsciously
falling
into
the
attitude
of
mind
that
the
litigants
are
made
for
the
courts
instead
of
the
courts
for
the
litigant.
RAMOS
v
BAROT
fiduciary,
except
if
he
acts
in
a
fiduciary
capacity
for
the
estate,
trust
or
1. A
complaint
was
filed
charging
Judge
Eusebio
Barot
of
violations
of
the
person
of
a
member
of
his
immediate
family.
The
Code
defines
Code
of
Judicial
Conduct
and
Grave
misconduct.
Dominador
and
"immediate
family"
as
being
limited
to
the
spouse
and
relatives
within
Rogelio
Ramos
executed
a
supporting
joint
affidavit
alleging
that
they
the
second
degree
of
consanguinity.
Clearly,
respondent's
paternal
are
owners,
possessors,
and
cultivators
of
a
parcel
of
land
in
Cagayan.
uncle
does
not
fall
under
"immediate
family"
as
herein
defined.
They
likewise
cultivated
another
parcel
of
land
in
the
name
of
Romeo
• The
Code
does
not
qualify
the
prohibition.
The
intent
of
the
rule
is
to
Ramos.
These
three
parcels
of
land,
according
to
the
complainant,
limit
a
judge's
involvement
in
the
affairs
and
interests
of
private
formerly
formed
part
of
the
Estate
of
Florencio
Barust
but
were
later
individuals
to
minimize
the
risk
of
conflict
with
his
judicial
duties
and
to
covered
by
Emancipation
Patent
issued
by
DAR.
allow
him
to
devote
his
undivided
attention
to
the
performance
of
his
2. According
to
the
complainant,
several
individuals
entered
their
official
functions.
ricefields
and
without
authority
harvested
therein
upon
the
unlawful
order
of
Atty.
Ranchez
and
the
respondent
judge
as
an
attorney-‐in
fact.
3. Respondent
admitted
that
he
did
act
as
attorney-‐in-‐fact
for
his
uncle
Florencio
Barot
and
represented
the
latter
in
CARAB
cases
for
annulment
of
emancipation
patents.
However,
he
denied
any
participation
in
the
alleged
unauthorized
harvestin
of
the
rice
crops.
4. According
to
respondent,
the
administrative
complaint
filed
against
him
was
nothing
more
than
a
cheap
stunt
and
a
fabrication
instigated
by
one
Atty.
Edgar
Orro,
who
had
a
grudge
against
the
Barot
family.
5. Respondent
contended
that
he
did
not
violate
Rules
2.0112
and
2.03,13
Canon
214
of
the
Code
of
Judicial
Conduct
and
was
not
guilty
of
grave
misconduct
as
the
acts
imputed
to
him
were
not
related
to
or
connected
with
the
performance
of
his
official
functions
and
duties
as
a
member
of
the
judiciary.
Instead,
he
said
those
acts
had
to
do
with
the
proper
execution
of
his
responsibilities
and
obligations
as
a
private
individual,
i.e.,
as
attorney-‐in-‐fact
of
his
late
uncle,
Florencio
Barot.
ISSUE:
WON
the
respondent
should
be
disciplined.
HELD:
• Judge
Laggui
found
that
respondent
had
violated
Rule
5.06,
Canon
5
of
the
Code
of
Judicial
Conduct.18
Judge
Laggui
held
that
while
it
is
true
that
the
acts
complained
of
were
not
related
to
respondent's
judicial
functions,
it
does
not
follow
that
a
judge
cannot
be
administratively
charged
for
acts
of
a
private
character.
• A
fiduciary
primarily
acts
for
another's
benefit,
pursuant
to
his
undertaking
as
such
fiduciary,
in
matters
connected
with
said
undertaking.
When
respondent
acted
as
attorney-‐in-‐fact
for
his
uncle,
Florencio
Barot,
he
likewise
undertook
to
perform
all
acts
necessary
to
protect
the
latter's
interests.
• A
judge's
private
actuations
come
under
scrutiny
as
much
as
his
public
functions,
for
the
citizenry
hardly
makes
a
distinction
between
them.
• The
Code
of
Judicial
Conduct
lays
down
the
guidelines
with
respect
to
fiduciary
activities
that
judges
may
engage
in.
As
a
general
rule,
judges
cannot
serve
as
executor,
administrator,
trustee,
guardian
or
other
MAQUIRAN
v.
GRAGEDA
11.
Respondent
issued
another
order
to
supplement
the
previous
order
he
rendered
(separate
motion
for
reception
of
evidence)
outlining
the
details
of
1.
Complainant
is
the
chairman
of
the
Banned
Chemical
Research
and
the
US
proceedings.
(expenses
jointly
shouldered
by
defendants).
Information
Center,
an
association
of
Filipino
claimants
banana
plantation
workers
who
were
exposed
to
a
certain
chemical
used
in
the
plantation
which
12.
While
respondent’s
request
for
authority
was
pending,
he
wrote
another
cased
ill-‐effects
on
their
reproductive
organs.
letter
asking
permission
to
travel
in
the
US
for
the
purpose
of
visiting
her
daughter,
which
was
granted.
The
travel
authority
authorized
him
to
visit
his
2.
Filipino
victims
together
with
other
victims
from
other
countries
filed
civil
daughter
from
August
26-‐
Sept
15,
and
such
shall
be
at
the
expense
of
the
cases
for
mass
torts
and
damages
against
the
U.S.
based
multinational
respondent
nd
chargeable
and
forfeitable
against
his
cumulative
leave
credits.
corporations
with
the
US
Court
which
dismissed
the
case
and
required
the
claimants
to
file
action
in
their
own
countries.
13.
However,
while
in
the
US,
respondent
conducted
proceedings
in
the
Philippine
Consulate
General
Office
and
issued
an
order
dated
Sept.
19,
2003
3.
Hence,
more
than
7000
Filipino
claimants
filed
four
civil
cases
in
four
declaring
that
the
aforesaid
documents
were
viewed,
examined
and
thoroughly
different
venues
against
the
US
Corporations
namely:
Shell
Oil
Co,
Dow
scrutinized
and
declaring
that
the
proceedings
in
the
case
in
the
said
venue
Chemical
Company
and
Occidental
Chemical
Corporation,
Standard
Fruit
terminated.
Company
and
DOLE
Fresh
fruit
company,
Chiquita
brands
and
Del
Monte
Fresh
Produce.
14.
Complainant
filed
the
instant
administrative
case
against
respondent
alleging
that
respondent
committed
(1)
grave
abuse
of
discretion
in
issuing
the
4.
One
of
these
cases
was
raffled
to
the
respondent,
Judge
Jesus
Grageda
of
Order,
staying
the
service
of
the
writ
of
execution
and
directing
himself
and
his
RTC
of
Panabo,
Davao.
staff
to
go
to
the
U.S.
for
further
reception
of
evidence;
(2)
direct
bribery
when
he
suspended
the
writ
of
execution
because
defendants
offered
him
free
trip
5.
Sometime
in
July
1997,
The
cases
were
globally
settled
in
the
US
by
virtue
of
to
the
U.S.,
with
free
passport
and
visa
services,
free
round
trip
tickets,
free
a
document
known
as
the
compromise
settlement,
Indemnity
and
Hold
hotel
accommodations,
food
and
daily
allowances
for
the
duration
of
his
stay
Harmless
Agreements
(Settlement).
Plaintiffs
and
defendants
in
this
subject
therein;
(3)
violation
of
B.P.
Blg.
129
on
territorial
jurisdiction
of
the
Regional
case
moved
for
the
approval
of
the
settlement.
Trial
Court
when
he
conducted
court
sessions
in
San
Francisco,
California,
6.
On
December
20,
2002,
respondent
issued
an
omnibus
order
approving
the
U.S.A.,
from
August
27
to
September
29,
2003
without
authorization
from
the
Settlement
by
way
of
a
judgment
on
compromise.
Supreme
Court;
(4)
violations
of
Canons
of
Judicial
Ethics
(a)
for
not
being
studiously
careful
to
avoid
even
the
slightest
infraction
of
the
law,
and
(b)
7.
Plaintiffs
moved
for
the
execution
of
the
omnibus
order
but
the
defendant
when
he
accepted
the
offer
of
defendants
for
a
free
trip
with
accommodations
corporations
opposed
on
the
ground
that
there
is
nothing
more
to
execute
to
the
U.S.;
and
(5)
violation
of
Art.
206
of
the
Revised
Penal
Code
by
issuing
an
since
the
compromise
agreements
have
long
been
satisfied.
Respondent
unjust
Order
dated
September
29,
2003
ordering
the
stay
of
the
execution
of
granted
the
issuance
of
a
writ
of
execution.
the
writ
in
order
to
gather,
receive
and
appreciate
xerox
copies
of
evidence
submitted
to
him
in
the
course
of
the
illegal
court
session
held
in
the
U.S.
8.
However,
the
sheriff
returned
the
writ
of
execution
unsatisfied.
Defendant
corporations
file
their
separate
MRs
for
the
quashal
of
the
writ
of
execution.
ISSUE:
WON
Complainant
is
guilty
of
the
charges
against
him.
They
prayed
for
the
reception
of
evidence;
that
respondent
judge
himself
oversee
and
monitor
of
the
related
settlement
documents
which
are
in
the
safe
-‐Respondent’s
comments:
keeping
of
the
law
firm
in
Houston
Texas.
On
the
charge
of
Grave
abuse
of
discretion
9.
The
respondent
issued
an
order
granting
respondent’s
separate
motion
for
the
reception
of
evidence
in
the
US
at
the
expense
of
the
defendant
-‐The
claim
of
the
complainant
was
a
lie
since
the
respondent’s
passport
and
corporations.
visa
were
issued
in
the
normal
course
of
procedures
in
and
by
the
DFA
and
the
US
embassy.
His
passport
was
issued
3
years
and
11
months
before
he
10.
Respondent
wrote
a
letter
to
the
OCA
requesting
permission
to
be
on
court
conducted
the
proceedings
in
the
US
and
his
visa
was
also
granted
3
years
and
duty
pursuant
to
the
omnibus
order
and/or
for
leave
of
absence
after
the
3
months
before
the
same.
Hence,
the
complainant
did
not
only
lie
but
also
completion
of
such
court
duty
to
visit
her
daughter
in
New
York.
committed
perjury.
-‐He
denies
that
he
made
a
complete
turn-‐around
and
ordered
a
stay
of
writ
of
execution
and
directed
himself
and
his
staff
to
have
a
trip
to
USA
in
blatant
disregard
of
the
rules
of
court.
The
complainant
did
not
state
what
particular
OCA:There
are
reasonable
grounds
to
hold
the
respondent
administratively
rule
was
violated.
liable.
On
the
charge
of
direct
bribery
-‐the
request
of
the
respondent
to
be
on
duty
as
regards
the
reception
of
evidence
and
overseeing
the
documents
in
US
was
DENIED.
He
was
only
-‐denies
the
charge
for
being
baseless
authorized
to
travel
on
leave
of
absence
to
see
his
daughter
in
New
York.
-‐he
did
not
order
the
suspension
of
the
service
of
the
writ
of
execution;
the
-‐On
a
follow-‐up
made
by
the
respondent,
he
was
informed
that
his
request
will
sheriff
served
and
implemented
the
writ.
be
denied
because
a
Filipino
Judge
has
no
legal
authority
to
exercise
judicial
powers
and
render
judicial
services
outside
the
Philippine
Territory.
-‐nowhere
in
the
pleadings/motions
could
they
find
support
in
the
complainant’s
claim
that
defendants
offered
him
a
free
trip
to
USA
should
he
-‐
Notwithstanding
the
fact
that
no
authority
was
given
to
Judge
Grageda
to
suspend
the
service
of
the
writ
of
execution
conduct
proceedings
on
the
subject
cases
in
the
United
States,
he
still
proceeded
with
the
evaluation
and
reception
of
evidence
pertaining
to
the
said
-‐His
ruling
on
the
motions
are
correctible
by
ordinary
appeal
on
certiorari,
cases.
Worse,
the
proceedings
were
held
beyond
the
period
granted
him
as
which
the
complainant
failed
to
do.
per
travel
authority
issued
by
the
Office
of
the
Court
Administrator.
The
request
for
extension
of
Judge
Grageda’s
leave
of
absence,
filed
through
his
-‐His
trip
to
San
Francisco
was
prayed
for
by
the
defendants
and
agreed
by
the
daughter,
was
denied
for
not
being
seasonably
filed.
plaintiffs.
It
is
his
lawful
discretion
and
duty
to
hold
in
abeyance
further
implementation
of
the
writ
of
execution
as
to
avoid
a
miscarriage
of
justice.
-‐respondent
cites
good
faith
in
justifying
his
conduct
of
proceedings
in
the
US.
On
the
charge
of
violation
of
BP
129
-‐
for
conducting
what
Judge
Grageda
himself
called
as
“not-‐so-‐usual
proceedings,”
he
should
be
held
administratively
liable.
His
actuations,
despite
-‐The
rational
for
the
conduct
of
proceedings
in
California
was
explained
in
his
his
good
and
honest
intentions,
created
doubts
on
his
impartiality.
Although
order
(granting
separate
motion
for
reception
of
evidence)
the
defendants
did
not
provide
for
his
passport
and
visa
for
the
trip,
he
-‐BP
129
is
silent
on
his
conduct
of
proceedings
in
the
USA.
nevertheless
benefited
therefrom
as
he
was
able
to
travel
to
the
U.S.A.
and
visit
his
daughter
all
expenses
paid.
On
the
charge
of
violation
of
the
canons
of
judicial
ethics
SC:
agrees
with
the
findings
of
the
OCA
-‐The
charge
is
self-‐serving.
He
conducted
the
subject
proceeding
as
a
part
of
his
faithful
and
lawful
performance
of
his
duties
and
functions.
-‐there
was
no
showing
that
the
respondent
was
authorized
to
be
on
court
duty
while
in
the
US.
-‐His
actions
on
motions
are
correctible
by
ordinary
appeal
on
certiorari.
-‐
the
court
agrees
with
the
movant
defendants
and
holds
that
the
examination
On
the
charge
of
Violation
of
Art.
206
of
the
Revised
Penal
Code
of
documents
to
determine
their
existence,
due
execution
or
authenticity
is
imperative
as
such
examination
will
supply
conclusive
answers
to
the
burning
-‐The
charge
is
self-‐serving,
baseless
and
erroneous
or
twisted
misinterpretation
questions
on
whether
or
not
the
plaintiffs
have
been
paid,
or
in
the
alternative,
of
his
orders
primarily
because
he
did
not
decide
Civil
Case
No.
95-‐45
on
15
the
defendants
have
satisfied
or
complied
with
their
obligations
under
the
April
2003
and
neither
did
he
issue
an
order
to
stay
the
execution
of
the
writ
of
settlements
or
compromise
agreements,
approved
by
this
court,
which
they
execution
on
29
September
2003;
respectively
entered
into
with
the
plaintiffs.
This
is
squarely
supported
by
the
provisions
in
the
rules
of
court.
Sec.
6
rule
135.
However,
respondent’s
alliance
-‐Contrary
to
complainant’s
claim,
original
documents
and
not
mere
xerox
to
this
provision
is
unacceptable.
copies,
were
the
ones
presented
before
him
during
the
proceedings
held
in
San
Francisco,
California,
U.S.A.
-‐respondent
knew
that
he
must
first
secure
the
court’s
approval.
It
is
not
the
-‐ART.
206RPC-‐
the
complainant
must
not
only
prove
beyond
reasonable
doubt
respondent’s
duty
to
secure
these
documents
for
the
defendants
as
he
is
the
that
the
judgment
is
patently
contrary
to
law
or
not
supported
by
the
evidence
judge
in
the
pending
case
and
not
the
counsel
for
the
defendants.
but
that
it
was
also
made
with
deliberate
intent
to
perpetrate
an
injustice.
A
judge’s
mere
error
in
the
interpretation
or
application
of
the
law
per
se
will
not
-‐
Respondent’s
purpose
for
his
action
may
be
commendable
since
he
wanted
to
warrant
the
imposition
of
an
administrative
sanction
against
him
for
no
one
is
be
sure
that
the
contentions
of
defendant
corporations
that
plaintiffs
had
infallible.
Good
faith
and
absence
of
malice,
corrupt
motives
or
improper
already
been
paid
in
accordance
with
their
settlement
by
the
proofs
of
consideration
are
sufficient
defenses
that
will
protect
a
judicial
officer
from
the
plaintiffs’
execution
of
release
and
receipt
documents.
However,
the
means
in
charge
of
rendering
an
unjust
decision.
which
he
set
his
intention
cannot
have
the
approval
of
the
Court.
It
must
be
remembered
that
no
matter
how
noble
respondent’s
intention
was,
he
is
not
at
Moreover,
the
alleged
error
committed
by
respondent
in
issuing
the
subject
liberty
to
commit
acts
of
judicial
indiscretion.
The
proceedings
conducted
by
Orders
pertains
to
the
exercise
of
his
adjudicative
functions.
Such
error
cannot
respondent
abroad
are
outside
the
territorial
jurisdiction
of
the
Philippine
be
corrected
through
administrative
proceedings
but
should
instead
be
assailed
Courts.
He
is
the
Presiding
Judge
of
Branch
4
of
the
Regional
Trial
Court
for
the
through
judicial
remedies.
Eleventh
Judicial
Region,
the
territorial
jurisdiction
of
which
is
limited
only
to
Panabo,
Davao
del
Norte.
This
Court
had
not
granted
him
any
authority
to
*The
act
of
the
respondent
in
conducting
judicial
proceedings
abroad
without
conduct
the
proceedings
abroad.
authority
from
the
court
constitutes
gross
misconduct.
-‐Complainant
further
alleges
that
respondent
abused
his
discretion
in
issuing
MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCE:
the
fact
that
this
is
respondent’s
first
offense
in
the
order
approving
reception
of
evidence
in
the
US-‐
Assuming
respondent
his
9
years
of
judicial
service
with
good
performance
record.
might
have
acted
in
abuse
of
discretion
in
issuing
the
orders
complained
of,
it
does
not
necessarily
follow
that
he
acted
in
bad
faith.
Abuse
of
discretion
by
a
*SUSPENDED
FOR
6
MONTHS
WITHOUT
SALARY
trial
court
does
not
necessarily
mean
ulterior
motive,
arbitrary
conduct
or
willful
disregard
of
a
litigant’s
right
-‐CHARGE
OF
BRIBERY-‐
this
claim
as
mere
conjecture.
-‐VIOLATION
OF
CANON
22
of
JUDICIAL
ETHICS-‐
Although
respondent
erroneously
conducted
the
proceedings
abroad,
the
court
finds
that
this
action
was
done
in
good
faith.
He
was
of
honest
belief
that
it
was
sanctioned
by
law.
-‐VIOLATION
OF
SECTION
29
of
JUDICIAL
ETHICS-‐
Considering
that
respondent
went
to
the
U.S.
for
the
purpose
of
conducting
the
proceedings,
his
travel
was
paid
for
by
the
defendant
corporations
pursuant
to
his
June
30,
2003
Order
wherein
it
was
provided
that
the
expenses,
facilities,
equipment
and
support
personnel
who
would
carry
out
in
full
the
court
proceedings
in
the
U.S.
shall
be
borne
proportionately
by
the
defendants
as
manifested
by
them.
Thus,
the
payment
of
respondent’s
expenses
for
the
U.S.
trip
cannot
be
considered
as
acceptance
of
favors.
-‐it
would
appear
that
respondent’s
intention
in
going
to
the
U.S.
was
really
for
the
purpose
of
conducting
the
proceedings
in
the
Consulate
Office
and
he
merely
used
the
reason
of
visiting
his
daughter
to
be
granted
a
travel
authority.
His
travel
authority
to
visit
his
daughter
was
granted
from
August
26
to
September
15,
2003,
and
as
soon
as
he
was
in
the
U.S.,
he
started
conducting
the
proceedings
from
August
27
to
September
29,
2003.
MACALINTAL
v
TEH
• The
active
participation
of
Teh
being
merely
a
NOMINAL
or
FORMAL
1. Atty.
Romulo
Macalintal
filed
a
case
against
Judge
Angelito
Teh,
the
party
in
the
certiorari
proceedings
is
not
called
for.
Executive
Judge
and
the
Presiding
Judge
of
the
RTC
Branch
87
of
o In
Tureza
v.
Hernando:
A
judge
whose
order
is
challenged
in
Rosario
Batangas.
an
appellate
court
does
not
have
to
file
any
answer
or
take
2. His
case
stemmed
from
Atty.
Macalintal’s
Election
case.
In
that
case,
active
part
in
the
proceeding
unless
expressly
directed
by
Macalintal
received
an
adverse
resolution
from
the
Judge
Teh.
order
of
this
court.
THe
judge
should
maintain
a
detached
Macalintal
then
questioned
such
resolution
via
petition
for
certiorari
attitude
from
the
case
and
should
not
waste
his
time
by
taking
before
the
COMELEC.
an
active
part
in
a
proceeding
which
relates
to
official
3. While
the
case
was
pending
with
the
COMELEC,
Judge
Teh
actively
actuations
in
a
case
but
should
apply
himself
to
his
principal
participated
in
the
proceedings
by
filing
his
comment
on
the
petition,
task
of
hearing
and
adjudicating
the
cases
in
his
court.
He
is
and
by
also
filing
an
urgent
manifestation.
merely
a
nominal
party
to
the
case
and
has
no
personal
4. Macalintal
filed
a
motion
for
inhibition,
to
prevent
Teh
from
further
interest
nor
personality
therein.
acting
on
the
election
case,
but
what
Judge
Teh
hired
his
own
lawyer
• When
respondent
hired
his
own
lawyer
upon
the
complainant’s
and
filed
his
answer
before
his
OWN
court.
He
ordered
that
Macalintal
motion
for
inhibition,
respondent
judge
acted
both
as
a
party
litigant
pay
P100000
in
attorneys
fees
and
litigation
expenses
incident
to
hi
and
judge
before
his
own
court.
Judges
cannot
also
act
as
both
party
motion
for
inhibition.
litigant
and
as
a
judge
before
his
own
court.
5. COMELEC’s
RESOLUTION:
• When
the
respondent
was
directed
to
act
on
his
motion
for
inhibition,
a.
Directed
Teh
to
act
on
the
motion
for
inhibition
in
accordance
he
either
misunderstood
or
chose
to
misunderstand
the
directive
for,
with
Sec.
2
Rule
137
of
the
Rules
of
Court.
in
his
order,
he
granted
the
motion
for
inhibition
“in
compliance
with
b. Treat
Macalintal’s
letter
as
an
administrative
complaint
the
resolution”
of
the
Court.
He
was
not
directed
by
the
Court
either
to
against
Teh.
ETC.
grant
or
deny
the
motion.
• Respondent
judge
should
be
reminded
that
decisions
of
courts
need
not
only
be
just
but
must
be
perceived
to
be
just
and
completely
free
Issue:
WON
Judge
Teh’s
actions
are
reprehensible.
from
suspicion
or
doubt
both
in
its
fairness
and
integrity.
Judges,
being
the
visible
representation
of
the
law
and,
most
importantly,
of
justice,
should
be
the
embodiment
of
independence,
competence,
and
Held:
YES.
Judge
Teh
was
found
guilty
of
gross
ignorance
of
the
law,
and
he
is
integrity.
dismissed
from
the
service
with
forfeiture
of
all
benefits
and
with
prejudice
for
• Teh’s
gross
deviation
from
the
acceptable
norm
for
judges
is
clearly
reemployment.
manifest.
• Judge
The
observed
that
the
complaint
of
Atty.
Macalintal
was
not
made
under
oath.
While
Rule
140
of
the
Rules
of
Court
requires
that
complaints
against
Judges
should
be
sworn
to,
the
Court
deems
it
proper
to
dispense
with
the
requirement
since
the
letter
of
Atty.
Macalintal,
upon
the
recommendation
of
the
OCA,
has
been
treated
as
an
administrative
complaint
and
considering
that
Teh
in
his
comment,
practically
admitted
all
pertinent
allegations
of
complainant.
DOCTRINE
OF
RES
IPSA
LOQUITUR4,
the
court
may
impose
its
authority
upon
erring
judges
whose
actuations,
on
their
face,
would
show
gross
incompetence,
ignorance
of
the
law
or
misconduct.
4
Where
a
thing
is
shown
to
be
under
the
control
and
management
of
the
defendant,
and
the
accident
is
of
such
nature
and
character
that
if
the
required
diligence
had
been
exercised,
the
accident
would
have
not
occurred,
then
in
the
absence
of
clear
evidence
to
the
contrary,
it
affords
reasonable
proof
that
the
accident
happened
because
of
absence
of
care.
YULO-‐TUVILLA
v.
BALGOS
• On
the
allegation
that
respondent
judge
acted
with
undue
haste
in
recalling
the
warrant
of
arrest-‐
considering
that
there
is
no
evidence
to
1. Negros
Occidental
Sangguniang
Panlalawigan
Board
Member
Socorro
the
contrary,
that
hearing
was
conducted
by
the
respondent
then
the
Yulo-‐Tuvilla
charges
Judge
Rolando
Balgos
of
MTC
of
Hinigaran
with
respondent
did
not
act
on
the
motion
with
undue
haste
for
the
grave
abuse
of
discretion
and
improper
conduct.
prosecution
was
given
the
opportunity
to
cross-‐examine
the
defense
2. The
complaint
stemmed
from
a
case
brought
before
Balgos,
witnesses
and
in
fact
did
so.
respondent
from
preliminary
examination.
The
case
is
about
a
girl
who
• Issue
of
whether
it
was
proper
or
not
for
the
respondent
to
act
on
the
was
said
to
be
detained
and
raped
by
several
men
in
one
Norman
motion
filed
by
Mapagay’s
counsel
who
was
his
family’s
counsel
as
Mapagay’s
house
and
who
was
able
to
escape.
It
was
reported
that
well-‐
there
was
a
violation
by
respondent
of
Rule
2.03
Canon
2
of
the
there
were
more
than
10
other
girls
who
were
still
in
captivity
in
the
Code
of
Judicial
conduct.5
house
of
Mapagay.
• By
not
immediately
inhibiting
himself
from
hearing
the
complaint
filed
3. A
complaint
was
filed
before
the
respondent
Judge
who
conducted
a
by
Gumban,
respondent
created
the
impression
upon
the
complainant
preliminary
examination.
Warrants
of
arrests
were
issued
against
and
the
public
in
general
that
Atty.
Manlapao’s
client
was
in
a
special
Mapagay
and
his
companions.
position
to
influence
him.
4. Mapagay
through
his
counsel,
filed
a
motion
to
recall
the
warrant
of
• MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCE:
his
having
inhibited
himself
from
further
arrest
issued
against
him.
This
was
immediately
heard
and
granted
by
trying
the
case
after
he
was
made
aware
of
his
questionable
action
by
Judge
Balgos
without
the
presence
of
private
complainant.
others.
5. Complainant
argued
that
respondent
should
have
inhibited
himself
• There
was
a
definite
violation
of
the
code
of
judicial
conduct
because
from
hearing
the
case
instead
of
acting
on
the
motion
since
Mapagay’s
Mapagay’s
counsel
was
respondent’s
family’s
counsel.
counsel,
Atty.
Manlapao,
is
the
kawyer
of
the
family
of
the
respondent
• The
court
has
warned
judges
that
they
should
endeavor
to
maintain
at
Judge
in
a
civil
case
pending
before
the
RTC
of
Himamaylan.
Tuvilla
all
times
the
confidence
and
high
respect
accorded
to
those
who
wield
stated
that
respondent
immediately
inihibited
himself
upon
the
the
gavel.
It
is
imperative
that
a
judge’s
official
conduct
should
be
free
protest
of
the
community
against
him
but
it
was
useless
because
the
from
the
appearance
of
impropriety,
and
that
his
personal
behavior
in
damage
had
already
been
done.
everyday
life
shown
to
be
beyond
reproach.
6.
Respondent
Judge
averred
that
the
charges
against
him
are
• REPRIMANDED
AND
REMINDED
that
the
foremost
duty
of
the
unreasonable.
He
avers
that
he
admitted
to
recalling
the
warrant
of
magistrate
is
to
uphold
the
people’s
trust
and
confidence
in
the
arrest
against
Mapagay
only
because
he
believed
that
it
was
within
his
judiciary.
discretion
to
do
so.
He
stated
that
he
found
that
the
evidence
adduced
at
the
hearing
“overwhelming
countervailed
his
finding
of
probable
cause
after
preliminary
examination.”
He
further
cited
that
Mapagay
has
cancer
and
the
fact
that
he
was
due
for
an
operation
at
St.
Luke’s.
Regarding
the
charge
that
Atty.
Manlapao
was
his
family’s
lawyer
in
a
civil
case,
he
argued
that
the
said
case
had
been
submitted
for
decision
long
before
the
complaint
against
Mapagay
was
filed
and
that
Manlapao
was
counsel
for
many
cases
filed
before
him
but
no
one
had
ever
questioned
his
impartiality.
7. The
case
was
referred
to
Judge
Layumas
o
RTC.
When
the
case
was
set
for
hearing,
the
complainant
failed
to
appear,
although
he
sent
a
manifestation
stating
that
she
was
no
longer
interested
in
pursuing
the
case
against
respondent
judge.
After
rescheduling
the
hearing,
complainant
still
failed
to
appear.
ISSUE:
WON
Judge
Balgos
should
be
disciplined.
5
Rule
2.03-‐
a
Judge
shall
not
allow
family,
social
or
other
relationship
to
influence
judicial
conduct
or
HELD:
Yes.
judgment.
The
prestige
of
judicial
office
shall
not
be
based
or
lent
to
advance
the
private
interests
of
others,
nor
convey
or
permit
others
to
convey
the
impression
that
they
are
in
special
position
to
influence
the
judge.
GACAYAN
v.
PAMINTUAN
CANON
3–
A
judge
should
perform
official
duties
honestly,
and
with
impartiality
and
diligence.
1.
Sarol
was
accused
for
Homicide
in
the
RTC
of
Baguio
City.
He
was
arraigned
and
thereafter,
trial
followed
before
Judge
Costales.
After
the
prosecution
rested
its
• The
Canons
of
Judicial
Ethics
further
provides
that:
A
judge’s
official
case,
Judge
Costales
directed
the
accused
to
present
his
evidence.
The
accused
conduct
should
be
free
from
the
appearance
of
impropriety,
and
his
filed
a
Demurrer
to
Evidence.
Meanwhile,
the
respondent
took
over
and
presided
personal
behavior,
not
only
upon
the
bench
and
in
the
performance
of
in
the
hearing
of
the
case.
judicial
duties,
but
also
his
everyday
life
should
be
beyond
reproach.
2.
The
respondent
directed
the
trial
prosecutor
and
complainant
Atty.
Gacayan
to
• A
judge
is
not
only
required
to
be
impartial;
he
must
appear
to
be
see
him
in
his
chambers
where
he
reportedly
said
the
following:
“You
see
impartial.
Fraternizing
with
litigants
tarnishes
this
appearance.
It
was,
somebody
died
here
and
I
cannot
just
dismiss
this
case
as
a
result
of
insufficiency
of
thus,
held
that
it
is
improper
for
a
judge
to
meet
privately
with
the
evidence.
I
want
to
talk
to
the
mother
of
the
deceased.”
accused
without
the
presence
of
the
complainant.
Talking
privately
alone
3.
Consequently,
he
issued
an
order
which
directed
the
mother
and
brother
of
the
to
an
alleged
eye
witness
to
the
incident
in
the
seclusion
of
his
chambers,
deceased
who
were
not
listed
as
witnesses
in
the
information
to
appear
in
the
as
what
transpired
in
this
case,
likewise
taints
this
image
much
more
so
“Hearing
on
the
Demurrer
to
Evidence.”
considering
the
circumstances
surrounding
the
production
of
said
4.
Respondent
judge
by
his
own
initiative
issued
also
subpoena
to
the
witnesses
witnesses.
who
were
already
presented
by
the
prosecution
to
attend
in
the
hearing
for
• A
judge
must
personify
integrity
and
exemplify
honest
public
service.
The
Demurrer
to
Evidence.
The
witnesses
who
allegedly
testified
for
the
prosecution
personal
behavior
of
a
judge,
both
in
the
performance
of
official
duties
were
seen
talking
to
the
respondent
judge.
The
judge
asked
questions
to
said
and
in
private
life
should
be
beyond
suspicion.
witnesses
on
whether
they
saw
complainant
Sarol
stabbed
the
victim,
which
they
• A
presiding
judge,
to
be
sure,
must
maintain
and
preserve
the
trust
and
answered
“no”.
faith
of
the
parties-‐litigants.
He
must
hold
himself
above
reproach
and
5.
Complainant
contends
that
when
said
witnesses
testified,
they
categorically
suspicion.
At
the
very
first
sign
of
lack
of
faith
and
trust
in
his
actions,
stated
under
oath
that
they
did
not
witness
the
incident.
It
was
obvious
that
whether
well
grounded
or
not,
the
judge
has
no
other
alternative
but
to
respondent
judge
wanted
the
said
witnesses
to
admit
that
they
saw
the
killing.
inhibit
himself
from
the
case.
He
should
exercise
his
discretion
in
a
way
6.
Complainant
objected
to
the
procedure
being
followed
by
respondent
judge
that
the
people’s
faith
in
the
Courts
of
Justice
is
not
impaired.
The
better
considering
that
the
prosecution
had
long
rested
its
case;
and
that
the
hearing
course
for
the
judge
under
such
circumstances
is
to
disqualify
himself.
being
conducted
is
supposed
to
be
a
hearing
on
the
Demurrer
to
Evidence,
not
the
That
way,
he
avoids
being
misunderstood;
his
reputation
for
probity
and
presentation
of
prosecution’s
evidence.
objectivity
is
preserved.
What
is
more
important,
the
ideal
of
impartial
7.
Subsequently,
respondent
judge
ordered
the
arrest
of
Mirriam
Dominguez
whom
administration
of
justice
is
lived
up
to.
he
described
as
an
“eye
witness”
to
the
incident.
This
was
done
without
any
• Interference
to
conduct
of
trial
While
a
judge
may
properly
intervene
in
a
motion
from
the
prosecution
and
though
there
is
no
record
whatsoever
supporting
trial
of
a
case
to
promote
expedition
and
prevent
unnecessary
waste
of
said
conclusion
that
she
is
an
eyewitness.
Thereafter,
respondent
Judge
talked
time,
or
to
clear
up
some
obscurity,
nevertheless,
he
should
bear
in
mind
alone
to
said
witness
in
his
chambers.
that
his
undue
interference,
impatience,
or
participation
in
the
8.
Due
to
the
unusual
interest
exhibited
by
respondent
judge
in
favor
of
the
examination
of
witnesses,
or
a
severe
attitude
on
his
part
toward
prosecution
and
the
highly
unusual
procedure
he
was
then
conducting
complainant
witnesses,
especially
those
who
are
excited
or
terrified
by
the
unusual
filed
a
Motion
for
Inhibition
against
respondent
judge.
circumstances
of
trial,
may
tend
to
prevent
the
proper
presentation
of
the
ISSUE:
WON
Respondent
is
guilty
of
Partiality
cause,
or
the
ascertainment
of
the
truth
in
respect
thereto.
HELD:YES.
• Conversation
between
the
judge
and
counsel
in
court
is
often
necessary,
but
the
judge
should
be
studious
to
avoid
controversies,
which
are
apt
to
• The
people’s
confidence
in
the
judicial
system
is
founded
not
only
on
the
obscure
the
merits
of
the
dispute
between
litigants
and
lead
to
its
unjust
magnitude
of
legal
knowledge
and
the
diligence
of
the
members
of
the
disposition.
In
addressing
counsel,
litigants,
or
witnesses,
he
should
avoid
bench,
but
also
on
the
highest
standard
of
integrity
and
moral
uprightness
a
controversial
tone.
they
are
expected
to
possess.
It
is
towards
this
sacrosanct
goal
of
ensuring
• He
should
avoid
interruptions
of
counsel
in
their
arguments
except
to
the
people’s
faith
and
confidence
in
the
judiciary.
clarify
his
mind
as
to
their
positions,
and
he
should
not
be
tempted
to
an
Code
of
Judicial
Conduct
mandates
the
following:
unnecessary
display
of
learning
or
a
premature
judgment
CANON
2-‐
A
judge
should
avoid
impropriety
and
the
appearance
of
impropriety
in
all
activities.
PADILLA
V.
ZANTUA
HELD:
Yes.
1. On
Oct.
5,
1993,
Mayor
Roger
Padilla
charged
respondent
Judge
Roberto
• Complainant
failed
to
specifically
cite
any
of
the
cases
referred
to
in
the
Zantua
(respondent
judge
of
MTC
of
Jose
Panganiban,
Camarines
Norte)
complaint
which
remained
undecided
after
the
lapse
of
the
required
90-‐
with
serious
irregularities
and
grave
misconduct
in
the
performance
of
his
day
period
to
decide
cases;
hence,
the
dismissal
of
charges
of
violation
of
official
duties
for:
90-‐day
period
is
in
order.
The
delay
in
the
cases
was
not
entirely
the
fault
a. Failure
to
decide
cases
within
the
prescribed
period
of
the
judge
Zantua.
The
delay
was
due
to
numerous
postponements
both
b. Unreasonable
delay
in
the
disposition
of
cases
which
have
been
by
the
prosecution
and
the
defense.
prejudicial
to
the
litigants
• However,
the
respondent
Judge
should
be
reminded
of
the
directive
in
c. Manifest
partiality
in
favor
of
a
litigant
Circular
no.
1-‐89
requiring
all
courts
to
conduct
a
mandatory
continuous
d. Fraternizing
with
lawyers
who
have
pending
cases
in
his
sala.
trial
which
is
to
be
terminated
within
90
days
from
inception
of
the
initial
2. Complainant’s
allegations:
In
several
different
criminal
cases
for
grave
hearing.
coercion,
grave
threats,
2
separate
cases
of
highgrading,
alarms
and
• With
regard
the
allegations
of
manifest
impartiality
in
favor
of
a
litigant
scandals,
and
civil
case
for
trespassing,
the
opposing
counsel,
Atty.
and
fraternizing
with
lawyers
who
have
pending
cases
in
his
sala.
The
Augusto
Schneider
is
always
seen
eating
and
drinking
in
the
constant
court
cannot
fully
countenance
the
view
of
respondent
judge
that
his
company
of
the
respondent
judge
in
public
establishments.
These
cases
friendship
with
Atty.Schneider
does
not
affect
his
neutrality
and
have
been
pending
since
1991,
some
have
not
even
been
tried
and
impartiality
as
a
judge.
because
of
delays
in
the
disposition
of
these
cases
and
the
perceived
• Constant
company
with
a
lawyer
tends
to
breed
intimacy
and
camaraderie
partiality
of
respondent
judge
towards
atty.
Schneider,
the
peoples’
to
the
point
that
favors
in
the
future
may
be
asked
from
the
respondent
confidence
in
the
judiciary
is
being
eroded.
judge
which
he
may
find
hard
to
resist.
3. Respondent’s
claims:
He
denied
accusations
against
him.
• The
actuation
of
respondent
judge
of
eating
and
drinking
in
public
places
a. He
denies
the
allegations
of
the
complainant
and
indicated
that
with
a
lawyer
who
has
pending
cases
in
his
sala
may
well
arouse
suspicion
the
cases
have
been
pending
due
to
numerous
postponements
in
the
public
mind,
thus
tending
to
erode
the
trust
of
the
litigants
in
the
andor
non-‐appearance
of
the
defense
or
the
prosecution,
but
impartiality
of
the
judge.
This
eventually
may
undermine
the
people’s
faith
hearings
have
been
held
already.
(inisa
isa
yung
cases
and
in
the
administration
of
justice.
It
is
of
no
moment
that
atty.
Schneider
is
explanation
pero
puro
ganyan
lang
lahat
haha)
the
only
lawyer
in
the
locality.
b. He
denies
fraternizing
with
lawyers
with
pending
cases
in
his
sala.
• A
judge
should
behave
at
all
times
as
to
inspire
public
confidence
in
the
In
the
case
of
Atty.
Schneider,
he
is
the
only
lawyer
in
the
integrity
and
impartiality
of
the
judiciary.
The
prestige
of
the
office
shall
Municipality
and
it
is
but
natural
for
the
respondent
to
be
friendly
not
be
used
or
lent
to
advance
the
private
interests
of
others,
nor
convey
with
him,
but
maintains
that
their
friendship
has
never
been
a
or
permit
others
to
convey
the
impression
that
they
are
in
a
special
hindrance
to
the
proper
disposition
of
cases
in
his
sala
as
his
position
to
influence
the
judge.
impartiality
is
known
not
only
in
the
Municipality
but
also
in
the
• Members
of
the
judiciary
must
conduct
themselves
as
to
be
beyond
province
of
Camarines
Norte.
reproasch
and
suspicion,
and
be
free
from
any
appearance
of
impropriety
c. He
attributes
the
filing
of
the
complaint
against
him
to
local
in
their
personal
behavior
not
only
in
the
discharge
of
their
duties
but
also
politics
in
the
municipality
alleging
that
since
his
appointment,
he
in
their
everyday
life.
has
always
been
neutral
and
impartial
in
all
the
cases
he
disposed
• Public
confidence
in
the
judiciary
is
eroded
by
irresponsible
or
improper
of;
that
even
in
the
case
against
the
herein
complainant
(Mayor
conduct
of
jduges.
A
judge
must
avoid
all
impropriety
and
the
appearance
Padilla)
for
slander
by
deed,
he
displayed
his
position
of
being
thereof.
Being
the
subject
of
constant
public
scrutiny,
a
judge
should
neutral
and
impartial.
For
which
reason,
he
has
earned
the
ire
of
freely
and
willingly
accept
restrictions
on
conduct
that
might
be
viewed
as
Governor
Padilla
(Complainant’s
Father)
and
the
complainant;
burdensome
by
ordinary
citizens.
therefor
he
requested
his
transfer
to
another
station
(MTC
in
Basud,
Camarines
Norte)
due
to
the
imminent
danger
to
his
life
because
of
political
pressures.
This
was
followed
by
his
several
letter-‐requests.
4. THe
case
was
referred
to
the
OCA
and
they
recommended
the
dismissal
of
the
charges.
ISSUE:
WON
the
charges
against
the
respondent
judge
should
be
dismissed
OCA
v.
DE
GUZMAN
former,
thereby
showing
keen
personal
interest
on
the
said
case
to
the
prejudice
of
the
administration
of
justice.
1. Norvic
Incorporated
(norvic)
was
the
principal
stockholder
of
the
11. Respondent
De
Guzman
denies
having
approached
Judge
Cosico
and
Overseas
Superintendence
Corporation
(OSC)
which
is
registered
asking
him
to
take
any
action
in
connection
with
the
said
case.
He
owner
of
a
parcel
of
land
in
Makati
(Yakal
Prope
rty)
covered
by
TCT
asserts
that
Judge
Cosisco
was
motivated
by
vindicativeness
when
he
no.142203.
testified
in
the
ad
hoc
meeting.
He
claims
that
they
only
talked
to
each
2. Atty.
Vicente
Santos,
acting
as
president
of
Norvic,
entered
into
a
other
mostly
on
matters
of
law
but
he
never
asked
Cosico
any
favor
to
contract
to
sell
the
OSC
shares
of
stock
and
the
yakal
property
with
St.
act
in
a
certain
way
except
in
a
civil
case
involving
the
respondent
Michael
International
Institute
of
Technology
(SMIIT).
himself
who
requested
Judge
Cosico
to
tule
in
his
motion
for
3. Subsequently,
OSC
conveyed
the
Yakal
property
to
St.
Michael
execution.
He
alleges
that
he
became
aware
only
of
the
Norvic
case
International
Realty
and
Management
(SMIRM)
pursuant
to
the
deed
when
Atty.
Vicente
Santos
informed
him.
He
even
offered
to
inhibit
of
conveyance
and
Exchange.
Consequently,
the
TCT
was
cancelled
and
himself
from
trying
the
case
because
of
his
friendship
with
Santos
but
a
new
one
was
issued
in
the
name
of
SMIRM.
both
parties
requested
respondent
to
keep
the
case
and
help
in
its
4. 2
years
later,
Norvic
filed
this
subject
case
for
annulment
of
deed
of
amicable
settlement.
conveyance
and
exchange
on
the
ground
that
the
transfer
of
Yakal
12. This
administrative
case
was
referred
to
Justice
Manuel
Herrero
for
property
was
fraudulent.
This
cause
the
annotation
of
lis
pendens
on
report
and
evaluation
but
he
requested
to
inhibit
from
further
the
new
tct
in
the
name
of
SMIRM.
(This
was
assigned
to
the
sala
of
proceeding
with
the
said
case.
Upon
further
change
of
Judges,
this
judge
Cosico)
case
was
re-‐assigned
to
Justice
Salas.
5. The
defendants
in
the
subject
case
SMIRM
and
SMIIT
filed
a
motion
to
ISSUE:
WON
De
Guzman
is
guilty
of
serious
misconduct.
cancel
the
notice
of
lis
pendens.
But
it
was
denied
by
Judge
Cosico.
6. Due
to
the
resignation
of
Judge
Cosico
from
Judicial
service,
Norvic
HELD:
Yes.
filed
a
motion
to
re-‐raffle
the
case.
It
was
granted
by
the
executive
judge
and
it
was
referred
to
Judge
De
Guzman.
• Justice
Salas
found
that
the
respondent
in
reconsiderinf
the
order
of
7. Later
on,
defendants
SMIIT
and
SMIRM
filed
a
motion
for
denial
issued
by
Judge
Cosico
was
no
dictated
by
pecuniary
reconsideration
of
the
order
of
denial
of
judge
Cosico
for
the
consideration,
but
nevertheless
he
is
liable
for
influencing
the
outcome
cancellation
of
notice
of
lis
pendens
contending
that
Norvic
was
not
of
the
subject
case
when
he
asked
judge
Cosico
to
cancel
the
notice
of
the
proper
party
whose
rights
might
be
protected
by
the
annotation
of
lis
pendens.
He
recommends
that
De
Guzman
be
reprimanded.
lis
pendens
because
it
was
not
the
registered
owner
of
the
yakal
• The
court
finds
no
clear
and
convincing
evidence
to
sustain
that
property
before
and
after
it
was
transferred
to
SMIRM.
The
MR
was
respondent
was
moved
by
personal
or
financial
interest
in
issuing
the
reconsidered.
order
which
cancelled
the
notice
of
lis
pendens.
On
the
contrary,
the
8. A
year
later,
parties
reached
a
compromise
settlement.
De
Guzman
explanation
offered
by
respondent
are
sufficient
to
warrant
a
granted
the
dismissal
of
the
case
upon
the
petition
of
both
parties.
conclusion
that
he
is
in
utmost
good
faith
merely
discharged
his
public
9. The
administrative
suit
against
Judge
De
Guzman
wa
based
on
the
duty
in
lifting
such
notice.
The
ff.
are
significant
points
worth
testimony
of
former
Judge
Cosico
during
the
investigation
of
alleged
considering
(baka
itanong
ni
sir
haha)
irregularities
in
service
of
some
judges
in
Makati
conducted
by
Ad
Hoc
o If
De
Guzman
had
a
desire
manifesting
financial
interest
or
to
Committee
whuch
was
composed
of
Chief
Justice
Narvasa
and
retires
favor
somebody,
then
he
should
have
instead
ruled
against
Justices
Relova
and
Melencio-‐Herrera.
the
lifting
of
the
notice,
considering
that
Atty.
Santos
was
not
10. The
complaint
states
that
the
respondent,
Judge
Guzman,
approached
only
his
classmate
but
a
relative
of
his
wife
by
affinity.
at
least
twice
Judge
Manuel
Cosico,
then
Presiding
Judge
of
the
RTC
in
o The
subject
case
was
assigned
to
the
respondent
simply
whose
sala
od
the
aforesaid
case
between
Norvic
and
SMIIT
and
because
it
was
re-‐reaffled
upon
the
petition
of
norvic.
SMIRM
is
pending,
asked
him
to
grant
the
motion
to
lift
the
notice
of
o He
tried
to
involuntarily
inhibit
from
the
case
lis
pendend
filed
by
one
of
the
parties
in
the
said
case.
When
Judge
o He
issued
the
order
lifting
the
notice
of
lis
pendens
after
a
Cosico
denied
the
motion,
respondent
came
back
asking
to
reconsider
careful
and
thorough
study
of
the
merits
of
the
merits
of
the
the
order
of
denial.
Following
the
resignation
of
Cosico,
the
case
was
motion
re-‐raffled
to
De
Guzman
who
reconsidered
the
denial
issued
by
the
o Respondent
was
legally
justified
in
issuing
the
order
cancelling
our
judicial
process.
Guilty
of
Serious
misconduct.
Fine
of
P10000
and
the
notice
of
lis
pendens
because
Norvis
is
manifestly
not
the
stern
warning.
proper
party
whose
rights
may
be
protected
bu
the
annotation
of
lis
pendens.
It
reveals
that
Norvic
was
never
the
owner
of
Yakal
property,
it
was
OSC.
Also,
a
stockholder
is
not
the
owner
of
any
part
of
the
capital
of
the
corporation,
nor
is
he
entitled
to
the
possession
of
any
definited
portion
of
its
property
assets;
he
is
not
a
co-‐owner
or
tenant
in
common
of
the
corporate
property.
• In
the
absence
of
fraud,
dishonesty,
corruption
or
bad
faith
in
issuing
the
order
lifting
the
notice
of
lis
pendens,
this
act
of
respondent
which
pertains
to
his
judicial
capacity
is
not
subject
to
disciplinary
action.
• However,
the
Court
is
convince
that
De
Guzman
approached
Cosico
at
least
twice
asking
him
to
cancel
the
notice
of
lis
pendens,
thereby
trying
to
influence
the
course
of
litigation
in
the
subject
case
which
is
a
violation
of
Rule
2.04
Canon
2
of
the
Code
of
Judicial
Conduct.
o “A
judge
shall
refrain
from
influencing
in
any
manner
the
outcome
of
Litigation
or
dispute
pending
before
another
court
or
Judge”
o
• It
is
hard
to
consider
the
possibility
that
Judge
Cosico
will
tell
a
lie
in
testifying
before
the
Ad
Hoc
Committee
considering
that
he
was
facing
a
panel
that
was
attended
not
only
by
the
Chief
Justice
but
also
by
Justices
Relova
and
Herrera.
Also,
by
being
a
lawyer
alone,
he
knows
a
price
of
telling
a
lie.
• The
court
gives
credence
to
the
testimony
of
the
former
Judge
Cosico
who
narrated
the
event
in
a
clear
and
straight
forward
manner.
In
the
absence
of
any
evidence
to
show
any
reason
or
motive
why
witnesses
should
have
testified
falsely,
the
logical
conclusion
is
that
no
improper
motive
existed
and
that
their
testimony
is
worthy
of
full
faith
and
credit.
• Judges
are
expected
to
conduct
themselves
in
a
manner
that
would
enhance
the
respect
and
confidence
of
our
people
in
the
judicial
system.
It
is
incumbent
upon
them
to
so
behave
at
all
times
as
to
promote
public
confidence
in
the
integrity
and
impartiality
of
the
judiciary.
Being
the
dispensers
of
justice,
judges
should
not
act
in
a
way
that
would
cast
suspicion
in
order
to
preserve
faith
in
the
administration
of
justice.
They
should
avoid
impropriety
and
the
appearance
of
impropriety
in
all
activities.
• The
act
of
interference
by
respondent
De
Guzman
with
the
subject
case
pending
in
the
sala
of
Judge
Cosico
clearly
tarnishes
the
integrity
and
independence
of
the
judiciary
and
subverts
the
people’s
faith
in
VISTAN
v.
NICOLAS
of
Guiguinto,
respondent
started
circulating
handbills/
letters
addressed
to
his
electoral
constituents
indicating
his
intention
to
run
1. Consolidated
cases
were
brought
by
the
same
complainant
Vistan
for
a
congressional
seat.
against
respondent
judge
Nicolas,
MTC
judge
of
Pandi
Bulacan.
• Respondent
admitted
having
circulated
such
letter
but
denies
that
he
2. First
Administrative
Case
AM-‐-‐-‐
was
electioneering.
He
claims
that
he
was
merely
voicing
out
his
a. (During
this
time
the
respondent
was
MTC
Judge
of
Guiguinto,
intention
to
run.
Bulacan)
Filed
March
16,
1987
charging
the
respondent
with
-‐Respondent
had
acted
improperly
when
he
sent
out
letters/handbills
gross
ignorance
of
the
law
and
grave
abuse
of
authority
and
manifesting
his
intention
to
run
as
a
congressional
candidate
prior
to
the
discretion
it
its
decision
on
a
criminal
case
for
forcible
entry,
campaign
period
provided
and
while
still
an
incumbent
MTC
judge.
Sec.
456
acquitting
the
accused,
despite
the
fact
that
the
respondent
of
Civil
Service
Law
and
Rule
5.10
Canon
5
of
the
Judicial
Code
of
Conduct7
has
not
ruled
yet
on
the
accused’s
written
offer
of
evidence.
are
violated.
For
having
held
himself
as
a
Congressional
candidate
while
The
complainant
also
allege
the
respondent
of
immorality
for
still
a
member
of
the
bench,
respondent
took
advantage
of
his
position
to
maintaining
illicit
relations
with
a
woman
not
his
wife
and
to
boost
his
candidacy,
demeaned
the
stature
of
his
office.
GUILTY
OF
GROSS
whom
he
has
a
child.
MISCONDUCT.
b. This
case
was
initially
dismissed
for
being
moot
and
academic
because
the
respondent
resigned
from
service
when
he
RE:
GROSS
IGNORANCE
OF
THE
LAW
AND
GRAVE
ABUSE
OF
AUTHORITY
AND
became
a
congressional
candidate
in
the
1987
election.
DISCRETION
However,
when
the
respondent
was
reappointed
as
the
MTC
Judge
of
Pandi,
the
complainant
filed
a
motion
for
-‐The
case
was
already
resolved
by
the
Court
in
a
Resolution
which
imposed
reconsideration
and
it
was
affirmed
by
the
OCA
which
upon
the
respondent
a
fine
of
P3000
which
was
reduced
to
P2000
upon
the
reinstated
the
initially
dismissed
administrative
case.
respondent’s
MR.
c. The
immorality
charge
against
the
respondent
was
referred
to
the
Executive
Judge
of
the
RTC
of
Malolos
for
investigation
RE:
CHARGE
OF
IMMORALITY
and
recommendation
while
the
charge
for
gross
ignorance
of
• referred
to
the
RTC,
hearings
were
conducted
by
Executive
Judge
the
law
and
grave
abuse
of
authority
and
discretion
was
Dizon
referred
to
the
OCA.
• Complainant’s
Testimony:
every
time
there
was
a
hearing
before
the
3. Second
Admin
Case
for
disbarment
AC
3040
respondent’s
sala
for
criminal
case
3073
(forcible
entry
wherein
she
a. May
15,
1987.
The
charges
set
forth
are
basically
the
same
was
the
private
complainant,
respondent’s
mistress,
Angelita
de
Castro
with
the
administrative
case
except
for
the
last
charge,
which
was
there.
In
fact,
the
mistress
even
approached
her
and
asked
for
is
the
violation
of
election
laws,
the
offenses
attributed
to
P10000
to
ensure
the
success
of
the
case.
The
matter
of
the
Respondent
are
based
on
the
same
set
of
facts.
respondent
and
mistress
living
together
is
a
matter
of
public
b. The
case
was
first
referred
to
the
OSG
but
proceeding
were
knowledge
and
that
they
have
one
child.
not
concluded
pursuant
to
a
Court
Resolution
mandating
that
• Judge
Tirso
Reyes,
RTC
Cabanatuan
City
testified
that
he
and
the
all
complaints
against
Justices
and
Judges
of
the
lower
courts
respondent
are
close
friends.
He
did
not
know
any
of
the
respondent’s
shall
be
promptly
referred
to
the
supreme
court
for
appropriate
action.
6
ISSUE:
WON
the
respondent
is
guilty
of
gross
ignorance
of
the
law,
grave
abuse
Section 45. No officer or employee in the Civil Service including members of the
of
authority
and
discretion,
and
immorality.
Armed Forces, shall engage directly or indirectly in any partisan political activity or
take part in any election except to vote nor shall be use his official authority or
HELD:
Yes.
influence to coerce the political activity of any other person or body.
7
Rule 5.10. A judge is entitled to entertain personal views on political questions.
RE:
CHARGE
OF
VIOLATION
OF
ELECTION
LAWS
But to avoid suspicion of political partisanship, a judge shall not make political
speeches, contribute to party funds publicly endorse candidates for political office
• Complainant
allege
that
prior
to
the
date
set
by
the
COMELEC
to
be
or participate in other partisan political activities.
the
start
of
campaign
period,
and
while
still
the
incumbent
MTC
Judge
children,
except
for
one
whom
he
met
during
the
“blowout”
upon
o Two
material
witnesses
Agapito
and
Mendoza,
were
located.
passing
the
bar
exam.
He
also
narrated
that
about
10-‐12
years
ago,
he
§ They
allege
that
they
personally
know
the
respondent
stood
as
a
baptismal
sponsor
of
a
child,
who
according
to
a
certain
and
his
paramour
and
that
they
publicly
represented
counselor
who
invited
him,
is
allegedly
respondent’s
child.
However,
themselves
as
husband
and
wife.
he
was
not
able
to
verify
whether
the
child
is
really
the
respondent’s.
§ They
were
subpoenaed
to
testify
against
respondent
• Complainant’s
exhibit-‐
“Magkasamang
Sinumpaang
Salaysay”
executed
but
they
did
not
appear
during
the
hearing
because
by
one
Rodelio
Agapito
and
Juan
Mendoza
before
the
investigating
they
were
harassed
and
prevented
by
one
Benito
judge.
The
affidavit
stated
that
the
respondent
and
De
Castro
are
Mendoza,
a
neighborhood
toughie
and
alleged
neighbors
and
that
they
are
living
together
as
husband
and
wife
benchman
of
he
respondent.
though
the
respondent’s
legal
wife
is
Pacita
Santos.
o Neighbors
of
the
respondent
and
his
mistress
just
kept
quiet
• Investigating
Judge
submitted
a
final
report
without
any
final
for
respondent
wields
considerable
influence
in
the
recommendation
because
further
hearings
would
be
beyond
the
30-‐ community
day
period
requested
in
partial
report.
Also,
2
witnesses
failed
to
o Respondent
wife
if
Pacita
Nicolas
and
they
have
their
appear
for
cross
examination
because
they
can
no
longer
be
located.
residence
in
Bocaue
Bulacan.
The
case
was
remanded
to
the
investigating
judge
for
further
hearings
o With
respect
to
the
murder
of
de
Castro,
3
men
picked
the
until
final
completion.
vitim
up
and
that
was
the
last
time
she
was
seen.
• EXECUTIVE
JUDGE’S
FINAL
REPORT:
Additional
documentary
evidence
o NBI
also
arrested
one
of
the
suspects,
Ramon
Mamangon.
He
is
the
entry
in
the
police
blotter
that
Angelita
de
Castro
was
murdered
said
that
respondent’s
legal
children
together
with
Joson
and
and
the
respondent’s
personal
data
sheet
showing
that
he
is
married
Agapito
were
the
ones
who
planned
the
killing
and
the
to
Pacita
Santos
to
whom
he
has
9
children.
The
report
concluded
that
respondent
had
no
participation
as
he
left
for
Baguio
the
day
the
evidence
submitted
was
not
sufficient
to
hold
respondent
before
the
killing
occurred.
administratively
liable
for
immorality
and
recommended
the
dismissal
• NBI
has
reason
to
believe
that,
on
the
basis
of
substantial
evidence,
of
the
charge.
the
respondent
and
his
children
orchestrated
the
death
of
Angelita
de
• The
OCA
came
up
with
a
memorandum
disagreeing
with
the
Casto.
conclusion
of
the
executive
judge,
recommending
that
proper
• Upon
the
recommendation
of
OCA
and
there
being
prima
facie
proof
penalty
be
meted
against
the
respondent.
that
immorality
charge
is
true,
the
court
resolved
to
preventively
o It
can
be
adduced
that
the
sudden
and
mysterious
suspend
the
respondent
judge.
disappearance
of
two
affiants
for
cross-‐examination
creates
• Respondent
moved
for
the
lifting
of
his
suspension
on
the
grounds
an
impression
in
the
mind
to
form
belief
as
to
the
truth
of
that
the
charge
of
immorality
was
duly
heard
but
nit
proven
before
their
statements
considering
that
such
were
not
disputed
by
the
executive
judge
of
RTC;
that
to
relate
the
charge
of
death
of
his
the
respondent.
alleged
paramour
is
going
beyond
the
bounds
of
due
process
and
fair
o Judge
Reyes’
testimony
that
he
was
one
of
the
sponsors
to
a
play
and
that
the
court
shall
not
rely
on
hearsay
evidence
of
the
NBI
baptism
of
an
alleged
son
of
the
respondent
judge,
that
he
and
in
the
absence
of
a
criminal
charge,
there
can
be
no
preventive
never
bothered
to
ask
for
the
surname
of
Richard
(alleged
suspension.
It
was
denied.
son’s
name)
after
being
told
that
he
was
the
son
of
the
-‐"preventive
suspension
may
be
imposed
pending
an
investigation
if
the
respondent-‐
a
person
with
reputation
ans
status
of
an
RTC
charge
involves
grave
misconduct,
or
if
there
are
reasons
to
believe
that
judge
will
not
just
act
as
sponsor
to
a
baptism
of
any
child
the
respondent
is
guilty
of
charges
which
would
warrant
his
removal
from
whose
parents
he
does
not
kno
very
well.
It
would
also
be
the
service.
Immorality
does
involve
grave
misconduct,
and
the
NBI
finding
unnatural
for
Judge
reyes
to
protect
herein
respondent
whim
is
that
there
is
prima
facie
proof
that
the
charge
is
true."
he
acknowledged
to
be
as
his
close
frien
and
“compadre”.
o What
is
required
only
to
prove
the
charge
in
an
administrative
• NBI’s
FINAL
REPORT:
6
members
of
the
respondent’s
family
case
is
preponderance
of
evidence.
including
the
latter
be
charged
with
murder
together
with
agapito
• Due
to
the
discrepancy
in
recommendations,
the
Court
referred
the
and
Mendoza.
case
back
to
OCA
for
further
investigation
with
the
assistance
of
NBI.
• Immorality
charge
was
again
referred
to
the
executive
judge
and
they
recommend
that
proper
penalty
be
meted
against
the
respondent.
SC
-‐even
if
the
Magkasamang
sinumpaang
salaysay
of
Agapito
and
Mendza
be
discarded,
the
investigation
revealed
that
the
two
also
executed
separate
affidavits
before
the
NBI
substantially
of
the
same
tenor.
The
interviews
with
the
neighbors
show
that
the
respondent
and
De
Castro
have
indeed
openly
and
publicly
presented
themselves
as
husband
and
wife.
But
because
of
the
influence
of
the
respondent,
they
chose
to
be
silent
about
it.
-‐To
make
matters
worse,
respondent’s
integrity
and
reputation
is
further
sullied
by
his
seeming
involvement
in
the
killing
of
Angelita
de
Castro.
v A Judge's official conduct should be free from impropriety or any
appearance thereof. His personal behavior in the performance of official
duty, as well as everyday life, should be beyond reproach
v High ethical principles and a sense of propriety should be maintained,
without which the faith of the people in the judiciary so indispensable in an
orderly society cannot be preserved
v There is no place in the judiciary for those who cannot meet the exacting
standards of judicial conduct and integrity
v Moral integrity is more than a virtue; it is a necessity in the Judiciary
v AC 3040-‐ disbarment denied but severely censured. AM-‐ Dismissed from
service with prejudice to re-‐employment.
RUIZ v. BRINGAS unpreparedness ti recommend the imposable penalty after the
accused had entered a plea of guilt. He even cited various
1. A complaint was filed by prosecutor Ruiz against respondent Judge instances of complainant’s alleged incompetence.
Bringas for serious misconduct and insufficiency. a. filing a motion for reconsideration of a judgment of
2. Complainant cited various situation wherein respondent used acquittal; filing a complaint for slight physical injuries when
intemperate language against lawyers appearing before his court. the same had already prescribed; filing a case for trespass
(hearing on a criminal case for falsification of a private document: under Article 281 of the Revised Penal Code although he
a. “Does the prosecution admit that you do no know how to knew that the house of the complainant was inhabited; and
compute” not being present in court when his case was called.
b. “Put on the record that Prosecutor Ruiz does not know haw 9. He also claimed that he recently suffered a stroke which makes him
to compute. Put it on record also that Fiscal Ruiz took the irritable. He denies that he told a lawyer to go to hell and he
Bar three times. justifies his statement with Prosecutor Salise on the ground that the
c. Call it unfair or whatever accused and prosecution witnesses attended even though they
3. In Criminal Case for slight physical injuries and direct assault, came from far-‐flung areas.
respondent issued an order in which, after noting that Prosecutor 10. Case was referred to OCA.
Calo called up to say that he could not attend the hearing due to ISSUE: WON respondent should be disciplined.
swollen foot, he sarcastically commented: “At least, prosecutor
Calo is better than Prosecutor Salise who did not inform yesterday HELD: Yes.
his whereabouts, whether he is in hell or purgatory.”
4. According to the complainant, the respondent is fond of insulting • OCA: although the complainant may have used less than polite
ans maligning young and old lawyers including prosecutors who language in the course of his argument during the hearing
appear before him in the presence of party litigants and lawyers. He (falsification), respondent judge should not be too quick in
berated new practicing lawyers and insulted an old lawyer by saying "returning the favor" to the complainant. Moreover, the use of the
‘go to hell’. These incidents were just left unnoticed by phrase "whether he is in hell or in purgatory" in referring to
aforementioned lawyers lest they would lose their cases pending Prosecutor is obviously uncalled for considering that it does not
before the respondent judge. appear from the records that Pros. Salise is the one in-‐charge of the
5. Complainant also points out that this is not the first time that a cases.
complaint was filed against the respondent. • Judge Bringas Guilty of Serious Misconduct. Had this been
a. AM No. MTJ-‐95-‐1064-‐ respondent was admonished to be respondent’s first and only offense, we would have been willing to
more tolerant of people, to be discreet in issuing court recommend a reprimand but it is apparent that neither admonition
statements, not to be onion-‐skinned and to be kindly to nor fine could make him change his attitude towards litigants and
women. lawyers.
b. AM No. MTJ-‐89-‐255-‐ fined P5000 for oppression in ordering • With regard to changing the designation of his court from MTC to
the defendant to vacate the land when the writ of City trial court-‐ the same could lead confusion among litigants and
execution issued by respondent has not even been served. lawyers as such designation is really not within the provisions of
6. Complainant also claims that respondent misrepresented himself as judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. This practice must be stopped
a graduate of Ateneo Law School when his name does not appear in and respondent judge should be admonished to be more
the directory of graduates. circumspect in his choice of words when referring to his court.
7. Finally, the respondent has changed the name of his court from • With regard to the charge that respondent has misrepresented
Municipal Trial Court in Cities to City trial court nothwithstanding himself as graduate of ALS-‐ must be dismissed for being too trivial,
the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1988. the misrepresentation is inconsequential as it will not in any way
8. RESPONDENT CLAIMS that he made remarjs at the hearing of the affect his qualification as a judge. He is still a graduate of law and a
criminal case for falsification due to disgust at complainant’s prosecutor before he became a judge.
• The duty to maintain respect for the dignity of the court applies to
members of the bar and bench alike. A judge should be courteous
both in his conduct and in his language especially to those
appearing before him. He can hold counsels to a proper
appreciation of their duties to the court, their clients, and the public
without being petty, arbitrary, overbearing, or tyrannical. He should
refrain from conduct that demeans his office and remember always
that courtesy begets courtesy. Above all, he must conduct himself
in such a manner that he gives no reason for reproach.
• Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge should avoid
impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all his activities.
• SUSPENDED for 1 month
ASSISTANT
v.
ONG
case.
Instead,
she
requested
another
prosecutor
to
inform
the
division
her
request
for
cancellation
of
hearing
due
to
her
migraine.
Rohermia
Rodriguez,
an
assistant
prosecutor
in
the
Office
of
Special
Prosecutor
in
⁃ The
complainant
was
surprised
to
learn
that
Atty.
Plando
has
a
warrant
of
arrest
the
Office
of
the
Ombudsman.
She
charges
Fourth
Division
Sandiganbayan
Justices
for
his
non-‐appearance.
Hence,
the
latter
file
a
motion
to
lift
bench
Gregory
Ong,
Jose
Hernandez
and
Rodolfo
Ponferrada
with
warrant.
He
explained
that
the
complainant
told
him
that
she
would
not
be
presenting
him
as
a
witness.
1.
grave
misconduct,
conduct
unbecoming
of
a
justice
and
conduct
grossly
⁃ In
the
complainant’s
comment,
she
told
the
division
that
she
decided
not
to
prejudicial
to
the
interest
of
the
service.
proceed
with
the
presentation
of
Atty.
Plando
due
to
her
apprehension
that
they
might
again
conduct
the
hearing
in
division.
2.
Falsification
of
public
documents.
RESPONDENT:
3.
Improprieties
in
the
hearing
of
cases
⁃ Admitting
having
tried
cases
in
the
provinces
by
apportioning
or
assigning
the
4.
Manifest
Partiality
and
gross
ignorance
of
the
law
cases
scheduled
for
hearing
among
themselves,
they
emphasized
that
they
had
nonetheless
ensured
at
the
outset
that:
ISSUE:
WON
respondents
should
be
disciplined.
first,
there
was
a
quorum
second,
the
members
of
the
Division
were
within
hearing
or
***
communicating
distance
of
one
another,
such
that
they
could
readily
confer
with
each
other
in
order
to
address
or
resolve
any
1.
Grave
misconduct,
conduct
unbecoming
of
a
justice
and
conduct
grossly
issue
that
arose
in
the
cases
separately
being
heard
by
them
prejudicial
to
the
interest
of
the
service,
and
falsification
of
public
documents.
third,
the
parties
did
not
object
to
the
arrangement,
and
thus
could
not
later
on
assail
the
proceedings
to
which
they
have
given
their
full
-‐Fourth
division
scheduled
sessions
for
trial
in
the
Hall
of
Justice
in
Davao
City.
Prior
assent.
to
the
scheduled
sessions,
or
on
April
17,
2006,
the
complainant
sent
a
⁃ their
arrangement
had
been
adopted
in
the
best
interest
of
the
service,
resulting
memorandum
to
Special
Prosecutor
Dennis
M.
Villa-‐Ignacio
to
invite
his
attention
in
considerable
savings
in
time,
effort,
and
financial
resources
of
the
to
the
irregular
arrangement
being
adopted
by
the
Fourth
Division
in
conducting
its
litigants,
lawyers,
witnesses,
and
the
court
itself;
provincial
hearings.
OCA:
The
charge
cannot
stand.
COMPLAINANT:
She
alleges
that
the
Fourth
Division
has
adopted
a
different
• Grave
misconduct
is
such
which
affects
a
public
officer’s
performance
of
his
procedure
in
conducting
provincial
hearing.
They
do
not
seat
as
collegiate
body,
duties
as
such
officer
and
not
only
that
which
affects
his
character
as
a
instead
they
divide
division
into
two.
In
such
manner,
the
chairman
will
hear
some
private
individual
and
requires
reliable
evidence
showing
that
the
judicial
of
the
cases
alone
and
the
other
members
will
hear
other
cases
conducting
hearing
act
complained
of
were
corrupt
or
inspired
by
an
intention
to
violate
the
separately
and
simultaneously.
She
contended
that
by
not
acting
as
a
collegial
law.
body,
respondent
Justices
not
only
contravened
Presidential
Decree
(PD)
No.
1606,
• Record
shows
that
respondent’s
adoption
of
the
assailed
practice
was
not
but
also
committed
acts
of
falsification
by
signing
their
orders,
thereby
making
it
motivated
by
corruption
and/or
an
illegal
purpose.
Indeed,
the
best
appear
that
they
had
all
been
present
during
the
hearing
when
in
truth
and
in
fact
interest
of
the
service
was
clearly
aimed
at.
To
justify
the
taking
of
drastic
they
were
not.
disciplinary
action,
the
law
requires
that
the
error
or
mistake
if
there
be
such
must
be
gross
or
patent,
malicious,
deliberate
or
in
bad
faith.
⁃ In
the
memorandum
the
complainant
sent,
she
submitted
that
in
one
of
the
• For
the
very
same
reasons,
respondents
cannot
likewise
be
held
liable
for
hearings,
she
already
called
the
attention
of
the
Justice
Ong
(Chairman)
falsification
of
public
documents
arising
out
of
the
alleged
falsity
of
the
and
expressed
her
concern
that
they
might
be
charged
of
falsification,
by
collegiality
reflected
in
the
minutes
and/or
stenographic
notes
taken
issuing
orders
that
they
heard
the
cases
as
a
collegial
body,
when
in
fact
during
the
proceedings
in
which
the
assailed
practice
was
adopted.
only
the
chairman
was
present
during
the
trial
and
the
other
members
are
Elements
of
the
crime
is
not
present.
hearing
cases
in
the
other
chamber.
• The
record
is
bereft
of
any
showing
that
the
latter
are
guilty
of
oppressive
⁃ The
Special
prosecutor
replied
to
the
memorandum
instructing
her
and
the
conduct
and/or
grave
misconduct,
particularly
with
reference
to
the
other
prosecutors
to
object
to
the
arrangement
and
to
place
their
comment
the
former
was
required
to
file
regarding
the
motion
to
lift
objections
on
recod.
bench
warrant
filed
by
the
witness
Roel
Plando
in
Criminal
Case.
⁃ During
the
hearing
in
Davao
City,
the
complainant
decided
to
forego
the
Respondents
were
clearly
acting
within
their
prerogative.
presentation
of
NBI
investigator
Atty.
Plando
as
her
witness
in
a
criminal
COURT:
RESPONDENTS’
CONTENTIONS
WERE
NO
WELL-‐TAKEN.
a
hearing
before
a
duly
constituted
Division
of
the
Sandiganbayan
was
of
the
very
essence
of
the
constitutionally
guaranteed
right
to
due
process
of
Section
3
of
PD
1606,
the
law
establishing
the
Sandiganbayan,
provides:
law.
• Judges
are
not
common
individuals
whose
gross
errors
men
forgive
and
time
Section
3.
Division
of
the
Courts;
Quorum.
-‐
The
forgets.
They
are
expected
to
have
more
than
just
a
modicum
Sandiganbayan
shall
sit
in
three
divisions
of
three
Justices
acquaintance
with
the
statutes
and
procedural
rules
each.
The
three
divisions
may
sit
at
the
same
time.
2.
Improprieties
in
the
hearing
of
cases
Three
Justices
shall
constitute
a
quorum
for
COMPLAINANT:
Justice
Ong
and
Justice
Hernandez
made
the
following
sessions
in
division;
xxx
intemperate
and
discriminatory
utterances
during
hearings.
An
implementing
rule
is
Section
3,
Rule
II
of
the
Justice
Ong
often
ask
lawyers
from
which
law
school
they
had
graduated.
The
Revised
Internal
Rules
of
the
Sandiganbayan,
complainant
opined
that
the
query
was
manifestly
intended
to
emphasize
that
the
San
Beda
College
of
Law,
the
alma
mater
of
Justice
Ong,
and
the
UP
College
of
Law,
Section
3.
Constitution
of
the
Divisions.
-‐
The
Sandiganbayan
shall
sit
in
that
of
Justice
Hernandez,
were
the
best
law
schools.
five
(5)
Divisions
of
three
(3)
Justices
each,
including
the
Presiding
Justice.
Justice
Hernandez
discourteously
shouted
at
Prosecutor
Hazelina
Tujan-‐Militante,
• Sandiganbayan
is
a
collegial
court.
Collegial
is
defined
as
relating
to
a
collegium
who
was
then
observing
trial
from
the
gallery:
You
are
better
than
Director
or
group
of
colleagues.
In
turn,
a
collegium
is
“an
executive
body
with
each
Somido?
Are
you
better
than
Director
Chua?
Are
you
here
to
supervise
Somido?
member
having
approximately
equal
power
and
authority.
In
a
collegial
Your
office
is
wasting
funds
for
one
prosecutor
who
is
doing
nothing.
court,
therefore,
the
members
act
on
the
basis
of
consensus
or
majority
rule.
RESPONDENTS:
they
refuted
the
allegation
of
use
of
discriminatory
and
•
PD
1606,
as
amended,
and
the
Revised
Internal
Rules
of
the
Sandiganbayan,
intemperate
language
by
attaching
the
transcript
of
stenographic
notes.
THere
was
supra,
call
for
the
actual
presence
of
the
three
Justices
composing
the
no
record.
Division
to
constitute
a
quorum
to
conduct
business
and
to
hold
trial
proceedings.
⁃ Justice
Ong
and
Justice
Hernandez
admitted
having
asked
the
lawyers
appearing
• the
exclusion
or
absence
of
any
member
of
a
Division
from
the
conduct
of
its
before
them
about
the
law
schools
they
had
graduated
from,
but
business
and
from
the
trial
proceedings
negates
the
existence
of
a
quorum
explained
that
they
had
done
so
casually
and
conversationally.
This
is
and
precludes
collegiality
intended
to
break
the
monotony
and
seriousness
of
the
court
room
• The
information
and
evidence
upon
which
the
Fourth
Division
would
base
any
setting.
decisions
or
other
judicial
actions
in
the
cases
tried
before
it
must
be
made
⁃ Justice
Hernandez
denied
having
shouted
at
Prosecutor
Tujan-‐Militante,
but
directly
available
to
each
and
every
one
of
its
members
during
the
conceded
the
possibility
of
having
observed
that
her
presence
in
Cebu
City
proceedings.
This
necessitates
the
equal
and
full
participation
of
each
was
a
waste
of
government
funds,
because
she
was
not
one
of
the
member
in
the
trial
and
adjudication
of
their
cases.
Prosecutors
assigned
to
prosecute
any
of
the
scheduled
cases.
• It
is
simply
not
enough,
therefore,
that
the
three
members
of
the
Fourth
Division
OCA:
As
regards
the
charge
of
improprieties,
it
appears
that
the
complainant
has
were
within
hearing
and
communicating
distance
of
one
another
at
the
not
discharged
the
onus
of
proof
by
substantial
evidence.
The
intemperate
and
hearings
in
question,
as
they
explained
in
hindsight,
because
even
in
those
immoderate
statements
attributed
to
respondents
are,
to
repeat,
without
circumstances
not
all
of
them
sat
together
in
session.
sufficient
substantiation.
It
cannot
be
said
that
public
confidence
in
the
Judiciary
• respondents’
non-‐observance
of
collegiality
contravened
the
very
purpose
of
was
eroded
by
the
conduct.
No
discourtesy
was
shown
towards
either
the
parties
trying
criminal
cases
cognizable
by
Sandiganbayan
before
a
Division
of
all
or
to
each
other.
three
Justices
• We
find
that
the
procedure
adopted
by
respondent
Justices
for
their
provincial
COURT:
Court
approves
the
Court
Administrator’s
finding
and
recommendation
hearings
was
in
blatant
disregard
of
PD
1606,
as
amended,
the
Rules
of
that
no
evidence
supported
the
complainant’s
charge
that
Justice
Ong
and
Justice
Court,
and
the
Revised
Internal
Rules
of
the
Sandiganbayan.
Hernandez
had
uttered
the
improper
and
intemperate
statements
attributed
to
• Even
worse,
their
adoption
of
the
procedure
arbitrarily
denied
the
benefit
of
a
them
hearing
before
a
duly
constituted
Division
of
the
Sandiganbayan
to
all
the
affected
litigants,
including
the
State,
thereby
rendering
the
integrity
and
• Even
so,
Justice
Ong
and
Justice
Hernandez
admitted
randomly
asking
the
efficacy
of
their
proceedings
open
to
serious
challenge
on
the
ground
that
counsels
appearing
before
them
from
which
law
schools
they
had
graduated,
and
their
engaging
during
the
hearings
in
casual
conversation
evidence
was
highly
erroneous,
and
constituted
gross
ignorance
of
the
about
their
respective
law
schools.
They
thereby
publicized
their
law.
professional
qualifications
and
manifested
a
lack
of
the
requisite
humility
RESPONDENT:
The
Supreme
Court
had
already
sustained
their
action
by
dismissing
demanded
of
public
magistrates.
the
petition
for
review
of
the
Special
Prosecutor
through
the
resolution
issued.
• Their
doing
so
reflected
a
vice
of
self-‐conceit.
their
acts
bespeak
their
lack
of
judicial
temperament
and
decorum,
which
no
judge
worthy
of
the
judicial
OCA:
Members
of
the
bench
like
respondents
are
presumed
to
have
acted
regularly
robes
should
avoid
especially
during
their
performance
of
judicial
and
in
the
manner
that
preserves
the
ideal
of
the
cold
neutrality
of
an
impartial
functions.
judge
• Judicial
decorum
demands
that
they
behave
with
dignity
and
act
with
courtesy
towards
all
who
appear
before
their
court.
They
should
not
exchange
• Notatu
dignum
is
the
presumption
of
regularity
in
the
performance
of
a
judge’s
banter
or
engage
in
playful
teasing
of
each
other
during
trial
proceedings
function,
the
rule
is
settled
that
bias,
prejudice
and
undue
interest
cannot
• Section
6,
Canon
6
of
the
New
Code
of
Judicial
Conduct
for
the
Philippine
be
presumed
lightly
Judiciary
• Mere
suspicion
that
the
judge
is
partial
to
a
party
is
not
enough;
there
should
be
• Section
6.
Judges
shall
maintain
order
and
decorum
in
all
adequate
evidence
to
prove
the
charge.
proceedings
before
the
court
and
be
patient,
dignified
and
courteous
in
relation
• The
acts
of
a
judge
in
his
judicial
capacity
are
not
subject
to
disciplinary
action-‐
to
litigants,
witnesses,
lawyers
and
others
with
whom
the
judge
deals
in
an
he
cannot
be
subject
to
civil,
criminal
or
administrative
liability
for
any
of
official
capacity.
Judges
shall
require
similar
conduct
of
legal
representatives,
court
his
official
acts,
no
matter
how
erroneous,
as
long
as
he
acts
in
good
faith.
staff
and
others
subject
to
their
influence,
direction
or
control.
• Section
3,
Canon
4
of
the
New
Code
of
Judicial
Conduct
for
the
Philippine
COURT:
DISMISSED.
It
upheld
the
contention
of
the
respondents
that
the
assailed
Judiciary,
demands
that
judges
avoid
situations
that
may
reasonably
give
resolution
has
already
been
decided.
rise
to
the
suspicion
or
appearance
of
favoritism
or
partiality
in
their
• a
judge
will
be
held
administratively
liable
for
rendering
an
unjust
judgment
only
personal
relations
with
individual
members
of
the
legal
profession
who
if
he
acts
with
bad
faith,
malice,
revenge,
or
some
other
similar
motive.
practice
regularly
in
their
courts.
PENALTIES:
⁃ publicizing
professional
qualifications
or
boasting
of
having
studied
in
and
graduated
from
certain
law
schools,
no
matter
how
JUSTICE
ONG-‐
Head
of
the
division.
He
possesses
and
wields
the
powers
of
prestigious,
might
have
even
revealed,
on
the
part
of
Justice
Ong
supervision,
direction
and
control
over
the
conduct
of
the
proceedings
coming
and
Justice
Hernandez,
their
bias
for
or
against
some
lawyers.
before
the
division.
• Judges
should
be
dignified
in
demeanor,
and
refined
in
speech.
In
performing
their
judicial
duties,
they
should
not
manifest
bias
or
prejudice
by
word
or
-‐
he
wittingly
failed
to
guarantee
that
his
division’s
proceedings
came
within
the
conduct
towards
any
person
or
group
on
irrelevant
grounds.
bounds
of
substantive
and
procedural
rules.
• Section
3,
Canon
5
of
the
New
Code
of
Judicial
Conduct
for
the
Philippine
Judiciary,
mandates
judges
to
carry
out
judicial
duties
with
appropriate
-‐Fine
of
15000.
Mitigating
circumstance:
this
administrative
offense
was
his
first
consideration
for
all
persons,
such
as
the
parties,
witnesses,
lawyers,
court
and
aggravating
circumstance
of
the
light
charge
of
unbecoming
conduct.
Plus
staff,
and
judicial
colleagues,
without
differentiation
on
any
irrelevant
stern
warning
ground,
immaterial
to
the
proper
performance
of
such
duties.
• Justice
Ong
and
Justice
Hernandez
were
guilty
of
unbecoming
conduct,
which
is
Justice
Hernandez
and
Ponferrada-‐
they
had
no
direction
and
control
of
how
defined
as
improper
performance.
proceedings
of
the
divisions
were
conducted.
4.
Manifest
Partiality
and
gross
ignorance
of
the
law
MITIGATING:
This
is
their
first
case.
COMPLAINANT:
She
cited
the
resolution
which
granted
the
accused’s
demurrer
to
JUSTICE
HERNANDEZ-‐
Admonished
with
a
warning
evidence
in
a
criminal
case
and
dismissing
the
case
upon
a
finding
which
was
contrary
to
the
evidence
of
the
prosecution.
JUSTICE
PONFERRADA-‐
Warned.
⁃ The
complainant
insisted
that
the
conclusion
was
based
on
a
National
Police
Commission
(NAPOLCOM)
resolution,
which
the
Fourth
Division
appreciated
in
the
guise
of
taking
judicial
notice.
⁃
taking
judicial
notice
of
the
NAPOLCOM
resolution
upon
a
demurrer
to
DE
LA
CRUZ
V.
CONCEPCION
8.
That
the
act
of
the
accused
subject
to
accusation
seemsnot
to
be
a
product
of
a
criminal
mind,
so
much
so
that
he
deserves
to
be
exonerated
from
the
1.
Respondent
Judge
Crisanto
C.
Concepcion
of
the
Regional
Trial
Court,
Branch
charges
filed
against
him.
However
he
must
answer
for
moral
damages
because
12,
Malolos,
Bulacan,
was
administratively
indicted
for
gross
ignorance
of
the
of
the
humiliation
the
girls
suffered.
law
and
knowingly
rendering
an
unjust
judgment
for
acquitting
the
accused
who
was
charged
before
his
court
with
acts
of
lasciviousness.
ISSUE:
Whether
or
not
the
analysis
of
the
Judge
constitutes
Gross
Ignorance
of
the
law
and
against
the
Canon
5
of
The
Code
of
Professional
Responsibility
2.
They
allege
that
their
coach
summon
them
together
with
the
other
volleyball
players
to
his
classroom
at
about
5pm
and
tole
them
that
he
had
to
check
their
HELD:
No.
private
parts
for
the
presence
of
pubic
hair
(public?
Nakalagay
sa
full
case
ko
public
although
weird)
as
required
by
MEC
(now
DECS)
memorandum
circulars.
• To
constitute
gross
ignorance
of
the
law,
the
subject
decision,
order
or
actuation
of
the
judge
in
the
performance
of
his
official
duties
must
3.
Eliza
Ratilla
de
la
Cruz,
Edeline
Cuison,
Ana
Maria
Cruz,
and
Lolita
Santiago,
not
only
be
contrary
to
existing
law
and
jurisprudence
but,
most
with
the
assistance
of
their
guardians
filed
a
case
against
the
accused
four
importantly,
he
must
be
moved
by
bad
faith,
fraud,
dishonesty
or
separate
criminal
complaints
for
acts
of
lasciviousness.
corruption.
• In
this
case,
it
does
not
even
allege
that
the
erroneous
decision
of
the
4.
During
the
trial,
the
4
girls
testitfied
almost
identically.
That
upon
the
respondent
was
thus
motivated.
instruction
of
the
accused,
the
reluctantly
pulled
down
their
shorts
and
panties
• Knowingly
rendering
an
unjust
judgment
is
both
a
criminal
and
an
and
when
their
private
parts
were
already
uncovered,
the
accused
in
kneeling
administrative
charge.
As
a
crime,
it
is
punished
under
Art.
204
of
the
or
squatting
position
touched
their
private
parts.
They
described
the
facial
Revised
Penal
Code
the
elements
of
which
are:
(a)
the
offender
is
a
expression
of
the
accused
“with
his
eyes
wide
open
in
wild
excitement.”
judge;
(b)
he
renders
a
judgment
in
a
case
submitted
to
him
for
decision;
(c)
the
judgment
is
unjust;
and,
(d)
the
judge
knows
that
his
5.
The
accused
admitted
having
examined
the
pubic
hair
of
the
girls,
to
be
sure
judgment
is
unjust.
that
as
members
of
his
volleyball
team,
not
one
of
them
is
above
13
in
strict
compliance
with
specific
school
directives
and
guidelines.
However,
he
denied
• The
gist
of
the
offense
therefore
is
that
an
unjust
judgment
be
touching
their
private
parts
and
threatening
them
afterwards.
rendered
maliciously
or
in
bad
faith,
that
is,
knowing
it
to
be
unjust.
An
unjust
judgment
is
one
which
is
contrary
to
law
or
is
not
supported
by
6.
Upon
hearing
the
prosecution
and
the
defense,
respondent
Judge
observed
the
evidence,
or
both.
The
source
of
an
unjust
judgment
may
be
error
that
the
girls
consented,
without
any
force
employed
upon
them,
to
strip
or
ill-‐will.
themselves,
with
understandable
reluctance
because
of
their
desire
to
be
in
• There
is
no
liability
at
all
for
a
mere
error.
It
is
well
settled
that
a
the
team
considering
that
in
MEC
Regional
Memorandum
No.
90,
failure
to
judicial
officer,
when
required
to
exercise
his
judgment
or
discretion,
is
submit
physical
examination
would
automatically
disqualify
a
candidate
from
not
liable
criminally
for
any
error
which
he
commits,
provided
he
acts
the
team.
in
good
faith.
• It
must
be
established
that
respondent
Judge
rendered
a
judgment
or
7.
The
Judge
was
convinced
that
what
the
accused
did
touch
was
only
the
mons
decision
not
supported
by
law
and/or
evidence
and
that
he
must
be
veneris,
or
the
part
of
the
female
sexual
organ
where
the
pubic
hair
could
actuated
by
hatred,
envy,
revenge,
greed,
or
some
other
similar
grow.
No
one
of
the
complainants
said
that
the
accused
touch
the
inner
part
of
motive.
In
the
case
at
bench,
the
motive
of
respondent
Judge
is
not
genital
ortifice
of
their
private
parts.
The
court
also
refuses
to
believe
that
even
alleged.
accused
touch
each
one
of
them
several
times
for
about
5
minutes.
That
is
very
• If
we
hold
the
respondent
guilty,
then
it
might
send
wrong
signals
to
unlikely
and
improbable.
That
the
touching,
no
matter
how
improper
and
the
judges.
For
then
where
admin
sanctions
are
imposed
on
them
for
humiliating
may
seem,
was
a
part
of
the
necessary
inspection
the
accused
was
rendering
judgments
of
acquittal
based
on
reasonable
doubt
or
on
assigned
to
do
as
their
coach
provided
by
MEC
in
determining
the
eligibility
and
difficult
questions
of
law,
they
would
be
inclined,
to
hand
down
qualification
of
the
girls.
Also,
if
his
real
motivation
was
to
satisfy
his
lust,
it
is
verdicts
of
conviction
in
case
of
doubt.
For
that
course
would
be
safer
unnatural
for
him
to
inspect
the
girls
eight
in
all
of
their
private
parts
one
group
for
them
to
pursue
since,
after
all,
erroneous
convictions
may
still
be
of
three
at
a
time,
the
last
of
which
was
a
group
of
two.
Also,
he
did
not
touch
corrected
on
appeal.
But
that
would
be
disregarding
the
true
concept
the
other
parts
of
the
body
of
the
girls.
and
judicial
implication
of
"reasonable
doubt"
in
criminal
cases,
under
which
judges
are
directed
according
to
the
Rules
of
Court
to
render
a
judgment
of
acquittal.
• Every
person
is
presumed
to
be
innocent
until
he
is
proved
guilty.
If,
upon
such
proof,
there
is
reasonable
doubt
remaining,
the
defendant
is
entitled
to
the
benefit
of
it
by
acquittal.
It
is
not
sufficient
to
establish
a
probability,
though
a
strong
one,
that
the
fact
charged
is
more
likely
to
be
true
than
otherwise,
but
the
evidence
must
establish
the
truth
of
the
fact
to
a
reasonable
and
moral
certainty,
a
certainty
that
convinces
and
directs
the
understanding,
and
satisfies
the
reason
and
judgment
of
those
who
are
bound
to
act
conscientiously
upon
it,
and,
in
order
to
find
the
defendant
guilty,
the
evidence
must
be
such
as
to
exclude
every
single
reasonable
hypothesis,
except
that
of
the
guilt
of
the
defendant.
In
other
words,
all
of
the
facts
proved
must
be
consistent
with,
and
point
to,
the
guilt
of
the
defendant,
not
only,
but
the
facts
must
be
inconsistent
with
her
innocence.
• The
Court
reiterates,
"mere
errors
in
the
appreciation
of
evidence,
unless
so
gross
and
patent
as
to
produce
an
inference
of
ignorance
or
bad
faith,
or
that
the
judge
knowingly
rendered
an
unjust
decision,
are
irrelevant
and
immaterial
in
an
administrative
proceeding
against
him.
Therefore,
respondent
judge
was
acquitted
for
the
case
charged.
• DISMISSED.
Ualat
v
Judge
Ramos
Court
has
no
jurisdiction
by
setting
the
case
for
hearin
and
asking
clarificatory
questions
instead
of
immediately
ordering
the
ejectment
of
FACTS:
1.)
(2
administrative
complaints
on
Judge
Ramos)
Complainant
Sabio
defendants
claims
that
he
is
an
agricultural
lessee
of
an
agricultural
land
owned
by
13.)
With
regard
to
Ualat’s
complaint,
the
judge
did
not
state
the
reason
for
Coma.
On
the
other
hand,
complainant
Ualat
alleges
that
he
is
sabio’s
ordering
Ualat
to
pay
jointly
and
severally
in
his
decision
although
in
his
caretaker
testimony,
he
explained
that
this
is
because
complainants
conspired
to
2.)
Complainant
Sabio
filed
with
Dept.
of
Agrarian
Reform
Adjudication
deprive
landowner
of
his
land.
But,
there
was
no
evidence.
Board
(DARAB)
a
complaint
for
Recovery
of
Possession
against
the
“Article
1652.
The
sublessee
is
subsidiarily
liable
to
the
lessor
for
any
rent
landowner
and
his
brother.
due
from
the
lessee.
However,
the
sub-‐lessee
shall
not
be
responsible
3.)
The
landowner
filed
against
complainants
a
case
for
illegal
detention
beyond
the
amount
of
rent
due
from
him
in
accordance
with
the
terms
of
with
judge
respondent’s
sala.
the
sublease,
at
the
time
of
the
extra-‐judicial
demand
by
the
lessor.”
(Civil
4.)
DARAB
ruled
in
favor
of
the
complainants
while
Judge
Respondent
Code)
~
Ualat
should
not
be
liable
based
on
this
article.
rendered
a
decision
in
favor
of
the
landowner
14.)
The
claim
that
Sabio
appealed
the
decision
in
the
RTC
is
wrong
for
the
5.)
Complainant
now
contend
that
resp
Judge
using
his
“power
and
records
does
not
show
this
and
he
actually
admitted
later
on
that
only
Ualat
authority”
took
cognizance
of
the
case
because
of
personal
interest
and
appealed
motive.
They
claim
that
during
the
pendency
of
the
case,
resp
Judge,
thru
15.)
Complainant
Ualat
blames
resp
Judge
for
denying
the
appeal
but
the
his
son
and
brother
cultivated
a
portion
of
the
land
subj
matter
of
the
case.
denial
is
correct
for
it
was
filed
out
of
time.
Also,
DAR
has
exclusive
jurisdiction
for
this
case.
16.)
The
conclusion
that
resp
judge
has
interest
and
motive
on
the
land
is
6.)
Complainant
Ualat
(as
caretaker):
his
residence
cannot
be
levied
upon
not
warranted
for
it
was
not
proven
and
the
judge
explains
that
he
has
his
by
the
sheriff
because
it
is
not
subj
of
the
lease
and
he
could
not
be
held
own
life
to
live.
“jointly
and
severally”
liable
to
pay
the
obligations
of
Sabio
as
agricultural
17.)
Of
the
3
errors
alleged
against
him,
only
1
was
in
fact
committed
that
is
tenant
holding
Ualat
jointly
and
severally
liable
but
this
was
a
mistake
of
judgment
7.)
Resp
judge
denies
allegations
and
alleges
that
he
did
not
know
about
or
law
which
every
judge
commits
every
now
and
then
the
complaint
with
DAR
and
its
resolution
because
none
of
this
was
stated
18.)
With
this,
exec
judge
recommends
dismissal
of
the
complaint
w/
stern
in
the
pleadings
or
mentioned
in
the
proceedings;
He
denies
that
he
warning
decided
based
on
his
personal
interests
and
motive
19.)
OCA
disagrees.
8.)
Regarding
Ualat’s
complaint,
the
Judge
explained
that
he
was
held
jointly
and
severally
liable
because
he
was
co-‐defendant
in
the
case.
ISSUE:
WON
complaint
should
be
dismissed
–
NO,
the
mere
fact
that
resp
However,
he
could
have
timely
filed
an
appeal
for
this
matter.
In
this
case,
lacks
prior
knowledge
of
the
previous
case
before
the
DAR
does
not
entirely
he
only
appealed
when
judgement
had
already
been
executed.
absolve
him
of
admin
liability
9.)
In
the
Investigation
by
Exec.
Judge:
It
was
found
that
resp
Judge
in
deed
was
not
aware
of
the
DAR
case
when
he
rendered
the
decision.
Moreover,
RATIO:
OCA:
-‐
Prudence
dictate
(sic)
that
the
proper
thing
to
do
under
the
in
this
case,
there
was
no
allegation
in
the
complaint
that
the
case
was
of
circumstances
is
to
refer
first
the
case
to
the
DAR
for
certification
to
agrarian
nature.
It
was
also
found
that
the
contract
entered
into
was
in
determine
the
existence
of
the
agricultural
tenancy
relationship
in
deed
a
civil
lease
contract
and
that
comp
violated
it
by
subleasing
it
to
Ualat
accordance
with
existing
agrarian
laws.
His
act
of
precipitately
acting
on
the
and
that
the
duration
of
the
contract
already
expired
case
without
coursing
the
latter
to
the
DAR
has
put
into
question
his
real
10.)
There
was
nothing
in
the
lease
contract
agreement
that
the
intention
motive
especially
so
that
his
personal
interest
on
the
lot
is
what
is
of
the
parties
was
to
enter
into
a
contract
of
tenancy
concerned
in
this
case.”
12.)
From
the
founded
facts,
resp.
may
not
be
faulted
when
he
said
that
he
-‐
resp
has
violated
PD
316
and
PD
1038
which
gives
jurisdiction
to
DAR
had
jurisdiction
over
the
case
and
then
proceeded
to
decide
on
its
merits.
-‐
“(i)t
is
mandatory
for
the
trial
court
to
refer
the
case
to
the
Secretary
of
However,
resp
should
have
exercised
prudence
and
caution
considering
the
Agrarian
Reform
or
his
authorized
representative
for
a
preliminary
allegation
of
tenancy
by
the
defendant
Ualat
and
his
insistence
that
the
determination
of
the
relationship
between
the
contending
parties
if
it
is
a
case
of
ejectment
or
attempt
to
harass
or
remove
a
tenant
in
agricultural
land
primarily
devoted
to
rice
and
corn.
Even
without
a
motion,
the
trial
court
may
motu
propio
order
such
referral.
SC:
-‐
Based
on
the
facts
(inc.
comp
being
represented
by
DAR),
it
is
obvious
that
it
was
an
agrarian
case
-‐
His
failure
to
refer
the
case
to
DAR
despite
the
2
PDs
cannot
be
justified
-‐
It
is
a
pressing
responsibility
of
judges
to
keep
abreast
with
the
law
and
changes
therein,
as
well
as
with
the
latest
decisions
of
this
Court.
-‐
Ignorance
of
the
law,
which
everyone
is
bound
to
know,
excuses
no
one
-‐-‐
certainly
not
judges.
~
When
the
law
is
so
elementary,
it
constitutes
gross
ignorance
of
the
law
This
was
his
2nd
infraction
so
he
is
further
admonished
and
meted
the
max
penalty
with
stern
warning.
Found
liable
for
gross
ignorance
of
law.
Atty.
Del
Callar
v
Judge
Salvador
and
Deputy
Sheriff
Doroni
11.)
Resp
judge
argues
that:
(1)
highly
compelling
reasons
have
long
been
existing
to
warrant
the
grant
of
execution
pending
appeal;
(2)
the
mere
FACTS:
1.)
In
his
earlier
complaint,
Atty.
Del
Callar
charged
respondent
perfection
of
appeal
does
not
deprive
the
trial
court
of
its
jurisdiction
to
Judge
Ignacio
L.
Salvador
with
serious
misconduct
and
inefficiency
(evident
issue
execution
pending
appeal;
(3)
the
trial
court
has
inherent
powers
to
bad
faith,
bias,
gross
and
deliberate
ignorance
of
the
law)
and
respondent
avail
of
means
necessary
to
carry
its
jurisdiction
into
effect;
(4)
the
third-‐
Sheriff
Angel
L.
Doroni,
with
gross
misconduct,
gross
neglect
of
duty,
party
claim
by
Reynaldo
A.
Lim
has
no
factual
and
legal
basis;
(5)there
was
dishonesty,
inefficiency
and
incompetence
in
the
performance
of
official
no
bad
faith
in
the
actuations
of
respondent;
(6)
the
instant
complaint
has
duties,
refusal
to
perform
official
duty
and
for
conduct
grossly
prejudicial
to
become
moot
and
academic
the
best
interests
of
the
service
2.)
Re:
Deputy
Sheriff
Doroni:
It
was
alleged
that
he
adamantly
refused
to
12.)
note:
the
case
involves
dump
trucks
smashed
into
each
other
and
so
it
comply
with
his
ministerial
and
mandatory
duties
under
Sec
17,
Rule
39,
is
only
fair
and
just
to
indemnify
the
plaintiff
Revised
ROC
on
proceedings
where
levied
property
is
claimed
by
a
3rd
13.)
However,
OCA
agrees
that
resp
judge
had
already
lost
jurisdiction
over
person
the
case
when
he
denied
the
motion
for
execution
pending
appeal
“A
trial
3.)
complainant
alleges
that
his
client
was
deprived
of
his
right
over
his
own
court
can
no
longer
grant
a
motion
for
execution
after
the
appeal
has
been
Toyota
Land
Cruiser
which
resp.
seized
perfected”
4.)
His
client
served
upon
resp
an
affidavit
of
3rd
party
claim
attaching
the
registration
cert.
of
the
vehicle
since
1992
to
the
current
year
ISSUE:
WON
5.)
despite
this,
resp
refused
to
comply
with
his
duties
under
aforecited
rule
and
instead
filed
with
the
exec.
Judge
his
counter
affidavit
explaining
that
it
RATIO:
SC:
-‐
In
this
case,
the
motion
for
execution
was
filed
before
the
was
his
“firm
and
honest
conviction”
that
he
should
not
release
the
vehicle
perfection
of
the
appeal.
to
a
3rd
party
claimant
despite
the
absence
of
a
bond
from
attaching
-‐
the
respondent
Judge
could
still
take
cognizance
of
the
motion
for
judgment
creditor
because
of
his
own
findings
of
facts
and
of
his
own
execution,
since
the
same
was
seasonably
filed.
His
jurisdiction
to
act
on
observance
of
certain
prov
of
FC
and
some
SC
decisions
the
motion
continued
until
the
matter
was
resolved.
he
fact
that
he
had
6.)
Resp
comments
that
he
was
only
complying
with
his
duty
and
claims
already
denied
such
motion
did
not
divest
him
of
that
jurisdiction.
He
could
that
comp
and
his
client
Lim
made
perjurious
statement
that
he
was
not
still
entertain,
as
he
did,
a
timely
motion
for
the
reconsideration
of
his
furnished
any
receipt
or
copy
of
notice
of
Sheriff’s
sale
and
notice
of
Levy
earlier
order
to
enable
him
to
correct
mistakes,
if
there
are
any,
without
the
on
Execution
or
attachment.
In
fact,
Lim
refused
to
receive
the
same
and
intervention
of
a
higher
court.
affix
his
signature
on
the
receiving
copy.
-‐
The
respondent
Judge
cannot,
therefore,
be
faulted
from
taking
7.)
Although
Lim
was
not
a
co-‐defendant,
since
he
is
the
spouse
of
the
cognizance
of
the
motion
for
the
reconsideration
which
was
filed
by
the
defendant,
his
property
is
not
exempt.
Subj.
property
is
conjugal.
Thus,
he
plaintiff
twenty
days
after
the
receipt
of
the
order
denying
immediate
cannot
claim
that
he
is
a
3rd
party
claimant.
execution.
Neither
irregularity
be
ascribed
to
him
in
not
requiring
the
8.)
Complainant
clarifie
that
the
summons
was
received
by
the
spouse
movant
to
put
up
bond
because
bond
is
not
an
indispensable
requisite
for
when
she
was
still
a
widow
and
not
married
to
the
complainant.
Resp.
the
granting
of
a
writ
of
execution
pending
appeal
sheriff
was
informed
about
these
in
the
special
proceedings
before
CA
-‐
The
respondent
Judge’s
fault
lies
in
his
failure
to
state
in
his
Special
Order
9.)
On
judge
Salvador:
The
complaint
was
based
on
2
grounds:
(a)
the
court
“good
reasons”
to
justify
the
issuance
of
the
writ
of
execution.
This
is
in
had
lost
its
jurisdiction
because
the
order
granting
execution
pending
clear
violation
of
Section
2,
Rule
39
of
the
Rules
of
Court,
which
requires
appeal
was
issued
2
months
after
an
earlier
order
giving
due
course
to
a
that
there
be
a
good
reason
for
issuing
a
writ
of
execution
pending
appeal
perfected
appeal;
and
(b)special
order
granting
execution
pending
appeal
and
that
the
good
reason
be
stated
in
a
special
order.
contains
no
good
reason
for
the
immediate
implementation
of
the
decision
-‐
he
should
be
studious
of
the
principles
of
law
and
diligent
in
endeavoring
as
req
by
sec
2
of
rule
39
of
ROC
to
ascertain
the
facts.He
should
exhibit
more
than
just
a
cursory
10.)
On
feb.
27
1995,
the
court
found
the
defendant
acquaintance
with
the
statutes
and
procedural
rules
-‐
Nevertheless,
judges
may
not
be
held
administratively
responsible
for
every
error
or
mistake
in
the
performance
of
their
duties;
otherwise,
that
would
make
their
position
unbearable.
To
merit
disciplinary
sanction,
the
error
or
mistake
must
be
gross
or
patent,
malicious,
deliberate,
or
in
bad
faith.
In
the
absence
of
proof
to
the
contrary,
defective
or
erroneous
decision
or
order
is
presumed
to
have
been
issued
in
good
faith
The
judge
is
ADMONISHED
for
having
failed
to
exercise
due
care
in
the
performance
of
his
adjudicatory
functions
The
case
against
resp
deputy
sheriff
is
dismissed
for
lack
of
merit
State
vs
Muro
knowledge
of
the
fact
can
be
otherwise
acquired.
But
judicial
notice
is
not
judicial
knowledge.
The
mere
personal
knowledge
of
the
judge
is
not
the
1. Several
state
prosecutors
charge
Judge
Muro
of
ignorance
of
the
law
and
judicial
knowledge
of
the
court,
and
he
is
not
authorized
to
make
his
grave
misconduct
individual
knowledge
of
a
fact,
not
generally
or
professionally
known,
the
2. Judge
issued
an
order
(Aug
13,
1992)
dismissing
11
criminal
cases
filed
by
basis
of
his
action.
Judicial
cognizance
is
taken
only
of
those
matters
which
the
prosecutors
against
Imelda
Marcos
for
violation
of
Central
Bank
are
"commonly"
known.
Exchange
Restrictions
and
RA
265
12. judge,
in
the
guise
of
exercising
discretion
and
on
the
basis
of
a
mere
3. Such
order
was
issued
solely
based
on
newspaper
reports
(that
Pres.
newspaper
account
which
is
sometimes
even
referred
to
as
hearsay
Marcos
announced
the
lifting
of
all
foreign
restrictions
(repealed
CB
evidence
twice
removed,
took
judicial
notice
of
the
supposed
lifting
of
Circular
960)
(Aug.
10)
foreign
exchange
controls,
a
matter
which
was
not
and
cannot
be
4. He
did
not
even
require
the
comment
of
the
prosecutors,
nor
await
the
considered
of
common
knowledge
or
of
general
notoriety.
Worse,
he
took
motion
to
quash
to
be
filed
by
the
counsel
of
the
accused
cognizance
of
an
administrative
regulation
which
was
not
yet
in
force
when
5. Judge
argues
that
there
is
no
need
to
await
the
Central
Bank
circular
the
order
of
dismissal
was
issued.
Jurisprudence
dictates
that
judicial
repealing
the
law
on
foreign
exchange
because
public
announcement
by
notice
cannot
be
taken
of
a
statute
before
it
becomes
effective.
the
Pres.
was
total,
absolute,
without
qualification,
and
was
immediately
13. although
Circular
No.
1318
repealed
Circular
No.
960,
the
former
effective
specifically
excepted
from
its
purview
all
cases
covered
by
the
old
6. He
cannot
be
blamed
for
dismissing
because
the
erroneous
statements
of
regulations
which
were
then
pending
at
the
time
of
the
passage
of
the
new
the
president
which
were
only
corrected
on
Aug.
18,
1992,
and
the
proper
regulations.
Thus,
any
reference
made
to
Circular
No.
1318
necessarily
remedy
for
the
prosecutors
would
have
been
to
file
an
appeal
not
an
involves
and
affects
Circular
No.
960.
administrative
complaint
14. a
judge
should
not
only
render
a
just,
correct
and
impartial
decision
but
7. Moreover,
the
prosecutors
violated
the
Rules
of
Court,
that
complaints
should
do
so
in
such
a
manner
as
to
be
free
from
any
suspicion
as
to
its
against
judges
must
be
confidential
and
private,
instead,
the
prosecutors
fairness
and
impartiality
and
as
to
his
integrity.
published
such
in
newspapers
15. respondent
is
supposed
to
be
well-‐versed
in
the
elementary
legal
8. Prosec
argues
that
the
saving
clause
in
the
new
Circular
refers
and
includes
mandates
on
the
publication
of
laws
before
they
take
effect.
the
old
Circular-‐
so
pending
cases
are
exempted
from
the
repeal
16. He
dismissed
the
cases
without
a
motion
from
the
accused
WON
he
is
liable
YES,
Dismissed
from
service
17. In
order
that
bias
may
not
be
imputed
to
a
judge,
he
should
have
the
patience
and
circumspection
to
give
the
opposing
party
a
chance
to
9. CA-‐
judge
erred.
Because
he
issued
the
order
without
any
motion
from
the
present
his
evidence
even
if
he
thinks
that
the
oppositor's
proofs
might
not
accused
and
newspapers
are
not
the
publication
required
by
law;
A
cursory
be
adequate
to
overthrow
the
case
for
the
other
party.
reading
of
the
provision
would
have
readily
shown
that
the
repeal
of
the
18. It
bears
stressing
that
the
questioned
order
of
respondent
judge
could
regulations
on
non-‐trade
foreign
exchange
transactions
is
not
absolute,
as
have
seriously
and
substantially
affected
the
rights
of
the
prosecution
had
there
is
a
provision
that
with
respect
to
violations
of
former
regulations
the
accused
invoked
the
defense
of
double
jeopardy,
considering
that
the
that
are
the
subject
of
pending
actions
or
investigations,
they
shall
be
dismissal
was
ordered
after
arraignment
and
without
the
consent
of
said
governed
by
the
regulations
existing
at
the
time
the
cause
of
action
(arose)
accused.
This
could
have
spawned
legal
complications
and
inevitable
delay
10. Generally
speaking,
matters
of
judicial
notice
have
three
material
in
the
criminal
proceedings,
were
it
not
for
the
holding
of
the
Court
of
requisites:
(1)
the
matter
must
be
one
of
common
and
general
knowledge;
Appeals
that
respondent
judge
acted
with
grave
abuse
of
discretion
(2)
it
must
be
well
and
authoritatively
settled
and
not
doubtful
or
amounting
to
lack
of
jurisdiction.
This
saved
the
day
for
the
People
since
in
uncertain;
and
(3)
it
must
be
known
to
be
within
the
limits
of
the
the
absence
of
jurisdiction,
double
jeopardy
will
not
set
in.
jurisdiction
of
the
court.
11. To
say
that
a
court
will
take
judicial
notice
of
a
fact
is
merely
another
way
of
saying
that
the
usual
form
of
evidence
will
be
dispensed
with
if
Del
Rosario
vs
Cedillo
10. Moreover,
petitioners,
during
the
pre-‐trial,
denied
having
received
the
demand
letter-‐
the
prosecution
to
present
proof
that
the
demand
letter
1. Del
Rosario
filed
a
BP
22
case
against
Estrella.
He
allegedly
lent
her
was
indeed
sent
through
registered
mail
and
that
the
same
was
received
12M
pesos
secured
by
2
postdated
checks
and
2
real
estate
mortgages
by
petitioners
(where
the
TCTs
were
fake
so
a
falsification
case
is
pending)
and
the
3
11. We
cannot,
however,
rule
on
the
administrative
liability
of
respondent
checks
were
dishonored
for
insufficiency
of
funds
Judge
for
dismissing
the
civil
aspect
of
the
BP
22
cases
because
said
issue
is
2. Estrella
filed
a
Demurrer
to
Evidence
because
notices
of
dishonor
were
not
still
the
subject
of
complainant’s
petition
for
relief
from
judgment
with
sent
to
her,
the
registry
receipt
with
the
signature
“A.
Estrella”
was
motion
to
withdraw
motion
for
reconsideration
pending
and
awaiting
the
insufficient
and
it
was
defective
because
it
sought
the
payment
of
13.68M
designation
of
another
Judge
in
view
of
respondent
Judge’s
inhibition
3. RTC
dismissed
the
case;
MR
was
filed
because
only
the
civil
aspect
of
BP
22
12. An
administrative
complaint
against
a
judge
cannot
be
pursued
simultaneously
with
the
judicial
remedies
accorded
to
parties
aggrieved
by
was
decided-‐
denied
and
amended
the
decision
to
include
the
criminal
an
erroneous
judgment.
The
administrative
or
criminal
remedies
are
aspect
(“Neither
does
the
prosecution
adequately
establish
by
neither
alternative
nor
cumulative
to
judicial
review
where
such
review
is
preponderance
of
evidence
accused[‘s]
civil
liability
as
it
appears
that
the
available,
and
must
wait
for
the
result
thereof.
For
until
complainant’s
latter
have
executed
two
(2)
Real
Estate
Mortgage
in
favor
of
the
private
appeal
is
resolved
and
the
case
finally
is
terminated,
the
Court
will
have
no
complainant
as
security
or
collateral
for
said
loans”;
motion
for
inhibition-‐
basis
to
conclude
whether
or
not
respondent
judge
is
indeed
guilty
of
the
granted
charges
of
gross
ignorance
of
the
law
and
knowingly
rendering
an
unjust
4. Del
Rosario
filed
this
admin
complaint
for
dismissing
the
civil
and
crim
judgment.
cases
13. Considering
that
the
petition
for
relief
challenging
the
validity
of
the
July
5. Judge
argues
that
he
is
under
no
compulsion
to
hold
accused
civilly
liable
22,
2003
order
is
still
pending
with
the
Municipal
Trial
Court,
the
instant
absent
the
preponderance
of
evidence.
An
admin
complaint
is
not
the
disciplinary
action
against
respondent
Judge
for
gross
ignorance
of
the
law
proper
remedy,
rather
an
MR
or
appeal
and
conduct
prejudicial
to
the
service
in
issuing
said
order
is
therefore
6. OCA
found
him
guilty
premature.
7. BP
22
elements:
(1)the
making,
drawing,
and
issuance
of
any
check
to
14. Case
is
dismissed
apply
for
account
or
for
value;
(2)
the
knowledge
of
the
maker,
drawer,
or
issuer
that
at
the
time
of
issue
there
are
no
sufficient
funds
in
or
credit
with
the
drawee
bank
for
the
payment
of
such
check
in
full
upon
its
presentment;
and
(3)
the
subsequent
dishonor
of
the
check
by
the
drawee
bank
for
insufficiency
of
funds
or
credit
or
dishonor
for
the
same
reason
had
not
the
drawer,
without
any
valid
cause,
ordered
the
bank
to
stop
payment.
8.
As
to
the
second
element
it
must
be
shown
that
the
issuer,
at
the
time
of
the
check’s
issuance,
had
knowledge
that
he
did
not
have
enough
funds
or
credit
in
the
bank
for
payment
thereof
upon
its
presentment.-‐
presumed
to
exist
9. Judge
correctly
dismissed
the
criminal
aspect
of
the
BP
22
cases
for
failure
to
establish
that
Estrella
received
the
notice
of
dishonor
in
the
form
of
a
demand
letter.
The
presentation
of
the
said
letter
and
the
registry
receipt,
with
an
unauthenticated
signature,
do
not
meet
the
required
proof
beyond
reasonable
doubt
that
Estrella
received
such
notice,
especially
considering
that
she
denied
receipt
thereof.
The
rule
is
that
receipts
for
registered
letters
and
return
receipts
do
not
prove
themselves;
they
must
be
properly
authenticated
in
order
to
serve
as
proof
of
receipt
of
the
letters
People
vs
Veneracion
Rodriguez
vs
Barro
1. On
Aug
2
1994,
Angel
Alquiza
was
found
in
Manila,
wrapped
in
sack
and
1. Valeriano
Osita
filed
a
complaint
of
adultery
against
his
wife
Alicia
&
table
cloth.
And
she
had
bruises,
lacerations
on
her
genetalia
and
her
head
Ariston
Varquez
bashed
in
2. On
the
hearing
day,
it
was
found
that
Alicia
had
not
yet
been
arrested
so
2. Jeoffrey
Lagunday
and
Henry
Petilla
were
charged
for
the
crime
of
rape
an
order
for
such
was
odered
with
homicide,
that
they
together
with
other
unidentified
persons
3. Court
granted
the
motion
of
counsel
of
Varquez
for
a
preliminary
conspired
to
rape
a
7-‐year
old
and
later
killed
her
investigation-‐
granted
3. Subsequently,
Cordero
“Booster”,
Manlangit
“Lando”,
Baltazar
“Curimao”
4. Jul
29,
1976Special
Counsel
Downey
C.
Valdevilla
of
Gingoog
City
filed
a
and
Yaon
“Joel”
were
charged.
Lagunday
died.
All
pleaded
not
guilty
motion
to
dismiss
the
case,
based
upon
the
affidavit
of
desistance
4. After
trial
and
presentation
of
the
evidence
of
the
prosecution
and
the
executed
by
Valeriano
Ostia
defense,
the
trial
court
rendered
a
decision
finding
Henry
and
Cordero
5. Court
dismissed
the
case
after
hearing
the
parties
on
Aug
30,
1976
guilty,
of
the
crime
of
Rape
with
Homicide
and
sentenced
both
accused
6. Rodriguez,
a
concerned
citizen
and
allegedly
acting
at
the
behest
of
Alicia
with
the
"penalty
of
reclusion
perpetua
with
all
the
accessories
provided
Ostia
filed
a
complaint
with
the
President
against
the
respondent
judge
for
for
by
law."
neglect
of
duty
and/or
gross
ignorance
of
the
law
for
having
failed
to
act
5. Prosecutor
filed
an
MR
to
modify
the
penalty
to
death-‐
denied
sooner
upon
the
motion
to
dismiss
filed
by
Special
Counsel
Downey
C.
Valdevilla
and
as
a
consequence
of
which
the
accused
Alicia
Ostia
WON
the
penalty
should
have
been
death
YES
languished
in
jail
for
more
than
one
(1)
month
7. Judge
argues
that
it
was
the
clerk
of
court
who
has
all
pleadings
and
he
1. Section
11
of
R.A.
No.
7659
provides-‐
When
by
reason
or
on
the
occasion
of
knows
nothing
of
the
pleadings
filed
unless
the
clerk
of
court
invites
his
the
rape,
a
homicide
is
committed,
the
penalty
shall
be
death.
attention
thereto
2. Clearly,
under
the
law,
the
penalty
imposable
for
the
crime
of
Rape
with
8. when
the
attention
of
the
Judge
was
called
on
the
motion
to
dismiss
filed
Homicide
is
not
Reclusion
Perpetua
but
Death.
While
Republic
Act
7659
by
the
Special
Counsel
he
directed
his
clerk
of
court,
who
incidentally
is
still
punishes
cases
of
ordinary
rape
with
the
penalty
of
Reclusion
Perpetua,
it
not
well
versed
with
what
he
should
do
being
new
in
court,
to
set
the
allows
judges
the
discretion
—
depending
on
the
existence
of
motion
for
hearing
and
to
notify
the
complainant
for
tills
to
be
personally
circumstances
modifying
the
offense
committed
—
to
impose
the
penalty
present
during
the
hearing
of
either
Reclusion
Perpetua
only
in
the
three
instances
mentioned
therein
9. While
We
find
the
action
of
the
respondent
Judge
in
setting
the
motion
for
3. We
are
aware
of
the
trial
judge's
misgivings
in
imposing
the
death
sentence
hearing
to
be
laudable,
in
order
to
forestall
a
hasty
and
precipitate
because
of
his
religious
convictions.
While
this
Court
sympathizes
with
his
dismissal
of
a
criminal
case,
his
explanation
for
not
acting
upon
said
motion
predicament,
it
is
its
bounden
duty
to
emphasize
that
a
court
of
law
is
no
to
dismiss
earlier
is
not
satisfactory.
The
respondent
Judge
cannot
plead
in
place
for
a
protracted
debate
on
the
morality
or
propriety
of
the
sentence,
avoidance
the
negligence
or
ignorance
of
the
clerk
of
court
where
the
law
itself
provides
for
the
sentence
of
death
as
a
penalty
in
10. It
is
the
obligation
of
judges
to
see
that
the
officers
appointed
by
them
specific
and
well-‐defined
instances.
comply
fairly
and
strictly
with
the
duties
that
the
law
imposes
upon
them.
4. as
long
as
that
penalty
remains
in
the
statute
books,
and
as
long
as
our
11. It
is
also
the
duty
of
judges
to
judiciously
apportion
the
court's
time
to
criminal
law
provides
for
its
imposition
in
certain
cases,
it
is
the
duty
of
achieve
speedy
dispatch
of
cases
consistent
with
justice.
judicial
officers
to
respect
and
apply
the
law
regardless
of
their
private
12. Judge
had
been
previously
"severely
reprimanded
for
his
carelessness
and
opinions.
negligence,
and
enjoined
to
exercise
henceforth
due
care
and
diligence
in
5. This
is
a
case
in
which
a
judge,
fully
aware
of
the
appropriate
provisions
of
the
discharge
of
his
function,
with
a
warning
that
a
repetition
of
such
the
law,
refuses
to
impose
a
penalty
to
which
he
disagrees.
In
so
doing,
misconduct
would
be
dealt
with
more
severely."
Notwithstanding
such
respondent
judge
acted
without
or
in
excess
of
his
jurisdiction
or
with
admonition
and
warning,
the
respondent
Judge
has
again
been
found
to
be
grave
abuse
of
discretion
amounting
to
a
lack
of
jurisdiction
in
imposing
remiss
in
the
performance
of
his
duties.
A
more
severe
penalty
than
a
the
penalty
of
Reclusion
Perpetua
where
the
law
clearly
imposes
the
reprimand
is,
therefore,
called
for.
penalty
of
Death.
13. Fine
equivalent
to
1
month
salary
Yu-‐Asensi
vs
Villanueva
Moya
vs
Tensuan
1. Yu-‐Asensi
charged
Judge
Villanueva
with
serious
misconduct
and/or
1. Moya
filed
a
complaint
against
Judge
Tensuan,
that
during
the
months
of
inefficiency
particularly
violating
the
Canons
of
Judicial
Ethics
on
August,
1979,
until
March
1980,
judge
has
issued
a
certificate
that
he
has
promptness
and
punctuality.
no
pending
motions
or
incidence
or
decisions
when
in
truth
and
in
fact,
the
2. That
he
was
complainant
in
the
case
of
People
vs
Santos
for
Reckless
case
of
People
vs
Ramirez,
remained
unresolved
until
April
1980
imprudence
resulting
to
serious
physical
injuries
2. Judge
averred
that
Moya
was
the
complaining
witness
against
his
wife,
3. That
judge
arrives
1
½
hr
late
during
trials,
and
even
arrived
at
3:30pm
in
Ramirez,
where
a
case
of
acquittal
was
rendered
on
Feb
4,
1980-‐
it
was
one,
and
extended
a
trial
until
5pm
deemed
submitted
on
Nov.
10,
1979,
the
86th
day
after
the
case
was
4. Judge
argues
that
Yu-‐Asensi
and
his
lawyer
were
"harassing
the
respondent
submitted
for
resolution
-‐
could
be
attributed
to
the
fact
that
the
docket
of
Judge,
for
adverse
rulings
and
resolutions
rendered,
due
to
the
negligence
Branch
IV
is
burdened
with
more
than
1,000
pending
cases,
but
never
and
omissions"
of
complainant's
counsel.
He
denied
that
he
arrives
late
more
than
the
90th
day
and
said
that
she
disposes
30-‐40
cases
each
session
and
was
one
of
the
3. That
Moya,
when
he
heard
of
Judiciary
Reorganization
Act
of
1980,
he
highest
disposition
of
cases
in
the
MTC
thought
of
a
way
to
get
back
at
the
Judge
5. Yu
attended
8
hearings,
his
counsel,
Atty.
Campanilla,
attended
11-‐15,
and
4. Complainant
asserted
that
even
after
Feb
4,
1980,
no
decision
was
yet
said
hearings,
according
to
the
minutes
were
from
45-‐
1
½
hr
late.
A
submitted
after
inquiring,
that
he
was
only
notified
of
the
promulgation
of
witness,
Dr.
Patricio
also
said
Judge
was
always
late
his
decision
on
April
28,
1980
but
was
reset
to
Apr
30,
1980
6. The
Court
is
convinced
that
respondent
judge
is
guilty
of
habitual
tardiness
5. The
decision
is
dated
Feb
4,
1980;
on
May
12,
1980,
the
decision
was
reset
which
amounts
to
serious
misconduct
and
inefficiency.
4
times,
(last
on
May
12,
1980)
7. Circular
No.
13:
Punctuality
in
the
holding
of
scheduled
hearings
is
an
6. While
the
decision
in
said
case
is
dated
February
4,
1980,
Complainant
imperative.
Trial
judges
should
strictly
observe
the
requirements
of
Moya
wants
to
imply
that
the
same
was
rendered
much
later
but
ante-‐
at
lease
(sic)
eight
hours
of
service
a
day,
five
hours
of
which
should
be
dated
so
that
the
same
would
appear
to
have
been
decided
with
the
devoted
to
trial,
specifically
from
8:30
a.m.
to
12:00
noon
and
from
2:00
to
period
allowed
by
law.
On
the
other
hand,
respondent
Judge
contends
that
4:30
as
required
by
par.
5
of
the
Interim
Rules
issued
by
the
Supreme
Court
at
the
time
he
had
more
than
1,000
pending
cases
and
yet
he
was
able
to
on
January
11,
1983,
pursuant
to
Sec.
16
of
B.P.
129.
render
the
decision
even
before
the
90-‐day
period
8. The
aforesaid
circulars
are
restatements
of
the
Canon
of
Judicial
Ethics
7. the
interest
of
justice
would
have
been
served
and
no
complaint
for
delay
which
enjoin
judges
to
be
punctual
in
the
performance
of
their
judicial
would
have
arisen
had
respondent
Judge
promptly
set
the
promulgation
of
duties,
recognizing
that
the
time
of
litigants,
witnesses,
and
attorneys
are
his
decision
of
value,
and
that
if
the
judge
is
not
punctual
in
his
habits,
he
sets
a
bad
8. While
it
is
possible
that
because
of
the
number
of
cases
in
his
sala
(1,000
example
to
the
bar
and
tends
to
create
dissatisfaction
in
the
administration
pending
cases)
respondent
failed
to
direct
the
Clerk
of
Court
to
set
of
justice.
immediately
the
case
for
the
promulgation
of
the
decision,
nevertheless,
9. The
Code
of
Judicial
Conduct
decrees
that
a
judge
should
administer
justice
more
care
and
punctuality
in
the
performance
of
his
duties
is
required
impartially
and
without
delay.
A
judge
should
likewise
be
imbued
with
a
under
the
circumstances
high
sense
of
duty
and
responsibility
in
the
discharge
of
his
obligation
9. Admonished
to
promptly
administer
justice.
10. Fined
P10,000
and
suspended
for
1
year
Salvadoor
vs
Salamanca
possible,
and,
accordingly,
technicalities
or
details
of
procedure
which
may
1. Salvador
and
others
filed
a
complaint
for
forcible
entry
against
Arreza,
cause
unnecessary
delays
should
carefully
be
avoided.
Antonio
Co,
Domingo
Co
and
Lucio
Co
9. Reprimanded
2. After
2
years
of
litigation
the
parties
rested
their
case
for
final
adjudication.
April
18,
1984
filed
an
urgent
motion
for
prelim
inj.
And
submitted
their
memorandum
on
May
3,
1984
3. May
16,
1984-‐
Judge
issued
an
order:
Inasmuch
as
this
case
has
already
been
submitted
for
decision,
the
court
defers
action
on
plaintiffs'
motion
for
the
issuance
of
a
writ
of
preliminary
injunction
specially
as
it
is
based
on
factual
allegations
which
the
court
still
has
to
resolve
in
the
decision
on
the
merits.
4. On
June
25,
1984,
when
no
memorandum
was
submitted
by
therein
defendants
within
the
period
agreed
upon,
complainant
manifested
such
failure
to
respondent
judge
and
moved
for
the
resolution
of
the
case
without
defendants'
memorandum.
On
September
20,
1984,
complainant
instituted
the
instant
petition.
5. Judge
stated
that
while
the
complaint
contained
a
prayer
for
preliminary
injunction,
the
matter
was
not
pressed
by
therein
plaintiffs,
who
later
amended
their
complaint.
When
they
moved
for
its
issuance
on
May
16,
1983,
he
temporarily
denied
the
motion
in
an
order
dated
August
2,
1983
in
view
of
the
defendants'
defense
that
plaintiffs
did
not
have
prior
possession
of
the
premises
under
consideration.
He
further
explained
that
the
resolution
of
plaintiffs'
motion
of
April
16,
1984
was
deferred
as
the
same
was
based
on
factual
allegations
which
the
court
still
had
to
resolve
in
the
decision
on
the
merits.
And
although
the
parties
rested
their
evidence
on
April
5,
1984,
the
case
was
deemed
submitted
for
decision
only
upon
the
lapse
of
five
(5)
days
from
defendants'
receipt
of
the
court's
order
of
August
22,
1984
which
granted
them
another
period
of
five
(5)
days
within
which
to
file
their
memorandum
6. The
facts
irrefutably
establish
that
there
was
a
delay
in
the
resolution
of
both
the
motions
for
preliminary
injunction
and
the
case
itself.
The
urgency
of
the
relief
sought
through
a
writ
of
preliminary
mandatory
injunction
in
a
forcible
entry
case
requires
that
an
application
therefor
be
resolved
with
dispatch
one
way
or
another.
This
is
the
reason
why
the
last
sentence
of
Section
3,
Rule
70
of
the
Rules
of
Court
specifically
provides
for
its
disposition
within
thirty
days
from
the
filing
thereof.
Evidently,
respondent
judge
failed
to
respond
to
the
situation
with
the
speed
required
by
the
Rules.
7. On
the
argument
that
it
was
deemed
submitted
only
after
the
receipt-‐
elied
by
his
own
order
of
May
16,
1984
wherein
he
stated
inter
alia
that
the
case
has
already
been
submitted
for
resolution.
8. Cases
of
forcible
entry
and
detainer
are
summary
in
nature
for
they
involve
perturbation
of
social
order
which
must
be
restored
as
promptly
as
Query
of
Judge
Tenerife
Report
on
Judicial
Audit
in
RTC
Branch
144,
Makati
City
1. Judge
Tenerife
assumed
office
as
acting
judge
of
MTCC,
he
caused
a
1. OCA
Report
stated
that
out
of
six
hundred
sixty-‐five
(665)
active
cases
in
physical
inventory
of
all
the
cases
pending
and
found
that
82
cases
all
have
the
Branch,
there
were
one
hundred
seventy-‐seven
(177)
cases
submitted
been
submitted
for
decision
and
were
left
undecided
Judge
Magallanes
for
decision;
in
addition,
motions
in
sixty-‐five
(65)
cases
were
unresolved,
2. Judge
Tenerife
inquired
who
shall
decide
such
cases
and
SC
decided
that
it
in
violation
of
the
90-‐day
period
mandated
by
the
Constitution
shall
be
re-‐raffled
to
the
7
branches
of
MTCC
2. Judge
Villanueva
explained
that
his
case
load
had
been
unusually
high.
He
3. Judge
Magallanes
claimed
that
the
reason
why
these
cases
were
left
attributed
this
fact
to
the
sending
to
his
Branch
of
cases
formerly
undecided
was
due
to
the
failure
of
the
court
stenographers,
Mr.
Leonardo
cognizable
by
the
Juvenile
and
Domestic
Relations
Courts
(JDRC).
It
was
Yong
and
Mrs.
Gloria
Espinosa,
both
of
whom
were
frequently
ill
and
also
designated
as
one
of
the
pioneer
Family
Courts.
unable
to
work,
to
complete
the
transcript
of
stenographic
notes
(TSN)
3. that
his
failure
to
decide
the
cases
within
the
required
90-‐day
period
was
4. Canon
3,
Rule
3.05
of
the
Code
of
Judicial
Conduct
requires
judges
to
also
due
to
his
pairing
judges’
successive
resignations,
which
had
forced
dispose
of
the
Court’s
business
promptly
and
decide
cases
within
the
him
to
act
upon
cases
or
incidents
in
another
Branch
until
a
successor
was
period
specified
in
the
Constitution,
that
is,
three
(3)
months
or
ninety
(90)
appointed.
Finally,
he
explained
that
he
was
hampered
by
the
lack
of
days
from
the
filing
of
the
last
pleading,
brief
or
memorandum
personnel
and
the
many
unfounded
administrative
cases
filed
against
him
5. The
explanation
of
Judge
Magallanes
is
unsatisfactory
and
deserves
scant
that
he
had
to
address
consideration
4. The
Court
finds
merit
in
the
explanation
of
Judge
Villanueva.
6. the
delay
in
the
transcription
of
stenographic
notes
by
a
stenographic
5. A
judge
is
mandated
to
render
a
decision
not
more
than
90
days
from
the
reporter
under
the
judge’s
supervision
and
control
cannot
be
considered
a
time
a
case
is
submitted
for
decision.
Judges
are
to
dispose
of
the
court’s
valid
reason
for
the
delay
in
rendering
judgment
in
a
case
business
promptly
and
decide
cases
within
the
period
specified
in
the
7. the
requirement
that
cases
be
decided
within
ninety
(90)
days
from
their
Constitution,
that
is,
3
months
from
the
filing
of
the
last
pleading,
brief
or
submission
for
decision
is
designed
to
prevent
delay
in
the
administration
memorandum.
Failure
to
observe
said
rule
constitutes
a
ground
for
of
justice,
for
obviously
justice
delayed
is
justice
denied,
and
delay
in
the
administrative
sanction
against
the
defaulting
judge,
absent
sufficient
disposition
of
cases
erodes
the
faith
and
confidence
of
our
people
in
the
justification
for
his
non-‐compliance
therewith.
judiciary,
lowers
its
standards,
and
brings
it
into
disrepute
6. Statistical
Reports
Division
of
the
OCA
show
that
from
November
2002
to
8. In
view
of
the
foregoing
circumstances
and
the
fact
that
this
is
Judge
January
2003,
the
average
number
of
cases
raffled
to
the
two
Family
Magallanes’
first
offense,
a
mitigating
circumstance
in
his
favor,
a
fine
of
Courts
(Branches
140
and
144)
was
98
or
19
percent
of
the
total
number
P10,000.00
would
be
reasonable.
filed
in
Makati
City.
The
voluminous
cases
prompted
this
Court
to
designate
two
additional
Family
Courts
7. Judge
Villanueva
wrote
to
Court
Administrator
Presbitero
J.
Velasco
Jr.,
through
Executive
Judge
Sixto
C.
Marella
Jr.,
a
letter
requesting
permission
not
to
conduct
court
hearings
to
be
able
to
devote
more
time
to
cases
that
had
been
submitted
for
decision-‐
virtual
plea
for
assistance
to
address
his
heavy
case
load
8. Prior
to
his
retirement,
Judge
Villanueva
was
able
to
dispose
of
all
his
cases
submitted
for
decision,
with
the
exception
of
only
three
-‐-‐
two
inherited
ones
with
incomplete
transcripts,
and
another
case
whose
records
had
been
ordered
to
be
reconstituted.
Tan
v
Madayag
parties
concerened
and
averred
that
his
primary
duty
devolved
upon
the
clerk-‐
A.M.
No.
RTJ-‐93-‐995;
March
11,
1994
in-‐charge
and
not
upon
his
as
the
officer-‐in-‐charge
of
the
branch.
Competence
and
Diligence
(Canon
6);
Administrative
Responsibilities
9.)
Resp
judge,
on
the
other
hand,
said
that
he
had
filed
with
the
office
of
the
Regalado,
J.
ombudsman
an
identical
case.
He
alleged
that
after
signing
the
questioned
order
of
Dec
22,
he
sent
the
records
of
the
case
and
pertinent
order
to
resp
FACTS:
1.)
A
sworn
letter-‐complaint
was
written
by
Tan
charging
Judge
Banayad
for
the
corresponding
notifications
to
be
sent
to
the
parties.
He
Madayag
of
RTC
Makati
and
Banayad,
acting
OIC
of
the
branch
with
neglect
of
averred
that
as
matter
of
procedure,
resp
Banayad
should
instruct
the
mailing
duty.
He
alleges
that
respondents
“deliberately
and
maliciously
failed
to
giv
clerk
to
send
copies
of
orders
to
the
parties
(that
is
not
the
duty
of
the
judge)
notice
to
the
movant-‐intervenors
of
the
denial
of
their
motion
for
intervention
10.)
Complainant
reiterates
that
the
delay
had
in
fact
resulted
in
a
denial
of
(complainant
is
also
co-‐movant)
and
have
acted
with
manifest
partiality,
justice
and
that
by
reason
of
resp
judge’s
neglect
of
duty,
he
as
deprived
of
his
evident
bad
faith
or
gross
inexcusable
negligence
by
either
hiding
or
concealing
property
without
due
process
of
law.
Furthermore,
complainant
says
that
and
refusing
to
give
movants
a
copy
of
the
said
order
of
denial
respondents
cannot
invoke
neglect
of
their
staff
as
a
legitimate
excuse
for
the
2.)
A
civil
case
involves
the
recovery
of
certain
shares
of
stock
of
the
defunct
delay,
and
both
respondents
must
be
laible
for
failing
to
exercise
close
Continental
Bank
(later
became
INTERBANK)
allegedly
issued
in
the
name
of
supervision
over
their
personnel
complainant
and
4
other
corporations
wherein
the
former
is
an
officer
and
11.)
The
OCA
found
the
complaint
meritorious
as
it
is
evident
from
the
records
stockholder.
and
admission
of
the
resps
that
indeed
the
counsel
for
the
complainant
was
3.)
On
Sept.
8,
1992,
complainant
filed
a
motion
to
intervene
in
the
said
ciil
furnished
a
copy
of
the
order
late.
It
is
also
settled
that
the
duty
of
sending
out
case
and
the
motion
was
set
for
hearing
ten
days
after.
copies
of
the
orders
was
the
duty
of
the
clerk-‐in-‐charge.
Despiite
this,
the
4.)
On
Dec
22,
1992,
resp
judge
issued
an
order
denying
the
motion
for
lack
of
respondents
may
not
be
absolved
from
any
liability
for
their
defenses
are
not
merit.
However,
it
was
only
on
April
15,
1993
when
complainant’s
counsel
tenable.
However,
the
OCA
is
convinced
that
there
was
no
malice.
received
a
notice
of
the
said
order
of
denial
which
was
preceded
by
a
letter
of
complainant
dated
Apr
5,
1993
requesting
a
certification
that
neither
he
nor
his
ISSUE:
WON
the
respondents
should
be
liable
lawyers
had
been
furnished
a
copy
of
the
order
of
Dec.
22,
1992
HELD:
YES,
but
since
there
was
no
malice,
SEVERELY
REPRIMANDED
with
5.)
The
complaint
claims
that
he
had
several
persons
go
to
the
Office
of
the
WARNING
for
judge;
and
FINE
with
WARNING
for
Banayad
Clerk
of
Court
of
that
branch
to
verify
the
status
of
the
said
motion
only
to
be
informed
that
the
same
had
not
yet
been
acted
upon.
There
were
also
at
least
RATIO:
-‐Respondent
Banayad,
as
Officer-‐in-‐Charge
of
that
Court
during
the
two
occasions
when
the
expendiente
of
the
case
could
not
be
located.
Hence,
period
in
question,
may
not
invoke
(the
fact)
that
he
was
on
leave
in
the
real
status
of
the
motion
could
not
be
determined.
September,
1992
as
the
questioned
Order
was
issued
when
he
had
already
6.)
The
incidents
caused
suspicion
that
the
failure
to
send
the
required
notice
reported
back
for
work.
He
should
have
instructed
the
personnel
in
charge
to
of
the
order
was
deliberate
so
that
the
original
parties
may
“enter
into
all
kinds
mail
copies
of
the
Order
to
the
parties
concerned
with
utmost
dispatch.
of
settlements
causing
undue
injury
to
the
complainant
and
to
the
other
Respondent
Judge,
for
his
part,
also
failed
to
exercise
close
supervision
over
his
stockholders
who
have
actual
and
material
interest”
personnel
in
violation
of
Rule
3.09,
Canon
3
of
the
Code
of
Judicial
Conduct
7.)
In
a
resolution
dated
Jun
23,
1993,
the
Court,
acting
on
the
which
states:
recommendation
of
Deputy
Court
Administrator
Bernad
resolved
to
require
-‐
A
Judge
should
organize
and
supervise
the
Court
personnel
to
ensure
the
respondents
to
file
their
comments
prompt
and
efficient
dispatch
of
business,
and
require
at
all
times
the
8.)
Respondent
Banayad
said
that
he
was
on
leave
for
the
purpose
of
taking
the
observance
of
high
standards
of
public
service
and
fidelity.
1992
Bar
Exams
when
the
motion
for
intervention
was
filed.
Consequently,
the
-‐A
judge
cannot
simply
take
refuse
behind
the
inefficiency
or
mismanagement
representatives
of
complainant
tasked
to
follow
up
the
status
of
the
motion
of
his
court
personnel.
Proper
and
efficient
court
management
is
definitely
his
from
Dec
22
onwards
could
not
have
approached
him.
However,
he
admitted
responsibility.
He
is
directly
responsible
for
the
proper
discharge
of
their
official
that
he
furnished
complainant’s
counsel
a
copy
of
the
order
after
he
had
functions.
"Court
personnel
are
not
the
guardians
of
a
Judge's
responsibilities."
verified
from
the
records
that
indeed
only
the
other
intervenor
in
the
case
was
furnished
the
required
notice
while
none
had
been
sent
to
complainant.
He
asserted
that
it
was
not
his
duty
to
release
or
mail
copies
of
the
order
to
the
Request
of
Judge
Cartagena
comply
with
the
Court’s
previous
resolution,
for
going
to
the
USA
and
returning
A.M.
No.
95-‐9-‐98-‐MCTC;
Dec.
4,
1997
to
his
station
w/o
notifying
the
Exec.
Judge,
and
for
making
or
treating
his
Competence
and
Diligence
(Canon
6);
Administrative
Responsibilities
office
as
if
it
were
his
personal
domain
Per
Curiam
11.)
Judge
Memoracion
directed
Judge
Cartagena
to
cease
and
desist
from
acting
as
presiding
judge
until
the
latter
could
present
a
resolution
from
the
SC
FACTS:
1.)
The
administrative
matter
came
about
following
the
receipt
by
that
no
disciplinary
measure
had
been
taken
against
him.
Deputy
Court
Administrator
Abesamis
of
a
letter
dated
Aug
14,
1995
of
MCTC-‐ 12.)
The
OCA
reported
that
from
1993
to
1997,
Judge
Cartagena
was
almost
Basilan
Judge
Cartagena
applying
for
a
2-‐month
leave
without
pay
from
Aug
10
always
abroad
in
the
USA.
Also,
there
was
an
instance
when
he
was
required
to
to
Nov
1,
1995.
submit
a
med
cert
but
submitted
and
incomplete
one.
The
OCA
recommended
2.)
In
the
letter
which
was
evidently
sent
from
the
US,
Judge
Cartagena
wrote
that
he
be
allowed
to
retire
from
the
service
and
be
fined
P100k
deductible
to
say
that
after
attending
a
seminar
in
Tagaytay,
he
had
to
immediately
go
the
from
any
retirement
benefit
that
may
be
due
to
him
USA
for
his
mother
was
gravely
ill.
He
said
that
he
had
failed
to
get
an
authority
to
travel
from
the
OCA
because
he
took
a
direct
flight
from
Zamboanga
and
ISSUE:
WON
the
resp
Judge
should
be
dismissed
stayed
in
Manila
only
for
some
minutes
for
the
connecting
flight.
He
also
HELD:
YES,
his
attitude
betrays
his
lack
of
concern
for
his
office.
His
benefits
mentioned
about
promptly
having
an
appointment
at
the
LACUSC
Medical
in
were
also
forfeited
and
re-‐employment
in
any
other
branch,
instrumentality
or
connection
with
his
prostate
gland
ailment
and
another
consultation
with
an
agency
of
the
gov’t
including
GOCCs
shall
be
prejudiced
EENT
specialist
regarding
his
hearing
problem
3.)
Judge
Cartagena
also
stated
that
he
was
able
to
dispose
of
more
than
20
RATIO:
-‐
"x
x
x.
As
a
judicial
officer
delicately
tasked
with
the
administration
of
cases
within
a
period
of
3
months
and
that
he
had
no
pending
cases
for
trial
or
justice,
the
higher
interests
of
public
service
should,
at
all
times,
be
above
all
decision.
other
considerations.
x
x
x.
Judges
should
be
reminded
that
requests
for
4.)
In
the
mean
time,
the
Court
received
a
letter
dated
Aug.
25,
1995
from
exec.
permission
to
travel
abroad
on
official
time
should
not
be
presumed
granted
by
Judge
Memoracion
of
the
RTC-‐Basilan
advising
the
Court
that
Judge
Cartagena
the
Court.
Guided
by
considerations
of
higher
interests
of
the
service,
the
again
left
for
abroad
w/o
notice
and
w/o
filing
a
LOA
Court
painstakingly
looks
into
every
request
on
a
case-‐to-‐case
basis.
5.)
It
was
also
reported
that
Judge
Cartegana
had
left
various
legal
matters
-‐
Judge
Cartagena's
travels
have
been
neither
on
official
time
nor
for
including
several
cases
pending
trial,
all
requiring
his
personal
attention.
official
business.
He
undoubtedly
should
have
been
more
conscious
of
his
6.)
Judge
Memoracion
recommended
the
dismissal
of
Judge
Cartagena
from
court
duties,
as
well
as
more
cautious
of
his
actuations,
than
he
has
heretofore
the
service
and
meanwhile
designating
Judge
Martin
to
be
the
acting
presiding
exhibited.
He
should
have
been
aware
that,
in
regularly
leaving
his
station,
he
judge
of
the
MCTC
continually
has
caused
great
disservice
to
countless
litigants
and
has
denied
7.)
The
Court
denied
the
letter-‐request
of
Judge
Cartagena
and
directed
him
to
them
speedy
justice.
In
departing
for
abroad
without
the
knowledge,
let
alone
return
to
the
Philippines
within
10
days
from
receipt
of
the
resolution
as
well
as
the
permission,
of
the
Court,
Judge
Cartagena
has
violated
Memorandum
to
explain
why
he
should
not
be
disciplinarily
dealt
with
for
traveling
abroad
Order
No.
26
[4]
which
mandates
that
"(r)equests
for
permission
to
travel
w/o
corresponding
application
for
leave,
travel
authority
and
court
clearance.
abroad
from
members
and
employees
of
the
judiciary
(should
x
x
x)
be
8.)
Judge
Cartagena
explained
in
a
letter
that
he
had
received
a
copy
of
the
obtained
from
the
Supreme
Court."
[5]
In
addition,
Judge
Cartagena
has
chosen
court’s
resolution
months
later
when
it
was
brought
to
him
by
his
daughter
to
be
unmindful
of
the
authority
of
his
immediate
superior,
Judge
Memoracion,
who
visited
from
the
Philippines.
According
to
him,
he
was
unable
to
return
as
whom
he
apparently
did
not
even
notify
of
his
travels.
he
had
to
attend
to
the
needs
of
his
mother
who
was
gravely
ill.
It
was
only
after
his
mother’s
recovery
that
he
was
able
to
attend
to
his
prostate
problem
The
doctrine
of
res
ipsa
loquitur,
i.e.,
that
the
Court
may
impose
its
and
to
have
his
treatment
which
lasted
for
6
months.
He,
then,
wen
to
an
EENT
authority
upon
erring
judges
whose
actuations,
on
their
face,
would
show
gross
specialist
for
eye
treatment.
He
also
had
an
accident
and
had
to
undergo
incompetence,
ignorance
of
the
law,
or
misconduct,
is
obviously
applicable
to
physical
therapy
and
was
discharged
only
on
June
20,
1996
the
instant
case.
9.)
Judge
Cartagena
manifested
his
desire
to
return
to
his
post
or
be
allowed
to
retire.
10.)
Judge
Memoracion
requested
that
Judge
Cartagena
be
investigated
for
abandonment
of
office
for
a
period
of
1
yr,
7
months
and
23
days
for
failure
to
Imbang
v
Del
Rosario
-‐A
resolution
of
the
SC
is
not
a
mere
request
and
should
be
complied
with
A.M.
No
03-‐1515-‐MTJ;
Nov.
19,
2004
promptly
and
completely
Competence
and
Diligence
(Canon
6);
Administrative
Responsibilities
-‐He
violated
Rule
1.01
of
Canon
1
as
well
as
Rule
2.01
of
Canon
2
of
the
Code
of
CALLEJO,
SR.,
J.
Judicial
Conduct.
Also,
Canon
11
of
CPR
FACTS:
1.)
The
administrative
matter
arose
when
Imbang
charged
Judge
Del
Rosario
of
MCTC-‐Antique
with
failure
to
decide
a
civil
case
for
collection
of
sum
of
money
in
a
sworn
letter-‐complaint.
In
a
1st
indorsement,
the
OCA
referred
the
matter
to
the
resp
and
required
him
to
comment
within
10
days.
The
OCA
thereafter
issued
a
1st
tracer
reiterating
its
order
requiring
the
resp
to
submit
his
comment.
The
respondent
failed
to
comply
so
the
Court
Administratior
reiterated
previous
orders
and
warned
resp
that
the
OCA
would
recommend
that
he
may
be
cited
for
contempt
2.)
The
resp
judge
requested
for
a
10-‐day
extension
within
which
to
file
his
comment
which
the
OCA
granted
with
the
advise
that
no
further
extension
would
be
given
but
the
resp
failed
to
do
so.
3.)
The
Court
imposed
a
fine
of
the
Judge
in
the
amt
of
P10k
for
failing
to
comment
and
was
directed
to
show
cause
w/in
10
days
from
receipt
why
he
should
not
be
dismissed
4.)
The
judge
complied
and
paid
the
required
fine.
In
his
Manifestation
with
Show
Cause
Explanation,
he
averred
that
he
had
no
intention
to
defy
the
Court.
It
was
because
of
his
poor
time
management
(date
overlooked)
and
he
was
also
suffering
from
several
ailments
as
shown
in
the
med
cert
issued
to
him
by
his
attending
physicians
which
were
also
attached
to
his
sick
leave
5.)
It
was
also
added
that
said
ailments
have
greatly
affected
respondent’s
efficiency
and
competence
making
him
no
longer
fit
to
continue
in
the
judiciary
for
his
inefficiency.(i.e.,
making
it
hard
for
him
to
travel
3x
a
week
to
the
MCTC
of
which
he
has
been
a
judge
since
1997)
6.)
He
humbly
pleaded
that
he
be
allowed
to
retire
from
service
as
he
is
now
60
years
old
7.)
The
OCA
found
the
explanation
to
be
unsatisfactory.
Assuming
that
he
was
burdened
with
heavy
workload
and
is
suffering
from
numerous
health
problems,
we
find
it
wrong
that
such
lawful
orders
of
this
court
have
been
ignored
by
him.
Clearly,
the
Judge’s
contumacious
conduct
and
blatant
disregard
of
the
Court
for
more
than
5
years
amounts
to
defiance
and
insubordination.
OCA
recommends
he
be
fined
P21k
and
be
sternly
warned
ISSUE:
WON
the
Judge
should
be
administratively
liable
HELD:
YES,
his
medical
condition
is
not
a
valid
excuse
for
not
commenting
RATIO:
-‐
the
resp
is
guilty
of
his
duty
to
defend
himself
against
charges
-‐The
office
of
the
judge
requires
him
to
obey
lawful
orders
of
his
superiors
-‐It
is
gross
misconduct
even
outright
disrespect
for
the
judge
to
exhibit
indifference
Office
of
Court
Admin
v
Fuentes
12.)
On
May
20,
1994,
Alex
Bacquial
moved
for
the
issuance
of
a
“break
A.M.
No.
RTJ-‐94-‐1270;
Aug.
23,
1995
through”
order
to
enable
him
to
effect
the
withdrawal
o
the
auctioned
Competence
and
Diligence
(Canon
6);
Administrative
Responsibilities
properties
and
the
motion
was
granted
by
Judge
Fuentes
Per
Curiam
13.)
The
next
day,
Alex
Bacquial
assisted
by
resp
Sheriff
returned
to
the
depot
armed
with
the
LC’s
order
and
was
able
to
haul
the
scrap
iron/junk
equipment
FACTS:
1.)
Pursuant
to
the
gov’t’s
plan
to
construct
its
first
fly-‐over
in
Davao
in
the
depot
including
the
repairable
equipment
City,
the
DPWH
filed
an
expropriation
case
against
the
owners
of
the
properties
14.)
That
same
day,
Atty.
Cartagena
went
to
the
depot
to
stop
resp
Sheriff
and
affected
by
the
project
namely
defendants
Amadeo,
Lao,
and
Rev.
Galo.
The
Bacquial
from
withdrawing
the
equipment
since
it
was
a
Sat.
The
sheriff
and
case
was
presided
by
Judge
Fuentes.
Bacquial
were
warned
that
they
would
be
responsible
for
hauling
serviceable
2.)
The
gov’t
won
the
expropriation
case
and
as
reasonable
compensation,
equipment
of
the
depot
which
were
included
in
the
rehabilitation
program
of
sums
of
P1,527,500,
P498,000
and
P16,121,175
were
received,
respectively.
the
DPWH.
Despite
the
warning,
Sheriff
Paralisan
allowed
the
withdrawal
of
3.)
Upon
MR
by
Rev.
Galo,
his
compensation
was
adjusted
to
P18,383,
175.
The
said
serviceable
equipment
w/o
issuing
receipt
or
proof
of
withdrawal
from
the
gov’t
did
not
appeal
and
so
this
became
final
and
executory
Regional
Equipment
Services.
4.)
As
of
May
19,
1994,
the
DPWH
still
owed
the
defendants
a
total
sum
of
P15,
15.)
The
following
day,
they
took
several
equipment
from
the
depot
and
all
in
510,
415
all
was
able
to
take
junk/disposable
equipment
icluding
a
repairable
equipment
5.)
On
Apr
5,
1994,
the
LC
granted
Amadeo’s
motion
for
the
issuance
of
a
writ
worth
P355,649
with
a
total
estimated
appraised
value
of
P1,132,846.51
-‐-‐-‐
he
of
execution
against
DPWH
to
satisfy
her
unpaid
claim
and
the
order
was
took
more
the
following
days
received
by
DPWH
but
the
OSG
(dpwh’s
counsel)
only
received
the
copy
on
16.)
Upon
request
of
the
Regional
director
of
the
DPWH,
the
LC
temporarily
May
10,
1994
suspended
the
writ
of
execution
in
the
expropriation
case
6.)
On
Apr
6,
1994,
the
Clerk
of
Court
actually
issued
the
corresponding
writ
of
17.)
On
June
21,
1994,
the
LC
issued
another
order
upholding
the
validity
of
the
execution
and
on
Apr
15,
1994,
the
writ
was
served
by
resp
Sheriff
Paralisan
to
writs
issued
in
favor
of
the
defendents
so
the
gov’t
appealed
for
the
dismissal
the
DPWH
through
William
Nagar
of
such
but
CA
dismissed
the
appeal
on
a
technicality
7.)
On
May
3,
1994
respondent
Sheriff
Paralisan
issued
a
Notice
of
Levy
18.)
On
June
6,
1994,
a
letter
was
sent
by
Cong.
Garcia
referring
the
letter
of
addressed
to
the
Regional
Director
of
the
DPWH
which
described
the
Engr.
Alejo,
the
custodian
of
DPWH,
seeking
the
assistance
of
this
Court
to
properties
subject
of
the
levy
including
all
scrap
iron/junks
determine
the
persons
responsible
for
the
alleged
irregularities
surrounding
8.)
The
Sheriff’s
Notice
of
Sale
was
issued
on
May
10,
1994
but
the
OSG
was
the
auction
sale.
The
taking
was
described
as
a
clear
case
of
“robbery
in
broad
not
furnished
with
copies
of
such
although
Atty
Cartagena
received
the
it
on
daylight”
behalf
of
the
DPWH-‐Region
XI
19.)
The
Court
Administrator
thus
directed
Judge
Fuentes
to
require
Sheriff
9.)
Allegedly,
the
auction
sale
pushed
through
as
scheduled
on
May
18,
1994
Paralisan
to
comment.
The
said
auction
sale
also
prompted
the
DPWH
to
file
and
Alex
Bacquial
emerged
as
highest
bidder
(besting
2
other
bidders)
with
a
and
AC
against
the
sheriff
for
conduct
prejudicial
to
the
best
interest
of
the
bid
of
P602,000
for
the
properties
described
in
the
notice
of
levy.
None
of
the
service
bidders
inspected
the
scrap
iron/junk
equipment.
20.)
Court
Admin
recommended
(1)
dismissal
of
sheriff;
(2)
Judge
Fuentes
was
10.)
On
May
19,
1994,
OSG
sent
a
telegram
to
resp
Sheriff
Paralisan
to
hold
in
fined
P20k
for
gross
ignorance
of
the
law
in
granting
the
motion
for
writ
of
abeyance
all
execution/auction
proceedings.
Later
on,
the
OSG
moved
for
a
execution
against
gov’t
properties
reconsideration
of
the
orders
of
the
LC
allowing
the
execution
against
the
DPWH
ISSUE:
WON
resp
Judge
should
be
administratively
liable
11.)
Meanwhile,
Alex
Bacquial
together
with
the
Sheriff,
attempted
to
HELD:
NO,
he
has
not
been
charged
by
any
interested
party
in
relation
to
the
withdraw
the
auctioned
properties
on
May
19,
1994.
They
were,
however,
issuance
of
the
writs
of
execution
against
the
govt.
prevented
by
the
custodian
of
the
properties
claiming
that
his
office
was
totally
unaware
of
the
auction
sale.
Resp
Sheriff
Paralisan
was
then
informed
that
RATIO:
-‐resp
sheriff
was
guilty
for
he
showed
unjustified
bias
in
favor
of
many
of
the
properties
within
the
holding
area
of
the
depot
were
still
Bacquial
(ex.
resp
sheriff
levied
on
the
prperties
without
conferring
with
the
serviceable
and
were
due
for
repair
and
rehabilitation
concerned
officials
as
to
what
properties
are
specifically
being
attached)
-‐
A
public
office
is
a
public
trust.
All
public
officers
and
employees
must
be
accountable
to
the
people.
-‐-‐-‐Sheriff
DISMISSED
-‐The
imposition
of
fine
against
judge
Fuentes
will
deny
him
procedural
due
process
-‐-‐-‐
Judge
will
be
INVESTIGATED
-‐With
respect
to
Atty.
Cartagena,
the
determination
of
his
administrative
liability,
if
any,
is
lodged
with
the
DPWH
Office
of
Court
Admin
v
Sumilang
10.)
The
evidence
against
Judge
Sumilang
adequately
proves
his
gross
A.M.
No.
MTJ-‐94-‐989;
Apr
18,
1997
negligence
in
this
matter.
Competence
and
Diligence
(Canon
6);
Administrative
Responsibilities
11.)
He
averred
that
his
wife
did
not
borrow
any
money
from
Malla
and
that
he
Romero,
J.
had
no
knowledge
of
the
irregularities
involving
members
of
his
own
staff.
It
also
bears
emphasizing
that
this
is
not
the
first
time
that
resp
has
been
charged
FACTS:
1.)
Resp
Judge
Sumilang
along
with
court
employess
Malla,
Lagmay,
and
with
an
AC.
The
first
found
him
guilty
of
gross
negligence
and
fined
him
P3k
for
Mercado
of
the
MTC
of
Pila,
Laguna
(LC)
were
charged
in
a
memorandum
his
failure
to
act
on
a
motion
to
dismiss
in
an
expeditious
manner.
report
by
the
OCA
dated
Aug
16,
1994
for
misappropriating
funds
deposited
by
the
plaintiff
entitled
“spouses
entero
villarica
and
felicidad
domingo
v.
ISSUE:
WON
the
judge
should
be
liable
Teodorico
dizon”.
On
Oct
5,
1994,
this
Court
issued
a
resolution
treating
the
HELD:
YES,
fined
P20k
memorandum
as
an
admin
complaint
2.)
A
2nd
complaint
as
also
lodged
against
Malla
for
removing
judicial
records
RATIO:
-‐A
judge
must
always
remember
that
as
the
administrator
of
his
court,
outside
the
court
premises
and
this
matter
was
included
in
the
original
he
is
responsible
for
the
conduct
and
management
thereof.
He
has
the
duty
to
complaint.
supervise
his
court
personnel
to
ensure
prompt
and
efficient
dispatch
of
3.)
After
an
on-‐the-‐spot
audit
examination
of
the
official
cashbook
and
other
business
in
his
court.
The
ignorance
of
respondent
Judge
as
to
the
irregularities
documents
of
the
LC,
court
interpreter
Malla
who
was
OIC
took
a
maternity
occurring
in
his
own
backyard
constitutes
serious
breach
of
judicial
ethics.
leave
for
1
month
and
reassumed
her
position
thereafter
until
her
resignation.
-‐
Judge
Sumilang’s
excuse
that
he
immediately
acted
upon
the
matter
upon
4.)
Rebecca
Avanzado
assumed
the
position
of
OIC
and
it
was
during
her
tenure
knowing
is
unconvincing
for
his
admission
that
he
had
no
knowledge
of
the
when
the
on-‐the-‐spot
audit
examination
was
conducted
by
the
Fiscal
Audit
anomalies
going
on
in
his
court
underscores
his
inefficiency
and
incompetence.
Division
of
the
OCA
where
several
anomalous
transactions
were
discovered.
It
clearly
demonstrates
a
lack
of
control
expected
of
a
judge
exercising
proper
One
involved
a
manager’s
check
deposited
in
the
name
of
Teodorico
Dizon
in
office
management.
the
previously
said
case
wherein
Entero
Villarica,
during
the
tenure
of
Malla,
entrusted
the
amount
of
P240k
to
said
resp
instead
of
handing
it
over
to
the
-‐
The
acts
of
Malla
calls
for
a
dismissal
but
the
penalty
cannot
be
enforced
Court
of
Court
pursuant
to
the
SC
Circular
because
she
is
no
longer
connected
with
the
MTC.
Hence,
the
appropriate
5.)
When
asked
to
explain
where
the
P240k
was,
Malla
explained
that
she
penalty
for
her
is
the
forfeiture
of
her
accrued
leave
credits
with
prejudice
to
deposited
it
at
the
Sta
Cruz,
Laguna
branch
of
PNB
but
she
and
Judge
Sumilang
re-‐employment
in
any
branch
or
instrumentality
of
the
gov’t
including
GOCCs.
later
withdrew
it
allegedly
under
the
belief
that
the
defendant,
Dizon,
would
Moreover,
the
fact
that
Malla
returned
the
whole
amount
is
of
no
moment
demand
the
delivery
of
the
money
upon
termination
of
the
case
because
such
act
will
not
mitigate
her
liability
6.)
Upon
further
questioning,
Malla
admitted
that
she
lent
the
amount
of
P87k
to
stenographer
Lagmay,
P40k
to
steno-‐reporter
Mercado,
and
P81k
to
Mrs.
-‐Those
involved
in
the
administration
of
justice
must
live
up
to
the
strictest
Sumilang
(wife
of
judge).
She
spent
P32k
for
the
hospitalization
of
her
husband
standard
of
honesty
and
integrity
in
the
public
service
and
the
remaining
balance
for
personal
purposes
7.)
Later
on,
she
executed
an
affidavit
stating
that
only
Lagmay
and
Mercado
-‐The
other
respondents
were
also
found
guilty
of
conduct
prejudicial
to
the
borrowed
P55k
and
P40k
respectively.
On
the
other
hand,
she
used
P100k
for
best
interest
of
the
service
and
fined
3k
with
warning
(the
affidavits
they
personal
needs
presented
as
evidence
were
not
enough)
8.)
Lagmay
executed
an
affidavit
that
the
amt
of
P55k
was
from
the
personal
acct
of
Malla
while
Mercado
claims
that
the
40k
as
borrowed
only
2
weeks
before
the
audit
took
place
when
Malla
was
no
longer
employed
with
the
court.
Mrs.
Sumilang,
on
the
other
hand,
denied
any
involvement
in
the
transactions.
9.)
After
studying
the
records,
the
Court
is
convinced
that
respondents
did
commit
acts
prejudicial
to
the
service
for
which
they
should
be
held
accountable
Heck
v
Santos
A.M.
No.
RTJ-‐01-‐1657;
Feb.
23,
2004
-‐Substantive
Issues:
Retirement
shall
not
preclude
the
filing
thereafter
of
an
AC
Competence
and
Diligence
(Canon
6);
Administrative
Responsibilities
-‐>
in
order
for
an
AC
against
a
retiring
or
retired
judge
or
justice
to
be
Callejo,
Sr.,
J.
dismissed,
the
ff.
requisites
must
concur:
(1)
complaint
must
have
been
filed
w/in
6
months
from
the
compulsory
retirement
of
the
judge
or
justice;
(2)
the
FACTS:
1.)
a
verified
letter-‐complaint
dated
March
21,
2001
by
Heck
prayed
for
cause
of
action
must
have
occurred
at
least
a
year
before
such
filing;
and
(3)
it
the
disbarment
of
Judge
Santos
of
RTC-‐CDO.
It
alleged
that
prior
to
the
is
shown
that
the
complaint
was
intended
to
harass
the
respondent
respondent’s
appointment
as
RTC
judge,
he
violated
the
notarial
law.
Judge
Santos
did
not
renew
his
commission.
The
Clerk
of
Court
verified
this.
In
this
case,
the
AC
was
received
on
March
26,
2001.
The
resp
retired
2.)
Respondent
judge
categorically
denied
the
charges
against
him
and
compulsorily
from
service
more
than
a
year
later
or
on
May
22,
2002.
Likewise,
submitted
a
certification
from
Clerk
of
Court,
Atty
Sabio-‐Beja,
to
prove
that
the
ground
for
disbarment
or
disciplinary
action
alleged
to
have
been
there
was
no
proper
recording
of
the
commissioned
lawyers
in
the
city
of
CDO
committed
did
not
occur
a
year
before
the
respondent’s
separation
from
the
as
well
as
submitted
notarized
documents/notarial
register.
service.
Furthermore,
the
instant
complaint
was
not
prima
facie
shown
to
be
3.)
Additionally,
resp
judge
avers
that
complainant
is
not
a
proper
party
to
raise
w/o
merit
and
intended
merely
to
harass.
Clearly,
the
instant
case
does
not
fall
the
said
issue.
w/in
the
ambit
of
the
foregoin
resolution
4.)
The
OCA
recommended
a
full-‐blown
investigation
to
determine
the
veracity
of
the
parties’
assertions,
the
Court,
in
a
resolution
resolved
to:
(a)
treat
the
A
judge
may
be
disciplined
for
acts
committed
before
his
appointment
to
the
matter
as
a
regular
admin
complaint;
and
(b)
refer
the
case
to
Associate
Justice
judiciary
-‐>
the
practice
of
law
is
so
ultimately
affected
with
public
interest
that
Cruz
of
CA
for
investigation,
report
and
recommendation
it
is
both
the
right
and
duty
of
the
state
to
control
and
regulate
it
in
order
to
5.)
CA
recommended
that
(1)
respondent
(who
retired)
be
found
guilty
of
promote
the
public
welfare.
The
SC
is
the
guardian
of
the
legal
profession.
violation
of
the
Notarial
law
by
(a)
notarizing
documents
w/o
commission;
(b)
tardiness
in
submission
of
notarial
reports;
and
(c)
non-‐forwarding
of
his
Notarizing
documents
w/o
the
requisite
commission
constitutes
malpractice,
notarial
register
to
the
Clerk
of
Court
upon
expiration
of
his
commission.
if
not
the
crime
of
falsification
of
public
documents-‐>
notarization
is
invested
Moreover,
the
respondent
did
not
adduce
evidence
in
his
defense
while
the
with
substantive
public
interest
for
it
converts
a
private
document
to
a
public
complainant
presented
documentary
evidence
one
ISSUE:
WON
a
retired
judge
charged
with
notarizing
documents
w/o
the
The
charge
against
the
respondent
is
supported
by
the
evidence
on
record
-‐>
requisite
notary
commission
more
than
20
years
ago
be
disciplined
the
resp
did
not
object
to
the
complainant’s
formal
offer
of
evidence
HELD:
YES,
but
it
is
mitigated
to
a
fine
of
5k
prompting
the
investigating
justice
to
decide
the
case
on
the
basis
of
the
pleadings
filed.
The
resp
merely
alleged
that
“there
was
no
proper
recording
of
RATIO:
-‐Procedural
Issues:
AM
No
02-‐9-‐02-‐SC-‐>
before
the
court
approved
this
the
commissioned
lawyers
in
the
city
of
CDO
nor
of
the
submitted
notarized
resolution,
the
administrative
and
disbarment
cases
against
members
of
the
documents/notarial
register”
–
When
the
integrity
of
a
member
of
the
bar
is
bar
who
were
likewise
members
of
the
court
were
treated
separately
but
challenged,
mere
denial
is
not
enough;
he
must
meet
the
issue
and
overcome
pursuant
to
the
new
rule,
administrative
cases
against
justices
of
the
CA
and
the
evidence
against
him
sandiganbayan,
judges
and
lawyers
in
the
gov’t
service
may
be
automatically
treated
as
disbarment
cases.
The
resolution
also
provides
that
it
shall
An
Admin
Complaint
against
a
member
of
the
bar
does
not
prescribe
-‐>
even
supplement
rule
140
of
ROC
and
shall
apply
to
admin
cases
already
filed
where
the
lapse
of
considerable
time
from
the
commission
of
the
offending
act
tot
the
the
respondents
have
not
yet
been
required
to
comment
on
the
complainants.
institution
of
the
admin
complaint
will
not
erase
the
administrative
culpability
of
a
lawyer
who
notarizes
documents
w/o
requisite
authority
thereof
Disbarment
Cases
Involving
A
Retired
Judge
for
acts
Committed
while
he
was
still
a
practicing
lawyer-‐>
it
is
clear
that
a
complaint
for
disbarment
is
At
most,
the
delay
in
the
institution
of
the
AC
would
merely
mitigate
the
cognizable
by
the
court
itself
and
indorsement
to
the
IBP
is
not
mandatory.
respondents
liability-‐>
the
supreme
penalty
of
disbarment
is
meted
out
only
in
Although
the
resp
has
already
retired
from
the
judiciary,
he
is
still
considered
clear
cases
of
misconduct
that
seriously
affect
the
standing
and
character
of
as
a
member
of
the
bar
and
is
not
immune
to
the
disciplining
arm
of
the
SC
the
lawyer
as
an
officer
of
the
court.
However,
considering
that
the
complaint
was
filed
24
years
after
the
commission
of
the
act
complained,
that
there
was
no
private
offended
party
who
came
forward
and
claimed
to
have
been
adversely
affected
by
the
documents
so
notarizedl
and
the
fact
that
the
resp
is
already
retired.
The
Court
finds
a
that
a
fine
of
P5k
is
justified
in
this
case
Salcedo
v
Inting
9.)
on
the
charge
of
having
allegedly
disrupted
the
meeting
of
the
Davao
City
A.M.
No.
MTJ-‐94-‐989;
April
18,
1979
HS
PTA,
the
resp
judge
said
that
he
was
merely
exercising
his
right
of
free
Competence
and
Diligence
(Canon
6);
Administrative
Responsibilities
speech
and
he
did
not
disrupt
the
meeting;
that
in
advocating
the
holding
of
an
Fernandez,
J.
election,
the
resp
judge
never
made
any
misbehave
and
that
he
never
mentioned
the
name
of
atty
Occeña;
he
delivered
a
short
talk
at
the
request
of
FACTS:
1.)
In
the
first
(administrative
matter)
letter
complaint
dated
Jan
7,
Atty.
Nidea
who
had
the
floor;
and
that
if
there
was
any
disturbance
or
1978,
the
complainant,
Salcedo,
charged
respondent
judge
with
violation
of
the
disruption
of
the
meeting,
it
was
caused
by
Atty.
Occeña
himself
when
he
ruled
Anti-‐Graft
and
Corrupt
Practices
Act
and
Art.
315
of
the
RPC
out
and
silenced
everybody
who
spoke
against
the
business
of
discussing
the
2.)
The
specific
charges
are:
(1)
respondent,
from
July
1,
1964
to
June
30,
1965
proposed
constitution
(This
was
supported
by
affidavits)
and
Jan
1,
1967
to
Sept
30,
1974
had
collected
from
the
govt
overpayments
of
his
salary
and
(2)
in
a
series
of
applications
for
LOA
with
pay
filed
with
the
SC,
ISSUE:
WON
resp
judge
should
be
liable
the
resp
judge
made
it
appear
that
he
had
no
pending
admin
cases
while
in
fact
HELD:
NO,
there
is
no
showing
that
the
resp
judge
has
maliciously
issued
any
an
admin
matter
was
already
filed
against
him
and
said
admin
case
had
been
statement
for
publication
and
neither
is
there
any
sufficient
evidence
to
show
already
referred
to
the
Exec.
Judge
of
the
CFI
of
Davao
for
investigation
that
the
resp
misbehaved
or
acted
in
a
manner
unbecoming
of
a
city
judge
at
3.)
The
admin
complaint
was
referred
to
City
Judge
Inting
for
comment
the
meeting
4.)
Resp
judge
claims
that
he
was
singled
out
of
the
numerous
judges
who
received
overpayments
of
their
salaries
and
stated
that
some
city
judges
like
RATIO:
-‐the
version
of
the
resp
judge
is
supported
by
joint
affidavit.
himself
who
were
recipient
of
the
alleged
overpayments
were
allowed
to
retire
-‐moreover,
it
is
to
be
noted
that
the
acts
of
the
resp
judge
complained
have
no
by
just
deducting
the
overpayments
received
by
them
from
the
proceeds
of
direct
relation
with
his
official
duties
as
city
judge.
The
misfeasance
or
their
respective
retirement
pay
by
this
Court
malfeasance
of
a
judge,
to
warrant
disciplinary
action
must
have
direct
relation
5.)
With
this,
the
resp
judge
may
not
be
held
criminally
or
administratively
and
be
connected
with
the
performance
of
official
duties
amounting
to
liable
for
the
overpayments
of
his
salary
for
the
said
overpayments
were
maladministration
or
willful,
intentional
neglect
and
failure
to
discharge
the
actually
made
possible
by
the
mistake
of
construction
accorded
to
the
statutes
duties
of
said
judge
providing
salary
increases
of
city
judges
by
Financial
and
Budget
Officers
of
the
DOJ.
The
elements
of
malice,
corrupt
or
fraudulent
acts
were
lacking.
The
2nd
-‐2
admin
complaints
DISMISSED
charge
was
also
dismissed
for
the
statements
“PENDING
ADM.
CASE,
‘NONE’”
stamped
on
the
face
of
the
applications
were
made
by
employees
of
this
Court
6.)
The
2nd
administrative
matter
charges
resp
Judge
Inting
with
serious
misconduct
and
conduct
prejudicial
to
the
judiciary.
7.)
The
complainant
alleged
that
he
is
the
counsel
of
Mrs.
Salcedo,
Asst.
Docket
Clerk
of
the
City
Court
stating
that
the
resp
judge
has
taken
personal
offense
at
complainant’s
representation
of
Mrs.
Salecedo;
that
the
resp
judge
has
commenced
a
campaign
of
verification
against
complainant;
that
the
resp
judge
made
a
statement
to
the
Mindano
Daily
Mirror
(newspaper)
,
falsely
alleging
that
the
complainant
has
been
maintaining
feud
against
him.
He
said
that
Occeña
has
filed
several
cases
of
admin,
criminal
and
contempt
charges
against
him
as
city
judge
in
order
to
harass
him;
that
the
resp
judge
crashed
a
meeting
attended
by
more
or
less
500
people
and
scandalized
them.
8.)
The
resp.
judge
alleged
that
the
charge
regarding
the
publication
in
the
Mindanao
Daily
Mirror
is
a
repetition
of
the
4th
and
6th
petition
for
indirect
contempt
against
him.
He
further
averred
that
the
false
and
derogatory
statements
did
not
come
from
him
and
that
he
merely
furnished
the
reporter
with
copies
of
respondent’s
affidavit
and
the
resolution
of
the
city
fiscal
MACEDA
v.
VASQUEZ
service,
should
have
first
referred
the
matter
to
the
SC
for
determination
of
WON
such
certificates
reflected
the
true
status
of
his
1. Petitioner
Maceda,
presiding
Judge
of
the
RTC
of
Antique
seeks
the
pending
case
load.
review
of
the
orders
of
the
Office
of
the
Ombudsman.
It
denied
the
ex
parte
motion
to
refer
to
the
SC
filed
by
the
petitioner
and
it
also
-‐Regarding
the
contention
of
the
petitioner
that
he
has
been
granted
denied
the
petitioner’s
MR.
90-‐day
extension
by
the
court
to
decide
the
cases
before
him,
as
this
2. A
complaint
affidavit
was
filed
by
on
Napoleon
Abiera
of
PAO
issue
had
not
yet
been
raised
and
resolved
by
the
court,
the
alleging
that
the
petitioner
had
falsified
his
certificate
of
service
ombudsman
must
defer
action
on
the
said
complaint
and
refer
the
dated
Feb.
6,
1989,
by
certifying
that
all
the
civil
and
criminal
cases
same
to
this
Court
for
determination
as
to
whether
or
not
the
said
submitted
for
decision
for
a
period
of
90
days
have
been
judge
had
acted
within
the
scope
of
his/her
administrative
duties.
determined
and
deided
on
Jan.
21,
1998,
when
I
truth
there
are
5
civil
and
10
criminal
cases
that
were
not
decided
yet.
He
also
allege
that
petitioner
similary
falsified
his
certificate
of
service
for
a
total
of
17
months.
3. Petitioner
contends
that
he
had
been
granted
by
this
court
an
extension
of
90
days
to
decide
the
aforementioned
cases
and
that
the
Ombudsman
has
no
jurisdiction
over
the
said
case
since
the
offense
charged
arose
from
the
judge’s
performance
of
his
official
duties.
Therefore,
it
should
be
under
the
SC
and
further
investigation
by
the
Ombudsman
is
an
encroachment
into
the
SC’s
supervision
over
all
inferior
courts.
ISSUE:
WON
Office
of
the
Ombudsman
could
entertain
a
criminal
complaint
for
the
alleged
falsification
of
judge’s
certification
submitted
to
the
SC.
HELD: NO.
-‐A
judge
who
falsifies
his
certificate
of
service
is
administratively
liable
to
the
SC
for
serious
misconduct
and
inefficiency
and
criminally
liable
under
the
RPC.
-‐However, in the absence of any administrative action against the
petitioner by this Court with regard to his certificates of service, the
investigation being conducted by the Ombudsman, encroaches into the
Court’s power of administrative supervision over all courts and its
personnel, in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers.
-‐The ombudsman cannot justify its investigation of petitioner on the
powers granted to it by the Constitution for such runs counter to the
power of the SC as mandated by the Constitution and likewise
undermines the independence of the judiciary.
-‐The
ombudsman,
instead
of
compelling
this
Court
to
submit
its
record
or
allow
its
personnel
to
testify
on
the
petitioner’s
certificates
of
Potrebbero piacerti anche
- Agpalo Legal Ethics Reviewer PDFDocumento87 pagineAgpalo Legal Ethics Reviewer PDFGerald Hernandez100% (55)
- Case Digest Legal EthicsDocumento29 pagineCase Digest Legal EthicsRachel CamasuraNessuna valutazione finora
- List of Disbarred LawyersDocumento10 pagineList of Disbarred LawyersHappynako WholesomeNessuna valutazione finora
- Legal Ethics - Atty. FunaDocumento15 pagineLegal Ethics - Atty. FunaLorelei B RecuencoNessuna valutazione finora
- Calo vs. DegamoDocumento1 paginaCalo vs. DegamoJimNessuna valutazione finora
- Adm. Case No. 1474 January 28, 2000 CRISTINO G. CALUB, Complainant, ATTY. ABRAHAM A. SULLER, RespondentDocumento2 pagineAdm. Case No. 1474 January 28, 2000 CRISTINO G. CALUB, Complainant, ATTY. ABRAHAM A. SULLER, RespondentNathalie Jean YapNessuna valutazione finora
- Legal Ethics - Case DigestsDocumento51 pagineLegal Ethics - Case DigestsanntomarongNessuna valutazione finora
- Court Rules Real Estate Case Dismissed Due to Unpaid FeesDocumento3 pagineCourt Rules Real Estate Case Dismissed Due to Unpaid FeesAndrea GatchalianNessuna valutazione finora
- CTA has jurisdiction over certiorari petition assailing RTC interlocutory order in local tax caseDocumento73 pagineCTA has jurisdiction over certiorari petition assailing RTC interlocutory order in local tax caseMiguel ManzanoNessuna valutazione finora
- @macarulay v. Seriña, A.C. No. 6591 (2005)Documento10 pagine@macarulay v. Seriña, A.C. No. 6591 (2005)James OcampoNessuna valutazione finora
- BD Longspan V RS AmpeloquioDocumento1 paginaBD Longspan V RS AmpeloquioStella LynNessuna valutazione finora
- Judge violated ethics acting as attorney for uncleDocumento1 paginaJudge violated ethics acting as attorney for uncleAnny Yanong100% (1)
- Legal Ethics SummaryDocumento20 pagineLegal Ethics SummaryStephen SaavedraNessuna valutazione finora
- Lamberto Casalla vs. People of The Philippines and Milagros S. EstevanesDocumento3 pagineLamberto Casalla vs. People of The Philippines and Milagros S. EstevanesKP SelivaNessuna valutazione finora
- Supreme Court Disbars Lawyer for Homicide Conviction Involving Moral TurpitudeDocumento6 pagineSupreme Court Disbars Lawyer for Homicide Conviction Involving Moral TurpitudeMartin SNessuna valutazione finora
- Code of Professional ResponsibilityDocumento13 pagineCode of Professional ResponsibilityMarmie CamayangNessuna valutazione finora
- Duty of Lawyers to be Properly Attired, Punctual and Respectful in CourtDocumento21 pagineDuty of Lawyers to be Properly Attired, Punctual and Respectful in CourtAnthony Arcilla Pulhin50% (2)
- Amalgamated Laborers Vs CirDocumento6 pagineAmalgamated Laborers Vs Ciredrea_abonNessuna valutazione finora
- 2D Legal Ethics Digest (Complete)Documento53 pagine2D Legal Ethics Digest (Complete)Mike Cat100% (4)
- 24-Maquiran Vs GragedaDocumento20 pagine24-Maquiran Vs GragedaLexter CruzNessuna valutazione finora
- Case Digests For EthicsDocumento6 pagineCase Digests For EthicsJamica Claire QuibodNessuna valutazione finora
- Judge Dismissed for Issuing Resolution Without NoticeDocumento1 paginaJudge Dismissed for Issuing Resolution Without NoticeKian FajardoNessuna valutazione finora
- PALE Sixth Batch PDFDocumento52 paginePALE Sixth Batch PDFczeskajohannNessuna valutazione finora
- Case Digest - Alejandro vs. Alejandro A.C. No. 4256Documento2 pagineCase Digest - Alejandro vs. Alejandro A.C. No. 4256Angela Mericci G. MejiaNessuna valutazione finora
- In Re Physical Therapy Org. of The Phils., Inc. v. Municipal Board of Manila PDFDocumento5 pagineIn Re Physical Therapy Org. of The Phils., Inc. v. Municipal Board of Manila PDFKristabelleCapaNessuna valutazione finora
- Boac V CadapanDocumento2 pagineBoac V CadapanLarissaNessuna valutazione finora
- Nakpil Case DigestDocumento3 pagineNakpil Case DigestRen ConchaNessuna valutazione finora
- Civil Procedure Case Digest on Jurisdiction and Docket FeesDocumento1 paginaCivil Procedure Case Digest on Jurisdiction and Docket FeeswifiNessuna valutazione finora
- Case Digests For Briones, Lim, Aguas, CabulisanDocumento6 pagineCase Digests For Briones, Lim, Aguas, CabulisanMichael Joseph NogoyNessuna valutazione finora
- Cueto V JimenezDocumento1 paginaCueto V JimenezClark Vincent PonlaNessuna valutazione finora
- Tejano VSDocumento3 pagineTejano VSMaine FloresNessuna valutazione finora
- Court upholds dismissal of case due to res judicata and splitting causes of actionDocumento6 pagineCourt upholds dismissal of case due to res judicata and splitting causes of actionEffy SantosNessuna valutazione finora
- Ethics DigestDocumento1 paginaEthics DigestShaniemielle Torres-BairanNessuna valutazione finora
- SC Philippines Ruling on Bank Foreclosure CaseDocumento5 pagineSC Philippines Ruling on Bank Foreclosure Casevanessa_3Nessuna valutazione finora
- Rangwani Vs DinoDocumento5 pagineRangwani Vs DinoEarnswell Pacina TanNessuna valutazione finora
- ATTY. DISBARMENT FOR ASSISTING ILLEGAL PRACTICEDocumento4 pagineATTY. DISBARMENT FOR ASSISTING ILLEGAL PRACTICELyleThereseNessuna valutazione finora
- Case No 13 PhilBank Vs CA and Case No 14 Wee Vs TankianseeDocumento5 pagineCase No 13 PhilBank Vs CA and Case No 14 Wee Vs TankianseeHdjaNessuna valutazione finora
- Legal Ethics Case Briefs Under 40 CharactersDocumento7 pagineLegal Ethics Case Briefs Under 40 CharacterssherwinNessuna valutazione finora
- Case Digest Rivera Vs David GR No. 157307Documento3 pagineCase Digest Rivera Vs David GR No. 157307Aeron EnovaNessuna valutazione finora
- Vashdeo Gagoomal v. Spouses Villacorta, G.R. No. 192813, January 18, 2012Documento3 pagineVashdeo Gagoomal v. Spouses Villacorta, G.R. No. 192813, January 18, 2012Emmanuel SilangNessuna valutazione finora
- Cases in Legal EthicsDocumento65 pagineCases in Legal EthicsHelen Joy Grijaldo JueleNessuna valutazione finora
- G.R. No. 191641Documento4 pagineG.R. No. 191641Innah Agito-RamosNessuna valutazione finora
- Endaya Vs OcaDocumento14 pagineEndaya Vs OcaAngelie FloresNessuna valutazione finora
- First Division Pedro L. Linsangan, A.C. No. 6672 ComplainantDocumento8 pagineFirst Division Pedro L. Linsangan, A.C. No. 6672 ComplainantCamella AgatepNessuna valutazione finora
- GubatDocumento18 pagineGubatCharm Divina LascotaNessuna valutazione finora
- Bengco vs. BernardoDocumento2 pagineBengco vs. BernardoRogie ApoloNessuna valutazione finora
- Legal Ethics 2nd Exam CompilationDocumento12 pagineLegal Ethics 2nd Exam CompilationCnfsr KayceNessuna valutazione finora
- Supreme Court upholds mining firm's port projectDocumento3 pagineSupreme Court upholds mining firm's port projectQueenie BoadoNessuna valutazione finora
- Legal Ethics Case Digest: Page 1 of 2Documento2 pagineLegal Ethics Case Digest: Page 1 of 2jci028Nessuna valutazione finora
- Legal Ethics Cases April 2013Documento7 pagineLegal Ethics Cases April 2013Michael Angelo LabradorNessuna valutazione finora
- Samala Vs ValenciaDocumento4 pagineSamala Vs ValenciaAbdulRafiONessuna valutazione finora
- Dino v. Olivarez (Rule 116)Documento7 pagineDino v. Olivarez (Rule 116)Timmy GonzalesNessuna valutazione finora
- Edilberto M. Cuenca Vs Court of Appeals: Canon 6 - These Canons Shall Apply To Lawyers in Government Service in TheDocumento9 pagineEdilberto M. Cuenca Vs Court of Appeals: Canon 6 - These Canons Shall Apply To Lawyers in Government Service in TheRomz NuneNessuna valutazione finora
- Dawa Vs de AsaDocumento4 pagineDawa Vs de AsaFer Grace AniñonAcabalcuid CatayloNessuna valutazione finora
- Legal EthicsDocumento52 pagineLegal EthicsYoan Baclig BuenoNessuna valutazione finora
- Anonymous Complaint Against Atty. Cresencio P. Co Untian, Jr. (Case Digest)Documento1 paginaAnonymous Complaint Against Atty. Cresencio P. Co Untian, Jr. (Case Digest)Ma. Fabiana GarciaNessuna valutazione finora
- Special Civil Actions Memo AidDocumento9 pagineSpecial Civil Actions Memo Aidgeorge_alsoNessuna valutazione finora
- Civpro Midterms Memory Cheat SheetDocumento3 pagineCivpro Midterms Memory Cheat SheetslumbaNessuna valutazione finora
- Chavez vs. ViolaDocumento2 pagineChavez vs. ViolaJeacell100% (1)
- Ysasi Iii vs. NLRC Castaneda V AgoDocumento4 pagineYsasi Iii vs. NLRC Castaneda V AgoCamille Anne DavidNessuna valutazione finora
- Canons10 13Documento6 pagineCanons10 13Sarah Jean DadoNessuna valutazione finora
- Legal Ethics Conflicts of InterestDocumento21 pagineLegal Ethics Conflicts of InterestCid Benedict Pabalan100% (1)
- Analysis of Petition Lacks MeritDocumento6 pagineAnalysis of Petition Lacks MeritDiana Constantino-RocaberteNessuna valutazione finora
- In Re AlmacenDocumento14 pagineIn Re AlmacenSu Kings AbetoNessuna valutazione finora
- Freeman, Rethinking Gillick (IJCR, 2001)Documento19 pagineFreeman, Rethinking Gillick (IJCR, 2001)Emary GutierrezNessuna valutazione finora
- Upholding Ethics in the Legal Profession and JudiciaryDocumento65 pagineUpholding Ethics in the Legal Profession and JudiciaryMa-an SorianoNessuna valutazione finora
- Maritime Bar QasDocumento11 pagineMaritime Bar QasnoonalawNessuna valutazione finora
- Alabang Dev. Corp. vs. Alabang Hills Village Asso., Et. Al., G.R. No. 187456, June 02, 2014 PDFDocumento7 pagineAlabang Dev. Corp. vs. Alabang Hills Village Asso., Et. Al., G.R. No. 187456, June 02, 2014 PDFnoonalawNessuna valutazione finora
- Ombudsman's Role in Medical Malpractice CasesDocumento8 pagineOmbudsman's Role in Medical Malpractice CasesnoonalawNessuna valutazione finora
- 08 Ong v. Metropolitan Water DistrictDocumento4 pagine08 Ong v. Metropolitan Water DistrictnoonalawNessuna valutazione finora
- Gelano v. CADocumento7 pagineGelano v. CAHershey Delos SantosNessuna valutazione finora
- 14 Ramos v. CA (1999)Documento29 pagine14 Ramos v. CA (1999)noonalawNessuna valutazione finora
- 217874Documento19 pagine217874JanMikhailPanerioNessuna valutazione finora
- 18 Professional Services, Inc. vs. AganaDocumento18 pagine18 Professional Services, Inc. vs. AgananoonalawNessuna valutazione finora
- 19 Ilao-Oreta v. RonquilloDocumento8 pagine19 Ilao-Oreta v. RonquillonoonalawNessuna valutazione finora
- 217874Documento19 pagine217874JanMikhailPanerioNessuna valutazione finora
- Ardiente vs. Provincial SheriffDocumento6 pagineArdiente vs. Provincial SheriffnoonalawNessuna valutazione finora
- Dayot vs. Shell Chemical Company (Phils.), Inc.Documento8 pagineDayot vs. Shell Chemical Company (Phils.), Inc.noonalawNessuna valutazione finora
- Saguan vs. PBCDocumento6 pagineSaguan vs. PBCnoonalawNessuna valutazione finora
- Comsavings Bank Vs Spouses CapistranoDocumento14 pagineComsavings Bank Vs Spouses CapistranonoonalawNessuna valutazione finora
- Unionbank vs. CADocumento6 pagineUnionbank vs. CAnoonalaw100% (1)
- Limpin, Jr. vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtDocumento6 pagineLimpin, Jr. vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtnoonalawNessuna valutazione finora
- BPI Family Savings Bank vs. VelosoDocumento4 pagineBPI Family Savings Bank vs. VelosonoonalawNessuna valutazione finora
- Monzon vs. RelovaDocumento7 pagineMonzon vs. RelovanoonalawNessuna valutazione finora
- Y-I Leisure Philippines, Inc. vs. YuDocumento30 pagineY-I Leisure Philippines, Inc. vs. Yunoonalaw100% (1)
- 11 Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union (SCBEU-NUBE) vs. Standard Chartered BankDocumento6 pagine11 Standard Chartered Bank Employees Union (SCBEU-NUBE) vs. Standard Chartered BanknoonalawNessuna valutazione finora
- Garces vs. CADocumento5 pagineGarces vs. CAnoonalawNessuna valutazione finora
- Figuracion-Gerilla vs. Vda. de FiguracionDocumento4 pagineFiguracion-Gerilla vs. Vda. de FiguracionnoonalawNessuna valutazione finora
- Teves vs. CADocumento8 pagineTeves vs. CAnoonalawNessuna valutazione finora
- Balo vs. CADocumento7 pagineBalo vs. CAnoonalawNessuna valutazione finora
- 07 Lejano vs. People (95 PAGES!)Documento95 pagine07 Lejano vs. People (95 PAGES!)noonalawNessuna valutazione finora
- Reyes Et Al. vs. Blouse Et Al.Documento6 pagineReyes Et Al. vs. Blouse Et Al.noonalawNessuna valutazione finora
- Bernardino v. SantosDocumento13 pagineBernardino v. SantosiptrinidadNessuna valutazione finora
- Bautista V Atty. FerrerDocumento10 pagineBautista V Atty. FerrerJesha GCNessuna valutazione finora
- Vitug v. RoncalDocumento22 pagineVitug v. RoncalKARL NERI PLURADNessuna valutazione finora
- First DivisionDocumento234 pagineFirst DivisionAnonymous HIiuaYp9Nessuna valutazione finora
- Legal Ethics ReviewerDocumento6 pagineLegal Ethics ReviewerRonellie Marie TinajaNessuna valutazione finora
- No 3 - Ac - 9594 - 2022Documento11 pagineNo 3 - Ac - 9594 - 2022Julie Anne MoralesNessuna valutazione finora
- Canon 1 & 2 Cases - Pineda Legal EthicsDocumento8 pagineCanon 1 & 2 Cases - Pineda Legal EthicsUnsolicited CommentNessuna valutazione finora
- Legal Ethics Blue Tips 2015Documento17 pagineLegal Ethics Blue Tips 2015BenBulac100% (1)
- Punla v. Ona, A.C. No. 11149Documento5 paginePunla v. Ona, A.C. No. 11149TrudgeOnNessuna valutazione finora
- Legal Ethics Cases from the Philippine Supreme CourtDocumento4 pagineLegal Ethics Cases from the Philippine Supreme CourtheirarchyNessuna valutazione finora
- 11830Documento6 pagine11830Jan Maxine PalomataNessuna valutazione finora
- PALE Outline Batch 1Documento12 paginePALE Outline Batch 1Tricia SandovalNessuna valutazione finora
- Module 5Documento7 pagineModule 5saguiaranNessuna valutazione finora
- Law Exam Questions and AnswersDocumento44 pagineLaw Exam Questions and Answerscandid didnacNessuna valutazione finora
- Pale Cases Iv-ViDocumento178 paginePale Cases Iv-ViAnne sherly OdevilasNessuna valutazione finora
- Legal Ethics Case DigestsDocumento58 pagineLegal Ethics Case DigestsAleefa Janna PasagiNessuna valutazione finora
- Maniago Vs de DiosDocumento1 paginaManiago Vs de DiosErika Joy Santos50% (2)
- Cases For ReadingDocumento235 pagineCases For ReadingNiño Rejhi Jacildo NatividadNessuna valutazione finora
- Molina Vs MagatDocumento4 pagineMolina Vs MagatNelia Mae S. VillenaNessuna valutazione finora
- Oca v. TormisDocumento3 pagineOca v. Tormisjclg21100% (3)
- Domingo Vs Landicho Case DigestDocumento4 pagineDomingo Vs Landicho Case DigestAliyahDazaSandersNessuna valutazione finora
- Cobalt Resources Inc v. AguadoDocumento1 paginaCobalt Resources Inc v. Aguadoangelo prietoNessuna valutazione finora
- 4.perez v. Catindig, A.C. 5816, March 10, 2015Documento6 pagine4.perez v. Catindig, A.C. 5816, March 10, 2015Jeorge VerbaNessuna valutazione finora
- Plumptre Vs RiveraDocumento2 paginePlumptre Vs RiveraTeZzieAwas100% (5)
- PALE Digests Compilation (Bersamin Cases)Documento59 paginePALE Digests Compilation (Bersamin Cases)Anonymous TLYZbXqxWzNessuna valutazione finora
- Uprctne: !courtDocumento8 pagineUprctne: !courtGregarius CarinoNessuna valutazione finora
- Case DigestDocumento11 pagineCase DigestValerieAnnVilleroAlvarezValienteNessuna valutazione finora
