Compiled Legal Ethics Cases

 

Legal Ethics 3B

(1)

PANES VS. DINOPOL

2. 

FACTS:   FACTS: 1.

2.

3.

Gomba submitted a complaint to the Respondent Judge. The case arose when Gomba refused to acknowledge the new Board of Directors in Kornadal Water District (KWD)prompting the Local water Utilities Administration to replace her by Vargas as the general manager of the KWD. Respondent Judge issued issued the assailed twin orders in favour of GombaThe first one directing the city mayor to desist and refrain from taking over the operation and management of the KWD Arellano office; otherwise his arrest would be effected. The second Order meanwhile directed the LWUA personnel to return properties to the KWD Arellano office, also under pain of arrest. Petitioners argued that the Orders were were violen violent, t, and caused undue disturbance. were patently illegal and void and were issued with abuse of authority and

HELD:: HELD 1.

YES, the orders assailed constitute gross ignorance that would warrant his dismissal from service.

2.

Yes. RATIONALE:

1.

2.

gross ignorance of law, jurisprudence and the Rules of Court, for the following reasons: 1. These Orders were issued past working hours, on a Saturday, a nonworking day, and without the benefit of a hearing or a notice to concerned parties. 2. Resistance to a lawful court order, while a ground for indirect contempt, still requires the filing of a charge and the opportunity to be heard. 3. Complainants were not parties to the cases filed before respondent judge on the legitimacy of either faction. 4. The proceedings in Civil Case No. 1799-24 are null and void because the lawyers representing KWD, a government-owned and  –  –controlled controlled corporation, were not authorized by the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) and the Commission on Audit (COA 4.

3.

4.

5.

Respondent argued that it was a necessary o order rder for a speedy disposition of the case.

At the o outset, utset, respondent failed to provide any legitimate reason for the issuance of the Orders on a Saturday evening when the courts were already closed. As pointed out by the CA, if indeed there was robbery or looting happening in the premises, arrests could be effected by the police officers who were already in the vicinity of the KWD office. We agree with the findings of the OCA that respondent‘s defenses neither justify his failure to comply with due process requirements nor do they demonstrate good faith on his part that would exculpate him from administrative liability. Respondent violated the most basic requirements for the proper observance of due process, resulting in the unwarranted arrest and incarceration of powerless individuals We find that the issuance of these Orders w was as in total disregard of the Rules of Court and with grave abuse of authority. Undoubtedly, respondent is guilty of gross ignorance of the law. To be held administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law, the acts complained of must not only be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence, but must have also been motivated by bad faith, fraud, 26 dishonesty, and corruption. corruption.   Gross ignorance of the law is considered as a serious offense under Rule 140, Section 8, Cabel, one of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 183924, is the nephew of the wife of respondent. Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, provides for the following instances of mandatory inhibition: Section 1.Disqualification of judges.  judges.   —  No judge or judicial officers shall sit in any case in which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee,

ISSUES: 1. 

Whether respondent judge should have inhibited himself from a case to which one of the parties was his wife‘s nephew is party thereto?

Whether the issuance by respondent Judge Dinopol of the 24 March 2007 twin Orders constitutes gross ignorance of the law?

creditor or otherwise, or in which he is related to either party within the sixth degree

1

 

Legal Ethics 3B

Just debts, as defined in Section 23, Rule

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

XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of E.O. No. 292, refer to (1) claims adjudicated by a court of law; or (2) claims, the existence and  justness of which are admitted by the debtor. Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court classifies

interest, signed by them and entered upon the record. 2

VICTORIANO

G.

MANLAPAZ

vs.

willful failure to pay a just debt as a serious charge. While

JUDGE

to

a

debt

necessarily

implies a transaction that is private and outside of

MANUEL T. SABILLO,

official transactions, the rules do not thereby intrude

 A.M. No. MTJ-10-1771; MTJ- 10-1771; February 13, 2013; Brion, J.:  J.: 

into public officials‘ private lives; they simply look at

(formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-2160-MTJ)

their actions from the prism of public service and consider

FACTS:

these

acts

unbecoming

of

a

public

official. These rules take into account that these are

Complainant Victoriano Manlapaz charged

actions of officials who are entrusted with public

respondent Manuel Sabillo, then a practicing lawyer,

duties and who, even in their private capacities,

with serious and gross misconduct for failure to return an amount arising from a transaction before

should continually act to reflect their status as public servants. Employees of the judiciary should be living

.

the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City Cit y  

examples of uprightness not only in the performance of official duties but also in their personal and private

The RTC and the CA, on appeal, ruled in

dealings with other people so as preserve at all

favor of Manlapaz.

times the good name and standing of the courts in

ISSUE:

the community.

Whether or not willful failure to pay a just debt is a ground for disciplinary action against

Here, the complainant‘s claim is a just debt.

 judges.

The willfulness of Judge Sabillo in not paying is

HELD:

shown by his continuous failure to settle despite

Yes. The Court has repeatedly stressed that it is not

demand letters sent to him. Thus, the court imposed

a collection agency for the unpaid debts of its officials

and

employees,but

has

the penalty of fine.

nevertheless

provided for Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court

reference

that

holds

its

officials

and

(3) ANONYMOUS, c o m p l a i n a n t    vs.JUDGE RIO ACHAS, r e s p o n d e n t     A.M. No. MTJ-11-1801 27 February 2013

employees

administratively liable in unpaid debt situations. This Section provides that willful failure to pay a just debt

FACTS:

is a ground for disciplinary action against judges and  justices.

1.

A letter-complaint was filed before the court alleging the immorality and conduct unbecoming

2

 

Legal Ethics 3B

of a judge against Judge Rio Achas (Judge

violating

 Achas) which alleges the following:

specifically Canon 2 and Canon 4.

a.

New

Code

of

Judicial

Ethics

RULING:

it is of public knowledge in the city that Judge  Achas is living scandalously with a woman who is not his wife;

1.

Yes

anonymous

complaints

may

be

filed

b.

he lives beyond his means;

against judges under Section 1 of Rule 140 of

c.

he is involved with illegal activities through his

the Rules of Court, but they must be supported

connection with bad elements, the kuratongs;

by public records of indubitable integrity. Thus,

d.

he comes to court very very untidy and and dirty;

for anonymous complaints, the burden of proof

e.

he decid decides es his cases unfairly in exchange for

in

material and monetary consideration;

buttressed by indubitable public records and by

he is involved with cockfighting/gambling.

what

f.

administrative

is

proceedings

sufficiently

proven

must

during

be

the

investigation. If the burden of proof is not 2.

In

his

comment,

Judge

Achas

denied

all

overcome,

respondent

is

under

no

allegations and claimed that these were hatched

obligation to prove his defense. In the present

to harass him. RTC through Judge Dungog found

case, no evidence was attached to the letter-

that ―it is not commendable, proper or moral per

complaint. The complainant never appeared,

Canons of Judicial Ethics to be perceived as

and no public records were brought forth during

going out with a woman not his wife, and for him

the investigation. The charges that he (1) lives

to be involved in rearing game cocks.

beyond his means, (2) is involved with illegal activities

3.

the

OCA

rrecommended ecommended

that

Judge

Achas

through

his

connection

with

the

be

kuratongs, (3) comes to court very untidy and

reprimanded as to the charge of immorality. It was

dirty, and (4) decides his cases unfairly in

further recommended that he be ordered to refrain

exchange

from going to cockpits or avoid such places

consideration

altogether, with a warning that the same or similar

recommended dismissed by the OCA for lack of

complaint in the future shall be dealt with more

evidence.

for

material were,

and

therefore,

monetary properly

severely. The other charges were recommended to be dismissed for lack of merit.

2.

The charges that (1) it is of public knowledge that he is living scandalously with a woman not

ISSUE:   ISSUE: 1.

2.

his wife and that (2) he is involved with

Whether or not anonymous complaints complaints may

cockfighting/gambling are, however, violative of

be filed against judges.

the New Code of Judicial Ethics. Judge Achas

Whether or not the alleged acts committed by

clearly violated Canon 2 and Canon 4 by going

Judge

out in public with a woman who is not his wife.

Achas

constitute

immorality

thus

There is no evidence to prove that Judge Achas

3

 

Legal Ethics 3B

is engaged in gambling, but he admitted that he

the Supreme Court but the latter denied all of it.

is rearing cocks for leisure. Although it is not

These motions and pleadings delayed the execution

illegal, Judge Achas should avoid mingling with

of his sentence despite the finality of his conviction.

a crowd of cockfighting enthusiast and bettors

In a hearing for the execution of Pacifico‘s sentence

as it is undoubtedly impair the respect due him.

before the Sandiganbayan his counsel made several

The court further stated that ―as a judge, he

manifestations stating that Pacifico was confined in

must impose upon himself personal restrictions

a hospital and was due for surgery. Nonetheless, the

that might be viewed as burdensome by the

Sandiganbayan issued a warrant of arrest but

ordinary citizen and should do so freely and

allowed Pacifico to stay in the hospital. The

willingly‖. Lastly, the court said that ―no position

accused‘s counsel filed several motions to recall the

demands greater moral righteousness and

warrants issued on the ground of humanitarian

uprightness from its occupant than does the

considerations.

 judicial office. Judges in particular must be

Complainant Leonardo Velasco (Leonardo)

individuals of competence, honesty and probity,

filed an administrative case against the Justices

charged as they are with safeguarding the

claiming that upon the finality of the decision it was

integrity of the court and its proceedings. He

the ministerial duty of the latter to execute such

should behave at all times so as to promote

decision. In not doing so and in granting the wishes

public confidence in the integrity and impartiality

of Pacifico, they have shown evident partiality.

of the judiciary, and avoid impropriety and the

ISSUE:

appearance of impropriety in all his activities.

Sandiganbayan

His personal behaviour outside the court, and

administratively liable for their actions which unduly

not only while in the performance of his official

delayed the execution of the final sentence of

duties, must be beyond reproach, for he is

conviction of Pacifico? (NO)

perceived to be the personification of law and

HELD:   HELD:

Whether

or

Justices

Respondents

 justice. Thus, any demeaning act of a judge

not

did

the may

not

respondent be

commit

held

grave

misconduct or any violation of a specific provision of

degrades the institution he represents.‖  represents.‖  

the Code of Judicial Conduct. Such Justices merely (4) RE: Complaint of Leonardo A. Velasco Against

Associate

Justices

Francisco

afforded Pacifico and his camp the legal remedies H.

given to them by law.

Villaruz,Alex Quiroz and Samuel Martirez of the

However, by extending too much modesty,

SANDIGANBAYAN

the Justices deserve admonition. They should have executed the decision immediately unless TRO or

 A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-25-SB-J 1 0-25-SB-J January 15, 2013 FACTS:

preliminary injunction has been issued.

Mayor Pacifico C. Velasco (Pacifico) was convicted by the Sandiganbayan guilty for the violation of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices  Act). Pacifico sought several reconsiderations before

4

 

Legal Ethics 3B

(5) (5)  HEINZ R. HECK, complainant, vs. JU D GE

commission more than twenty years ago be

ANTHO NY E. SANTOS , Regional Trial Court,

disciplined therefore

Branch 19. Cagayan De Oro City, respondent H EL D :

(A.M. No. RTJ-01-1657; RTJ-01-1657; En Ban c; J . Callejo Sr.;

The fact that a judge has retired or has

Febru ary 23, 2004)

otherwise been separated from the service does

FAC TS:

1.

2.

The instant case arose arose when in a verified Letter-

not necessarily divest the Court of its jurisdiction

Complaint Heinz Heck prayed for the disbarment

to determine the veracity of the allegations of the

of Judge Anthony Santos alleging that prior to the

complaint, pursuant to its disciplinary authority

respondent‘s appointment  appointment  as RTC judge he

over members of the bench. Jurisdiction was not

violated the notarial law by subscribing and

lost by the mere fact that respondent, had ceased

forwarding on a non-regular basis notarized

in office during the pendency of his case. The

documents to the Clerk of Court despite his non-

Court retains jurisdiction either to pronounce the

commission as notary public.

respondent innocent of the charges or declare

In his Answer, the respondent judge categorically

him guilty thereof. A contrary rue would be

denied the charges against him contending that

fraught with injustice and pregnant with dreadful

there

the

and dangerous implications. If innocent, it taints

commissioned lawyers in the City of Cagayan de

his name and integrity as he leaves the institution

Oro

which he has served well; if guilty, he deserves to

was

as

no

well

proper

as

the

recording

submitted

of

notarized

receive the corresponding censure and penalty.

documents/ notarial register. 3.

full-blown

not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. On the

investigation, the case was referred to Associate

contrary it is invested with substantive public

Justice Edgardo Cruz of the Court of Appeals.

interest

In a Sealed Report, Judge Cruz recommended

authorized

that respondent (who retired May 22, 2002) be

Notarization converts a private document into a

found guilty of the violation of Notarial Law by

public one, making it admissible in evidence

notarizing

commission,

without the necessity of preliminary proof of

tardiness in submission of notarial reports and

authenticity and due execution. In the case, the

non-forwarding of notarial register to Clerk of

respondent did not object to the complainant‘s

Court upon expiration of his commission and that

formal

for these infractions he be suspended from

Investigating Justice to decide the case on the

practice

basis of the pleadings filed. Furthermore, he did

 Administrator

4.

It must be remembered that notarization is

Pursuant to the report of the Office of the Court recommending

documents

of

law

and

without

barred

a

from

being

such

that

may

offer

of

only act

those

as

evidence,

qualified

notaries

or

public.

prompting

the

commissioned as notary public for one year.

not present any evidence of his commission as

ISSUE:

well as proof of submission of notarial reports

Whether or not a retired judge charged with

and notarial register. Then, too, by making it

notarizing documents without the requisite notary

appear that he is duly commissioned when he is

5

 

Legal Ethics 3B

not, he committed falsehood in violation of the

of highly improper and intemperate language during

Lawyer‘s Oath and the Code of Professional

court proceedings; for violation of Circular No.

Responsibility.

13  dated 1 July 1987.

5

Finally, an administrative Complaint against Judge Floro also claimed that he has certain

a member of the Bar does not prescribe. The a

psychic powers such as the power to see the future,

requirement which is not dispensed with upon

the power of bilocation, the power to type letters

admission to membership of the Bar. It is not only a

while he is in a trance and the power to see and

condition precedent to admission to the legal

consult with his little friends or the ―duwendes‖.  ―duwendes‖.  

qualification

of

good

moral

character

is

profession, but its continued possession is essential Issue/s:Whether Issue/s: Whether or not Judge Floro is unfit to serve

to maintain one‘s good standing in the profession.  

as a judge  judge  (6) OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. Held:

JUDGE FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR. A.M. No. RTJ-99-1460

Judge Floro must be relieved of his position

March 31, 2006

as Judge of RTC Malabon Branch due to a medically disabling condition of the mind that

Facts:

renders him unfit to discharge the functions of his office

Judge Florentino V. Floro of Branch 73,

Ratio:

Malabon City faced a total of 13 charges calling for his disbarment and removal from his office as a

With the foregoing, we find the act of Judge

 judge. Some of the t he charges against him were tthe he act

Floro in circulating calling cards containing self-

of circulating calling cards containing self-laudatory

laudatory

statements regarding qualifications in violation of

misconduct in violation of Canon 2, Rule 2.02 of the

Canon 2, Rule 2.02, Canons of Judicial Conduct; for

Code of Judicial Conduct. Judge Floro also violated

rendering

the Code of Judicial Ethics when he declared that he

resolutions

without written

orders

in

statements

constitutive

of

simple

violation of Rule 36, Section 1, 1997 Rules of

was pro-accused.

Procedures; his alleged partiality in criminal cases

Canon 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states:

where he declares that he is pro-accused which is

"A judge should so behave at all times as to promote

contrary to Canon 2, Rule 2.01, Canons of Judicial

public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of

Conduct; for appearing in personal cases without

the judiciary." This means that a judge whose duty is

prior authority from the Supreme Court and without

to apply the law and dispense justice "should not

filing the corresponding applications for leaves of

only be impartial, independent and honest but

absence on the scheduled dates of hearing; for

should be believed and perceived to be impartial,

violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 Code of Judicial

independent and honest" as well.

Conduct when he openly criticized the Rules of

He is guilty of unbecoming conduct for signing a

Court and the Philippine justice system; for the use

pleading wherein he indicated that he is the

6

 

Legal Ethics 3B

(7) ALEN ROSS RODRIGUEZ and REGIDOR TULALI vs. The Hon. BIENVENIDO BLANCAFLOR, in his capacity as the Acting Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Palawan, Branch 52, and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES   PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 190171 March 14, 2011

presiding judge of RTC, Branch 73, Malabon City and for appending to the pleading a copy of his oath with a picture of his oath-taking. The only logical explanation we can reach for such acts is that Judge Floro was obviously trying to influence or put pressure on a fellow judge by emphasizing that he himself is a judge and is thus in the right. Verily,

FACTS:

Canon 2, Rule 2.04 of the Code of Judicial Conduct

Previously pending before Judge Blancaflor was Criminal Case No. 22240 for arson (arson case), entitled case),  entitled People of the Philippines v. Teksan  Ami,   in which Tulali was the trial prosecutor. During  Ami, the pendency of the case, Tulali was implicated in a controversy involving an alleged bribery initiated by Randy Awayan (Awayan) (Awayan),, the driver assigned to Judge Blancaflor under the payroll of the Office of the Governor of Palawan, and one Ernesto Fernandez (Fernandez), to assure the acquittal of the accused, Rolly Ami (Ami) (Ami),, and the dismissal of

mandates that a "judge shall refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another court or administrative agency." By doing what he did, Judge Floro, to say the least, put a fellow judge in a very awkward position.  A judge should avoid being queer in his behavior, appearance and movements. He must always

keep

in

mind

that

he

is

the

the arson case on the other hand before the day of the scheduled promulgation of the decision in the arson case, Tulali filed an Ex-Parte Ex-Parte Manifestation  Manifestation withdrawing his appearance in the said case to prevent any suspicion of misdemeanor and collusion, then Judge Blancaflor rendered his decision acquitting Ami of the crime of arson. Purportedly on the basis of the administrative complaint filed against Awayan and Rodriguez, Judge Blancaflor summoned several witnesses including Tulali and heard their testimonies, then he issued an order summoning Rodriguez to appear before him for the purpose of holding an inquiry on

visible

representative of the law. Judge Floro, Jr.‘s claims that he is endowed with psychic powers, that he can inflict pain and sickness to people, that he is the angel of death and that he has unseen "little friends" are manifestations of his psychological instability and therefore casts doubt on his capacity to carry out the functions and responsibilities of a judge. The findings of mental and psychological incapacity are thus substantially supported by

matters pertaining to his possible involvement in Tulali‘s filing of the  the  ex-parte ex-parte  manifestation and the administrative complaint against Awayan, among others. During the pendency of the case Rodriguez filed his Motion for Clarification as to the purpose of Judge Blancaflor‘s continued inquiries considering that the decision in the arson case had already been promulgated however in an order, Judge Blancaflor informed the petitioners that he was proceeding against them for direct contempt and violation of their oath of office on the basis of Tulali‘s  Tulali‘s  ExParte Manifestation. Parte  Manifestation.

evidence. Based on the three[3] psychological tests and evaluation of the two[2] psychiatrists, the undersigned

has

no

other

recourse

but

to

recommend that Judge Florentino Floro be declared unfit to discharge his duties as a Judge, effective immediately.

ISSUE:Whether or not Judge Blancaflor‘s disregard ISSUE:Whether of due process constituted grave abuse of discretion

7

 

Legal Ethics 3B

which was further aggravated by the unlawful manner of simultaneously conducting suspension and contempt proceedings against them.  them. 

participation in, the preparation and filing of the subject manifestation. It was signed and filed by Tulali alone in his capacity as the trial prosecutor in the arson case. The attached complaint against  Awayan was filed with the Office of the Palawan Governor, and not with the RTC.

HELD: The power to punish a person in contempt of court is inherent in all courts to preserve order in judicial proceedings and to uphold the orderly administration of justice. However, judges are enjoined to exercise the power judiciously and sparingly, with utmost restraint, and with the end in view of utilizing the same for correction and preservation of the dignity of the court, and not for retaliation or vindictiveness. It bears stressing that the power to declare a person in contempt of court must be exercised on the preservative, not the vindictive principle; and on the corrective, not the retaliatory, idea of punishment. Such power, being drastic and extraordinary in its nature, should not be resorted to unless necessary in the interest of justice.

 Apparently, Judge Blancaflor‘s conclusion, that the subject manifestation containing derogatory matters was purposely filed to discredit the administration of  justice in court, is unfounded and without basis. There being no factual or legal basis for the charge of direct contempt, it is clear that Judge Blancaflor gravely abused his discretion in finding petitioners guilty as charged. In the present case, Judge Blancaflor failed to observe the elementary procedure which requires written charge and due hearing. There was no order issued to petitioners. Neither was there any written or formal charge filed against them. In fact, Rodriguez only learned of the contempt proceedings upon his receipt of the July 30, 2009 Order, requiring him to appear before the Court in order to clarify certain matters contained in the said order. Tulali, on the other hand, only learned of the proceedings when he was ordered to submit his compliance to explain how he came in possession of the administrative complaint against Awayan.

In this case, the Court cannot sustain Judge Blancaflor‘s order penalizing petitioners for direct contempt on the basis of Tulali‘s  ExTulali‘s  Parte Manifestation. Parte  Manifestation. Direct contempt is any misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court as to obstruct or interrupt the proceedings before the same, including disrespect toward the court, offensive personalities toward others, or refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe an affidavit or deposition when lawfully required to do so.

The fact that petitioners were afforded the opportunity to file their appropriate pleadings is not sufficient as the proceedings ex-parte ex-parte  to hear the witnesses‘ testimonies had already been completed.  completed.  

Based on the foregoing definition, the act of Tulali in filing the Ex-Parte Ex-Parte  Manifestation cannot be construed as contumacious within the purview of direct contempt. It must be recalled that the subject manifestation bore Tulali‘s voluntary withdrawal from the arson case to dispel any suspicion of collusion between him and the accused. Its filing on the day before the promulgation of the decision in the pending criminal case, did not in any way disrupt the proceedings before the court. Accordingly, he should not be held accountable for his act which was done in good faith and without malice.

Indeed, Judge Blancaflor failed to conform to the standard of honesty and impartiality required of  judges as mandated under Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.  As a public servant, a judge should perform his duties in accordance with the dictates of his conscience and the light that God has given him. A  judge should never allow himself to be moved by pride, prejudice, passion, or pettiness in the performance of his duties. He should always bear in mind that the power of the court to punish for contempt should be exercised for purposes that are

Neither should Rodriguez be liable for direct contempt as he had no knowledge of, or

impersonal, because that power is intended as a

8

 

Legal Ethics 3B

To her defense, Aida denied the allegations and filed for legal separation. According to her, respondent wanted their marriage annulled so that he could marry another woman with whom he was having a relationship. In the meantime, a separate case was pending against the respondent, to which a certain parcel of registered land might be taken from their property in the event of loss. Facts show that

safeguard not for the judges as persons but for the functions that they exercise. Contempt and suspension proceedings are supposed to be separate and distinct. They have different objects and purposes for which different procedures have been established. Judge Blancaflor should have conducted separate proceedings

the title to suchrespondent land was kept bynot respondent in his drawer. When could find the title in his usual place for safekeeping, he sought the advice of the Register of Deeds who told him to execute the affidavit of loss, to which he did. Respondent then registered the title but in the name of Alistair, a minor at that time.

Granting that the simultaneous conduct of contempt and suspension proceedings is permitted, the suspension of petitioners must still fail. In the case at bench, there was no prior and separate notice issued to petitioners setting forth the facts constituting the misconduct and requiring them, within a specified period from receipt thereof, to show cause why they should not be suspended from the practice of their profession. Neither were they given full opportunity to defend themselves, to produce evidence on their behalf and to be heard by

ISSUE:  Is respondent guilty of ISSUE:  dishonesty, and serious misconduct?

HELD: NO, NO, respondent is not guilty of immorality, dishonesty and serious misconduct but only simple misconduct. First, the complainants failed to present any proof of respondent‘s alleged relationship with

themselves and counsel. Undoubtedly, the suspension proceedings against petitioners are null and void, having violated their right to due process.

another woman, so as to justify a charge for immorality. There was no evidence presented that respondent engaged in scandalous conduct that would warrant the imposition of disciplinary action against him. However, the Court reminded respondent of the judge's duty to conduct himself in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office. As such, he must comport himself at all times in such a manner that his conduct, official or otherwise, can bear the most searching scrutiny of the public that looks up to him as the epitome of integrity and justice. Second, respondent was not guilty of dishonesty as regards the declaration of loss of title.

(8) INSTANCE SHOWING SIMPLE MISCONDUCT OF A JUDGE (Judicial Ethics)  Ethics)   Aida R. Campos, Alistair R. Campos, and Charmaine R. Campos v. Judge Eliseo M. Campos  Campos   A.M. No. MTJ-10-1761, February Februar y 8, 2012 Carpio, J. FACTS:   FACTS: This

is

a

complaint

for

serious

immorality,

misconduct, (9) ATTY. RENE O. MEDINA and  and  ATTY. CLARITO

immorality and dishonesty filed by Judge complainants against respondent, former Presiding of the MTC of Bayugan,Agusan del Sur.

SERVILLAS vs. JUDGE VICTOR A. CANOY (February 22, 2012)

Complainant Aida and respondent were married in 1981 and had two children, complainants Alistair and Charmaine.

FACTS:

In 2008, respondent filed a petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, alleging that he and Aida were both psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations; for his part, respondent is a homosexual who could not be intimate with his wife unless he imagined he was with another man, while his wife had affairs with

Relative to cases filed before Judge Canoy, an

other men as a result of his homosexuality.

of issuing TRO and preliminary injunction are

administrative complaint was filed against him for gross ignorance of law and procedure, undue interference and gross inefficiency. In Civil Case No. 7077 , the complainants alleged that the Judge acts

9

 

Legal Ethics 3B

improper remedies for to transfer possession of one

interference in the administrative functions of the

property to another whose title has not been clearly

Bureau of Immigration, complainants failed to prove

established, and also for failure to decide Motion for

the

Recommendation within the 30 days as required by

absence of contrary evidence, what will prevail is the

rules and jurisprudence. In In Spec. Proc. No. 7101,

presumption that the respondent judge has regularly

for allegedly interfering with administrative functions

performed his duties.‖ ―On ― On the charge of tardiness,

of the Bureau on Immigration by ordering the

the same likewise without merit, without evidence as

release of the expired passport to a party, preparing

to their truthfulness or veracity.‖  veracity.‖  

the said Order outside of the court‘s premises, and

In Civil Case No. 7065 , ―Respondent judge resolved

violating Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct

the said Motion after more than a year and only after

due to his friendly greeting to a party and for acting

the filing of the instant complaint. Failure to decide

as counsel for the latter by raising questions on the

cases

respondents during their testimonies. Finally, in In

the reglementaryperiod

Civil Case No. 7065, for 7065, for allegedly acting with undue

constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the

delay in resolving a simple Motion to Dismiss, and in

imposition of administrative sanction against the

his alleged tardiness in trying cases before his

erring

bench.

transgression of the Constitution but also of the

ISSUE:: WON Judge Canoy is guilty of gross ISSUE

Code of Judicial Conduct (CANON 6 SECTION 5),

ignorance of law and procedure, undue interference

―judges shall perform all judicial duties including the t he

and gross inefficiency in violation of the Canons of

delivery of reserved decisions efficiently, fairly and

Judicial Ethics.

with reasonable promptness.‖

charge

with

and

substantial

other

matters

of

magistrate. This

evidence.

is

ninety

In

within

(90)

not only

the

a

days

blatant

HELD:: In Civil Case No. 707, Supreme Court held HELD that ―an injunction cannot be issued to transfer

(10) A.M. No. 12-2-6-SC  12-2-6-SC March 6, 2012  2012  

possession or control of a property to another when

RE: PETITION FOR JUDICIAL CLEMENCY OF

the legal title is in dispute between the parties and

JUDGE IRMA ZITA V. MASAMAYOR,  MASAMAYOR,  

the legal title has not been clearly established. X established. X X X

FACTS: Judge FACTS:  Judge Irma Zita Masamayor, Executive and

When the law involved is simple and elementary,

Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court at

lack

Talibon, Bohol applied for a lateral transfer to the

of conversance

with

it constitutes

gross

ignorance of the law.‖

Regional Trial Courts of Tagbilaran City. However,

In Spec. Proc. No. 7101, 7101, ――On On the charge of violation

she received a letter from the Judicial and Bar

of Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, we find

Council dated January 24, 2012 informing her that

the same bereft of merit. A judge may properly

she was not included in the list of nominees for

intervene in the presentation of evidence to expedite

RTCs

and prevent unnecessary waste of time and clarify

disqualification to her previous administrative record

obscure and incomplete details in the course of the

of gross inefficiency in 1999 and 2000 for belatedly

testimony of the witness.‖  X X X   On the charge of

filing her motions for extension of time to resolve the

gross

cases then pending before her sala. Thus, she was

ignorance

of

procedure

and

undue

10

in

Tagbilaran

City.

She

attributes

her

 

Legal Ethics 3B

ordered to pay a fine of P5,000.00 in A.M. No. 99-1-

 judges

or

16-RTC; P10,000.00 in A.M. No. 98-12-381-RTC;

members of the community with proven integrity and

and P12,000.00 in A.M. No. 99-2-79-RTC. She was

probity.

likewise earlier fined P5,000.00 for a similar violation

administrative

of Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial

misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of

Conduct in A.M. No. 98-10-338-RTC. To reverse she

non-reformation.)

disqualification, she filed a petition for judicial

2 . Sufficient time must have lapsed from the

clemency in the Supreme Court.

imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of

ISSUE:   Whether or not Judge Masamayor is ISSUE:

reform.

qualified for judicial clemency.

3 . The age of the person asking for clemency must

RULING: Petition RULING:  Petition GRANTED.

show that he still has productive years ahead of him

Section 5, Rule 4 of the Rules of the JBC provides:

that can be put to good use by giving him a chance

―Disqualification. - The following are disqualified from

to redeem himself.

being nominated for appointment to any judicial post

4 . There must be a showing of promise (such as

or as Ombudsman or Deputy Ombudsman:

intellectual aptitude, learning or legal acumen or

A

judges

associations

subsequent case

for

and

finding

of

the

same

prominent

guilt or

in

an

similar

nd

rd

th

1. Those with pending criminal or regular

contribution

to

legal

scholarship

and

the

administrative cases;

development of the legal system or administrative

2. Those with pending criminal cases in

and other relevant skills), as well as potential for

foreign courts or tribunals; and

public service.

3. Those who have been convicted in any

5 . There must be other relevant factors and

criminal case; or in an administrative case,

circumstances that may justify clemency."

where the penalty imposed is at least a fine

 Applying the foregoing standards to this case, the

of more than P10,000, unless he has been

Court finds merit in petitioner's request.

granted judicial clemency."

Under

th

the

st

1   guideline,

notwithstanding

her

Considering Judge Masamayor‘s previous record,

disqualification, the IBP Bohol Chapter has shown

she

further

its high regard for her per the letter of support signed

nominated for appointment to any judicial post,

by a number of its members addressed to the IBP

unless she be accorded judicial clemency.

during the pendency of her administrative cases and

In A.M. No. 07-7-17-SC (Re: Letter of Judge

the IBP Resolution No. 11, Series of 2009 endorsing

 Augustus C. Diaz, Metropolitan Trial Court of

her application for lateral transfer to the RTC of

is

indeed

disqualified

from

being

7

Quezon City, appealing for Clemency), Clemency),  the Court

Tagbilaran City.

laid down the following guidelines in resolving

In addition, in the Memorandum of the Office of the

requests for judicial clemency, thus:

Court Administrator, it was stated that her prompt

st

1 .There must be proof of remorse and reformation.

compliance with the judicial audit requirements of

(These shall include but should not be limited to

pending cases was acknowledged and she was

certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or

even commended for her good performance in the

chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,

11

 

Legal Ethics 3B

effective management of her court and in the

become remorseful of his previous acts causing him

handling of court records.

to reform his ways and treat each person with dignity

nd

Under the 2   guideline, a review of the records

and respect.

reveals that petitioner has exhibited remorse for her

ISSUE: WON the petition for Judicial Clemency

past misdeeds, which occurred more than ten (10)

should be granted.

years ago.

RULING: rd

Under the 3  guideline, while she was found to have

YES. In Re: Letter of Judge Augustus Diaz,

belatedly filed her motions for additional time to

MTC of Quezon City, Appealing for Clemency , Clemency ,

resolve the aforecited cases, the Court noted that

the Court laid down the following guidelines in

she had disposed of the same within the extended

resolving requests for judicial clemency, to wit: 1.

period sought, except in A.M. No. 99-2-79-RTC

There must be proof of remorse and reformation.

where she submitted her compliance beyond the

These shall include but should not be limited to

approved 45-day extended period. Nevertheless,

certifications

petitioner has subsequently shown diligence in the

chapters

performance of her duties and has not committed

associations and prominent members of the

any similar act or omission.

community with proven integrity and probity. A

5th  guideline,

of

or the

testimonials IBP,

of

judges

officers or

or

judges

dedicated

subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative

service of 23 years to the judiciary, having been first

case for the same or similar misconduct will give

appointed as Municipal Circuit Trial Court judge in

rise to a strong presumption of non-reformation.

Under

the

petitioner's

1989, merits compassion from the Court. It bears to

2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the

note that petitioner does not seek for promotion to a

imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of

higher position but only a lateral transfer to a place

reform. 3.

of work near her residence.

The age of the person asking for clemency must

Note : 2 cases

show that he still has productive years ahead of

(11) RE: PETITION FOR JUDICIAL CLEMENCY

him that can be put to good use by giving him a

OF THEN JUDGE HERMIN E. ARCEO

chance to redeem himself. 4.

 A.M. No. RTJ-96-1336

There must be showing of p promise romise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning or legal acumen or

Perlas-Bernabe,J. FACTS:

contribution to the legal scholarship and the

For resolution is the Petition for Judicial

development of the legal system or administrative

Clemency filed by Hermin Arceo, former Presiding

or other relevant skills), as well as potential for

Judge of RTC San Fernando Pampanga, seeking to

public service.

lift the ban against his employment in any branch of the

government.

According

to

him,

he

5. There

had

must be

other relevant factors

circumstances that may justify clemency.

immensely suffered from and endured the stigma caused by his dismissal from the service and claims to have been humbled by his experience and has

12

and

 

Legal Ethics 3B

 Applying the foregoing standards to this

 Arceo towards his personnel wherein said Judge

case, the Court finds merit in respondent‘s prayer for

constantly made bodily contact with the complainant

the lifting of the ban against his re-employment in

and other female personnel whenever he had the

the government service.

chance and that he even kissed one of them on several occasions. According to the complainant, the

Records show that after his dismissal from the service, respondent engaged in private practice

Judge

wrote

poems

manifesting

his

sexual

and most of his cases involve poor litigants,

intentions towards her and the latter likewise kissed

neighbors and close friends. He also submitted a

her violently against her will.  will. 

Certificate of Good Moral Character from the Acting Executive Judge of RTC Malolos and Certificate of

ISSUE:

WON

the

Judge

Favorable Endorsement from the President of the

Misconduct and Immorality.

IBP attesting to his reformation and recognizing his

RULING:

is

guilty

of

Gross

valuable contributions to the bar and the bench. The

YES. The integrity of the Judiciary rests not

court also notes the many years that had elapsed

only upon the fact that it is able to administer justice

from the time of the dismissal and recognizes the

but also upon the perception and confidence of the

respondent‘s dedication, citations and contributions

community that the people who run the system have

to the legal profession and to the judiciary prior to

done justice. At times, the strict manner by which we

his dismissal from the service.

apply the law may, in fact, do justice but may not his

necessarily create confidence among the people

remorse and reformation after his dismissal from the

that justice, indeed, is served. Hence, in order to

service meriting the Court‘s liberality. While it may

create such confidence, the people who run the

be conceded that respondent at 71 years old had

 judiciary, particularly judges and justices, must not

already reached retirement age and can no longer

only be proficient in both the substantive and

be eligible for regular employment in the public

procedural aspects of the law, but more importantly,

service, yet, considering his achievements and

they must possess the highest integrity, probity, and

mental aptitude, it cannot be doubted that he could

unquestionable moral uprightness, both in their

still be of service to the government in some other

public and private lives. Only then can the people be

capacity.

reassured that the wheels of justice in this country

(12) JOCELYN TALENS-DABON vs. JUDGE

run

HERMIN ARCEO

confidence in the judicial system.

Respondent

has

sufficiently

shown

with

fairness

and

equity,

thus

creating

With the avowed objective of promoting

 A.M. No. RTJ-96-1336, July Jul y 25, 1996 FACTS:

confidence in the Judiciary, we have the following provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct:

 A complaint was filed by Atty. Jocelyn Talens-Dabon, Clerk of Court of RTC Pampanga,

Canon I

charging Judge Hermin Arceo, Executive Judge of

Rule 1.01:

said court, with gross misconduct and immorality.

embodiment of competence, integrity and

The complaint stemmed from the acts of Judge

independence.

13

A Judge should be the

 

Legal Ethics 3B

(12)  Re: Subpoena Duces Tecum  (12) Tecum 

Canon II Rule 2.00: impropriety

A and

Judge the

should

FACTS:

avoid

appearance

 Atty. Lozano and Atty. Evangeline Lozano- Endriano

of

impropriety in all activities.

were indefinitely suspended from the practice of law

Rule 2.01:

when

they

were

found

times as to promote public confidence in the integrity

misconduct

when

they

and impartially of the judiciary.

constitutional provisions in their pleadings to impute

A judge should so behave at all

guilty

of

misquoted

professional or

misused

Respondent has failed to measure up these

unjust acts to the members of the Court. However,

exacting standards. He has behaved in a manner

 Atty. Endraino was reinstated because of lesser

unbecoming of a judge and as model of moral

culpability on her part.

uprightness. He has betrayed the people's high

ISSUE: WON ISSUE:  WON the misuse of constitutional provisions

expectations and diminished the esteem in which

is a breach of standards of being a member in good

they hold the judiciary in general.

standing

The audacity under which the lewd and

HELD: Yes. However, the indefinite suspension was

lustful acts were committed and the seeming

lifted because for a period of 2 years, Atty. Lozano

impunity with which they were perpetrated shock our

did not do any act that would indicate that he acted

sense of morality. All roads lead us to the conclusion

in any unscrupulous practices unsuitable for him to

that respondent judge has failed to behave in a

be a member of the bar.

manner that will promote confidence in the judiciary. His actuations, if condoned, would damage the

(13) Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge

integrity of the judiciary, fomenting distrust in the

Cader P. Indar

system. Hence, his acts deserve no less than the

A.M. No. RTJ-10-223, April 10 2012

severest form of disciplinary sanction of dismissal

Per Curiam

from the service.

Facts: are

Local Civil Registrars of Manila and Quezon City

aggravated by the fact that complainant is one of his

reported to the Office of the Court Administrator

subordinates over whom he exercises control and

(OCA) that they have received an alarming numbers

supervision, he being the executive judge. He took

of decisions, resolutions and orders on annulment of

advantage of his position and power in order to carry

marriage cases allegedly issued by Judge Indar.

out his lustful and lascivious desires. Instead of he

Judge

being

subordinate

annulment of marriage cases which do not exist in

employees, respondent was the one who preyed on

the records of RTC-Shariff Aguak, Branch 15 or the

them, taking advantage of his superior position.

Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial

Judge Hermin Arceo was dismissed from the

Court, Cotabato City. There is nothing to show that

service.

(1) proceedings were had on the questioned cases;

The

in

actuations

loco

parentis

of

over

respondent

his

Indar

issued

decisions

on

numerous

(2) docket fees had been paid; (3) the parties were notified of a scheduled hearing as calendared; (4)

14

 

Legal Ethics 3B

hearings had been conducted; or (5) the cases were

continuing requirement to the practice of law. If the

submitted for decision. In other words, Judge Indar,

practice of law is to remain an honorable profession

who had sworn to faithfully uphold the law, issued

and attain its basic ideals, those counted within its

decisions on the questioned annulment of marriage

ranks should not only master its tenets and

cases, without any

principles but should also accord continuing fidelity

showing

that such

cases

underwent trial and complied with the statutory and

to them. The requirement of good moral

 jurisprudential requisites for voiding marriages.

character is of much greater import, as far as the general public is concerned, than the possession of legal learning. learning.

Issue: Whether or not Judge Indar is guilty of gross misconduct and dishonest.

Judge Indar is DISBARRED DISBARRED for  for violation of Canons Held:   Yes. Held: Yes. Judge Indar is guilty of gross misconduct

1 and 7 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional

and dishonesty . Judge Indar violated the following

Responsibility and his name ORDERED STRICKEN  STRICKEN 

Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility:

from the Roll of Attorneys.

CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND

(14) ROMANCITO AND JULIANA LUARCA v.

 AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND FOR

JUDGE IRENEO MOLATO

LEGAL

A.M. No. MTJ-08-1711 and A.M. No. MTJ-08-

PROCESSES.

1716, 23 APRIL 2012,THIRD DIVISION (Abad, J .) Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful,

Facts: Spouses Facts:  Spouses Ramoncito and Juliana Luarca (the

dishonest,

Luarcas) and Jenny Agbay charged Judge Ireneo B.

immoral

or

deceitful

act.

Molato of the Municipal Trial Court of Bongabong, CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES

Oriental

UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE

member of the judiciary, alleging that Judge Molato

LEGAL

PROFESSION.

and his wife, Nilalina, enticed them to invest money

In addition, Judge Indar‘s dishonest act of issuing

in Lucky Socorro Investor and Credit Corporation of

decisions making it appear that the annulment cases

which Nilalina was president. The Luarcas and

underwent trial and complied with the Rules of

 Agbay invested in that company to earn interest of

Court, laws, and established jurisprudence violates

2.5% per month. The Luarcas and Agbay claim that

the lawyer‘s oath to ―do no falsehood, nor consent to

they got the monthly interest promised them but only

the doing of any in court.

up to 2003 when Lucky Corporation started missing

It cannot be denied that respondent‘s dishonesty did

on its obligations Luarcas asked Lucky Corporation

not only affect the image of the judiciary, it also put

to return their investments with the corresponding

his moral character in serious doubt and rendered

interests. But Judge Molato and his wife failed to

him unfit to continue in the practice of law.

comply.

Possession of good moral character is not only a prerequisite to admission to the bar but also a

15

Mindoro,

with

conduct

unbecoming

a

 

Legal Ethics 3B

Issues:

Supreme Court‘s consent, or served as one of its 1. Is Judge Molato , apart from being the

corporate or line officers.

husband of Lucky Corporation‘s  Corporation‘s   president,

Still, Judge Molato is to be reprimanded for agreeing

involve in its affairs; and

to serve as one of Lucky Corporation‘s alternate

2. In the affirmative, what shall the nature of

bank signatories even if he may not have performed

his administrative liability be?

such service for the corporation. He has no business

Held: Section 4 of the Code of Conduct and Ethical

agreeing to the performance of such service. His

Standards for Public Officials and Employees lays

offense constitutes a violation of Administrative

down the norms of conduct which every public

Circular 5 which in essence prohibits public officials

official and employee shall observe in the discharge

from performing or agreeing to perform functions or

and execution of their official duties, specifically

services outside of their official functions for the

providing that they shall at all times respect the

reason that the entire time of the officials and

rights of others, and refrain from doing acts contrary

employees of the judiciary shall be devoted to their

to law, good morals, good customs, public policy,

official work to ensure the efficient and speedy

public order, and public interest. Thus, any conduct

administration of justice.

contrary to these standards would qualify as conduct (15) RE: REQUEST FOR COPY OF 2008 STATEMENT OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES AND NETWORTH [SALN] AND PERSONAL DATA SHEET ORCURRICULUM VITAE OF THE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE JUDICIARY  

unbecoming of a government employee.  Absent any showing that Judge Molato defrauded complainants of their money or committed acts that detract from the dignity of his position, the mere fact that the corporation of which his wife was the president had difficulties meeting its obligations does

A. M. No. 09-8-6-SC

June 13, 2012.

not per se make him lacking in moral integrity and of questionable character as would make him liable for conduct unbecoming a judge. Of course, there is

FACTS: Rowena Paraan, Research Director of the PCIJ,

evidence that the corporation‘s Board of Directors

sought copies of the SALN of the Justices of the

issued Resolution 1-2000 that authorized Judge

Supreme Court for the year 2008. She also

Molato and three other persons to serve as the

requested for copies of the Personal Data Sheet of

company‘s alternate bank signatories, with their

the Justices of this Court for the purpose of updating

signatures

their

appearing

on

the

document.

But

database

of

information

on

government

officials.

complainants presented no evidence that Judge Molato in fact performed such function for Lucky Corporation.

The

complainants

presented

ISSUE:

no

company withdrawal slips or checks where his

Whether or not the justices are obliged to disclose

signature appears. No evidence has been adduced

their SALNs and be accessed via the right to

that he was a stockholder of that corporation, proof

information

that he engaged in private business without the

Constitutional rights?

16

without

violation

against

any

 

Legal Ethics 3B

to the limitations and prohibitions provided in R.A. RULING: Yes. Canon 2, Sec. 1 of The New Code Of

No. 6713, its implementing rules and regulations,

Judicial

and in the guidelines set forth in the decrial portion.

Conduct

For

The

Philippine

Judiciary

provides that:  that:  "Judges shall ensure that not only is their

The Court notes the valid concerns of the other

conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to

magistrates regarding the possible illicit motives of

be so in the view of a reasonable person"

some individuals in their requests for access to such

The right to information goes hand-in-hand with the

personal information information and their publication. However,

constitutional policies of full public disclosure and

custodians of public documents must not concern

honesty in the public service. In essence, it is the

themselves with the motives, reasons and objects of

consensus of the Justices of the above-mentioned

the persons seeking access to the records.

courts and the various judges associations that while

moral or material injury which their misuse might

the Constitution holds dear the right of the people to

inflict on others is the requestor‘s responsibility and

have access to matters of concern, the Constitution

lookout. Any publication is made subject to the

also holds sacred the independence of the Judiciary.

consequences of the law. While public officers in the

Thus, although no direct opposition to the disclosure

custody or control of public records have the

of SALN and other personal documents is being

discretion to regulate the manner in which records

expressed, it is the uniform position of the said

may be inspected, examined or copied by interested

magistrates and the various judges‘ associations

persons, such discretion does not carry with it the

that the disclosure must be made in accord with the

authority to prohibit access, inspection, examination,

guidelines set by the Court and under such

or copying of the records. After all, public office is a

circumstances

public trust. Public officers and employees must, at

that

would

not

undermine

the

The

all times, be accountable to the people, serve them

independence of the Judiciary.

with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and Like all constitutional guarantees, however, the right

efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead

to information, with its companion right of access to

modest lives.

official records, is not absolute.

While providing (16) JUVY P. CIOCON-REER, ET AL. vs. JUDGE

guaranty for that right, the Constitution also provides

ANTONIO C. LUBAO

that the people‘s right to know is limited to ―matters

 A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3210-RTJ 09- 3210-RTJ | June 20, 2012 |

of public concern‖ and is further subject to such

Carpio, J. J.  

limitations as may be provided by law. FACTS:

The complainants were the plaintiffs in Civil

Considering the foregoing legal precepts vis-à-vis

Case No. 7819 that was appealed from MTC

the various requests made, the Court finds no

General Santos City to RTC, Branch 22, which was

cogent reason to deny the public access to the

the post of the respondent Judge. Judge Lubao then

SALN, PDS and CV of the Justices of the Court and other magistrates of the Judiciary subject, of course,

issued an Order on 12 September 2008 directing the parties to file their memoranda within 30 days from

17

 

Legal Ethics 3B

receipt.

Complainants

averred

that

171 and 172 of the RPC and pertinent provisions of

defendants

the Code of Judicial Conduct

should have received the Order by 07 October 2008, giving them until 06 November 2008 to file the memoranda,

but

they

failed

to

do

so.

HOLD:

That

notwithstanding, Judge Lubao still didn‘t d idn‘t decide the

No. The SC held that not all administrative

case 4 months from November 6. On 20 May 2009,

complainants against judges should merit sanctions

he even gave the defendants a last chance to file

to judges especially if no bad faith, dishonesty or

their memoranda but the same was received by

corruption is present. Judge Lubao could not be

defendants only on 17 June 2009. Thus, the

faulted for acting carefully before proceeding with

complainants filed the instant complaint with the

the civil case and in giving all the parties an

OCA against the Judge for gross ignorance of the

opportunity to be heard.

law, rules or procedures, gross incompetency, violation of RA 3019, violation of Arts. 171 and 172

Further, the SC held that Karaan was indeed

of the RPC and pertinent provisions of the Code of

engaged in unauthorized practice of law and he was

Judicial Conduct.

held in indirect contempt by the SC. His act of requiring the parties to execute a Special Power of

Judge Lubao, in his Comment, informed the

 Attorney in his favor to allow him to be a party

Court that one of the complainants, Remberto C.

litigant constituted such illegal practice. He was

Karaan, Sr., is engaging in the practice of law even

imposed a penalty of 10,000.00 for his actions.

though he is not a lawyer. Karaan replied by saying

(17) . El El a d i o D . P Pe e rfe cto v. Ju d g e Al ma C o n s u e l o

that Judge Lubao was only evading the topic at hand

Desales-Esid era, A.M. No. RTJ -11-2258 -11-2258

and thus violating again basic rules of procedure

Ju ne 20, 2012, Bri on , J.

and the law. The OCA dismissed the complaint saying that there was no evidence of fraud, bad faith

Facts:   Eladio D. Perfecto filed an administrative Facts:

or dishonesty of Judge Lubao in giving the said

complaint against Presiding Judge Alma Consuelo

Orders. OCA said that the remedy of complainants is

Desales-Esidera for violation of the Code of Judicial

a judicial remedy and not an administrative case.

Conduct and ignorance of the law when firstly, he

The Supreme Court, in a Resolution dated 24

filed a Petition to Cite for Contempt against one

November 2010, dismissed the complainant against

Dalmacio Grafil and a Ven S. Labro which was

Judge Lubao and ordered Karaan to show cause

raffled to the court presided over by the respondent,

why he should not be cited in contempt. Thus,

lamenting that the case has since been gathering

Karaan moved for a reconsideration of the dismissal

dust in the court of the respondent and maintains

before the Supreme Court.

that the respondent should be made administratively

ISSUE:

liable for her failure to act on the case within a WON Judge Lubao is guilty of gross

reasonable period of time. And secondly, the

ignorance of the law, rules or procedures, gross

complainant claims that he is the publisher and

incompetency, violation of RA 3019, violation of Arts.

Editor-in-Chief of the Catarman Weekly Tribune

18

 

Legal Ethics 3B

(CWT), the only accredited newspaper inNorthern

accredited newspaper of general publication in

Samar, that in Special Proceedings Nos. C-346 (for

Catarman does not bar the publication of judicial

 

adoption and change of name and C-352 (for

orders and notices in a newspaper of national

adoption), the respondent directed the petitioners to

circulation.A judicial notice/order may be published

have her orders published in a newspaper of

in a newspaper of national circulation and said

national circulation and through these directives, the

newspaper does not even have to be accredited.

complainant posits that the respondent betrayed her ignorance of the law, considering that all judicial

However, the Court found the respondent

notices and orders emanating from the courts of

 judge guilty of Gross Gr oss Ignorance of the Law. W With ith her

Catarman, Northern Samar should be published only

inaction on the petition for contempt, she betrayed

in the CWT, pursuant to Presidential Decree No.

her unbecoming

1079.

procedural rules such as what was involved in the contempt

of familiarity

proceedings

court. Respondent

The respondent, with respect to her alleged

lack

Judge

with

before fell

short

basic

her of

these

inaction on the petition for contempt maintains that

standards when he failed in his duties to follow

the summons were served on the respondents and

elementary law and to keep abreast with prevailing

that eventually, the respondents filed their Answer

 jurisprudence.

with Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim, but no (18)STATE PROSECUTORS II JOSEF ALBERT T. (18)STATE COMILANG and MA. VICTORIA SUNEGALAGMAN, Complainants, versus JUDGE MEDEL ARNALDO B. BELEN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 36, CALAMBA CITY A.M. No. RTJ-10-2216 June 6, 2012

other pleadings followed. Relative to the issue on the

publication

of

court

orders/notices,

the

respondent submits that the CWT is not generally circulated in the province and that according to her, ―[t]he

[CWT]

commercial

caters space

only from

to

those

the

who

buy

publisher

for FACTS:

announcements and legal notices.

State Prosecutor Comilang filed a

complaint-affidavit before the Office of the Court Issue:   Whether or not the respondent is guilty of Issue:

 Administrator (OCA) charging Judge Belen with manifest partiality and malice, evident bad faith,

ignorance of the law and usurpation of authority

inexcusable abuse of authority, and gross ignorance

under the Code of Judicial Conduct.

of the law in issuing show cause orders, subpoenas and contempt citations, in grave defiance to the

Held:   Anent the allegations of ignorance of the law Held: and

usurpation

of

authority against

injunctive writ issued by the Court of Appeals. State

respondent

Prosecutor Comilang further alleged that Judge

Judge Esidera, for issuing a directive to the

Belen's acts were intended to harass, oppress,

petitioner in a special proceedings case to cause the

persecute, intimidate, annoy, vex and coerce him,

publication of her order in a newspaper of general

and to place him in a disadvantageous and

publication, this Off Office ice finds f inds the same devoid of merit.That Catarman Weekly Tribune is the only

compromising position, as he was prosecuting the libel case instituted by herein complainant State

19

 

Legal Ethics 3B

Prosecutor Lagman against Judge Belen when he

of

was

Comilang for indirect contempt notwithstanding the

still

a

practicing

lawyer.

the

law.

effectivity ISSUE:   ISSUE:

Whether

or

not

Judge

of

Likewise,

the

citing

CA-issued

State

writ

Prosecutor

of

injunction

Belen's

demonstrated his vexatious attitude and bad faith

actuations showed manifest partiality and bias,

towards the former, for which he must be held

evident bad faith, grave abuse of authority and gross

accountable and subjected to disciplinary action.

ignorance of the law warranting his dismissal from service as RTC Judge of Branch 36, Calamba City.

(19)  PR OSEC . JOR GE D . BAC U L I v. JU D GE MED EL AR N AL D O B. B EL EN , A.M. N o . R RTJ-0 TJ-0 9 - 

HELD:   Yes. Judges are expected to exhibit more HELD:

2179, THIRD

than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and

VEL ASC O,  J.

procedural laws. They must know the laws and

FACTS:

apply them properly in

The principal cause of action is the ―unlawful,

competence

good

requires

faith as as judicial no

DIVISION, September

unconstitutional,

less.

illegal,

24, 2012,

arbitrary,

malicious,

capricious and immoral orders‖ issued by Judge Judge Belen blatantly violated the injunctive writ

Belen.

issued by the CA. In complete disobedience, Judge

December 18, 2006 Decision, in which Baculi was

Belen proceeded to issue (1) the Order requiring

found guilty of direct contempt, and the June 7, 2007

State Prosecutor Comilang to explain his refusal to

Decision, wherein Judge Belen declared Baculi

file the supersedeas bond and to require his

guilty

presence in court, as well as to explain why he

contemptuous nature of pleadings that Baculi filed in

should not be cited for indirect contempt; (2) the

his sala.

Order

ISSUE:

seeking

State

Prosecutor

Comilang's

The

of

adverted

indirect

issuances

contempt

of

refer

court,

to

for

the

the

explanation for his defiance of the subpoena

Whether or not Judge Belen‘s actions showed

requiring his presence at the hearing of even date,

manifest partiality and bias, evident bad faith, grave

and directing, once again, his attendance at the next

abuse of authority, and gross ignorance of the law

hearing and to explain once more why he should not

warranting his dismissal from service as RTC Judge.

be cited for indirect contempt; and (3) the Order

HELD:

finding State Prosecutor Comilang guilty of indirect

Respondent is guilty of grave abuse of authority and

contempt and sentencing him to pay a fine of

gross ignorance of the law In the case of Pesayco v. Layague, Layague,

P30,000.00 and to suffer two days' imprisonment.

[21]

the

Court succinctly explained: Judge Belen's actuations, therefore, cannot be considered as mere errors of judgment that can be

No less than the Code of Judicial conduct

easily brushed aside. Obstinate disregard of basic

mandates that a judge shall be faithful to the laws

and established rule of law or procedure amounts to

and maintain professional competence. Indeed,

inexcusable abuse of authority and gross ignorance

competence is a mark of a g good ood judge. A judge

20

 

Legal Ethics 3B

must be acquainted with legal norms and precepts

Our conception of good judges has been, and is, of

as well as with procedural rules. When a judge

men who have a mastery of the principles of law,

displays an utter lack of familiarity with the rules, he

who discharge their duties in accordance with

erodes the public‘s confidence in the competence of

law. Hence, with the foregoing disquisitions and

our courts. Such is gross ignorance of the law. law. One

Judge Belen‘s previous infractions, which are all of

who accepts the exalted position of a judge owes

serious nature and for which he had been severely

the public and the court the duty to be proficient in

warned,

the law. Unfamiliarity with wit h the Rules of Court is a

recommendation of the OCA to mete the ultimate

sign of incompetence.

penalty of dismissal against Judge Belen for grave

Basic rules of procedure

the

Court

therefore

adopts

the

abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law.

must be at the palm of a judge‘s hands.   Thus, this Court has consistently held that a

The Court can no longer afford to be lenient in this

 judge is presumed to know the law and when the

case, lest it give the public the impression that t hat

law is so elementary, not to be aware of it

incompetence and repeated offenders are tolerated

constitutes gross ignorance of the law. Verily, failure

in the judiciary.

to follow basic legal commands embodied in the law and the Rules constitutes gross ignorance of the

(20). PR OSEC . JOR GE D . BAC U L I v. JU D GE

law, from which no one is excused, and surely not a

MED EL AR N AL D O B. B EL EN , A.M. N o . R RTJ-0 TJ-0 9 -  2179, THIRD DIVISION, September 24, 2012, VEL ASC O, J.

 judge.

[22]

 

FACTS: This is because judges are expected to exhibit more

The principal cause of action is the ―unlawful,

than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural

laws.

They

must

know

the

unconstitutional,

laws

arbitrary,

malicious,

capricious and immoral orders‖ issued by Judge

and apply them properly in good faith as judicial competence requires no less.

illegal,

Belen.

 

The

adverted

issuances

refer

to

the

December 18, 2006 Decision, in which Baculi was found guilty of direct contempt, and the June 7, 2007

Judge Belen's actuations, therefore, cannot be

Decision, wherein Judge Belen declared Baculi

considered as mere errors of judgment that can be

guilty

easily brushed aside. Obstinate disregard of basic

of

indirect

contempt

of

court,

for

the

contemptuous nature of pleadings that Baculi filed in

and established rule of law or procedure amounts to

his sala.

inexcusable abuse of authority and gross ignorance ISSUE:

of the law.

Whether or not Judge Belen‘s actions showed

 Accordingly, in imposing the proper penalty, the Court

takes

note

of

Judge

Belen‘s

manifest partiality and bias, evident bad faith, grave

previous

abuse of authority, and gross ignorance of the law

administrative cases where he was penalized in the

warranting his dismissal from service as RTC Judge.

following manner:

21

 

Legal Ethics 3B

HELD:

Judge Belen's actuations, therefore, cannot be considered as mere errors of judgment that can be

Respondent is guilty of grave abuse of authority and

easily brushed aside. Obstinate disregard of basic

gross ignorance of the law

and established rule of law or procedure amounts to

In the case of Pesayco v. Layague, Layague,

[21]

inexcusable abuse of authority and gross ignorance

the

of the law. Court succinctly explained:  Accordingly, in imposing the proper penalty, the

No less than the Code of Judicial conduct mandates that a judge shall be faithful to the laws

Court

and maintain professional competence. Indeed,

administrative cases where he was penalized in the

competence is a mark of a good judge. A judge

following manner:

must be acquainted with legal norms and precepts as well as with procedural rules. When a judge displays an utter lack of familiarity with the rules, he erodes the public‘s public‘s confidence in the competence of our courts. Such is gross ignorance of the law. law. One who accepts the exalted position of a judge owes the public and the court the duty to be proficient in the law. Unfamiliarity with wit h the Rules of Court is a sign of incompetence.

Basic rules of procedure

must be at the palm of a judge‘s hands.  

Thus, this Court has consistently held that a  judge is presumed to know the law and when the law is so elementary, not to be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance of the law. Verily, failure to follow basic legal commands embodied in the law and the Rules constitutes gross ignorance of the law, from which no one is excused, and surely not a [22]

 judge..  judge

 

This is because judges are expected to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural

laws.

They

must

know

the

laws

and apply them properly in good faith as judicial competence requires no less.

 

22

takes

note

of

Judge

Belen‘s

previous

 

Legal Ethics 3B

serious nature and for which he had been severely Docket No.   No.  A.M. No. RTJ-082119

Case Title   Title Mane v. Judge [26] Belen  

Charge   Charge

Penalty   Penalty

Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge

Reprimand, with warning that a repetition of

warned,

the

Court

therefore

adopts

the

recommendation of the OCA to mete the ultimate penalty of dismissal against Judge Belen for grave abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law. The Court can no longer afford to be lenient in this

the same or similar acts shall merit a more serious penalty  A.M. No. RTJ-092176

 A.M. No. RTJ-102242

 A.M.No. RTJ-082139

Baculi Gross v. Ignorance of Judge the Law [27] Belen  

Correa Conduct v. Unbecoming Judge of a Judge [28] Belen  

Belen v. Violation of Judge Section 4 of [29] Belen   Canon 1 and Section 1 of Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct

case, lest it give the public the impression that t hat incompetence and repeated offenders are tolerated in the judiciary.

Suspended for 6 months without salary and other benefits, with stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall merit a more serious penalty Fined for PhP10,000.00 with stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall merit a more serious penalty Fined for PhP11,000 with stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall merit a more serious penalty

(21) ATTY. RAUL L. CORREA vs JUDGE MEDEL ARNALDO B. BELEN

Facts:   Facts:

 A complaint has been filed by Atty. Att y. Raul L. Correa charging respondent Judge MedelArnaldo B. Belen of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Calamba City, Laguna of Misconduct

Complainant claimed that, in the course of the proceedings, he was asked by respondent Judge Belen to stand up while the latter dictated his order on their Administrator‘s Report.  Report. 

Respondent Judge Belen even rebuked him for some mistakes in managing the affairs of the estate, adding that it is regrettable "because Atty. Raul Correa is a U.P. Law Graduate and a Bar Topnotcherr at that.‖  Topnotche that.‖ 

Issue: Whether Issue:  Whether or not Judge Belen is guilty of conduct unbecoming of a judge.

Our conception of good judges has been, and is, of men who have a mastery of the principles of law,

Held: Yes.  Yes. 

who discharge their duties in accordance with

Indeed, the New Code of Judicial Conduct for

law. Hence, with wit h the foregoing disquisitions and

the Philippine Judiciary exhorts members of the

Judge Belen‘s previous infractions, which are all of

23

 

Legal Ethics 3B

 judiciary, in the discharge of their duties, to be models of propriety at all times. Canon 4 mandates

(22) ASSISTANT SPECIAL PROSECUTOR III ROHERMIAJ. JAMSANIRODRIGUEZ,VS.JUSTICES GREGORY S. ONG,

CANON 4

JOSE R. HERNANDEZ, and RODOLFO PONFERRADA, SANDIGANBAYAN.

PROPRIETY

 A.M. No. 08-19-SB-J

A.

August 24, 2010

Propriety and the appearance of propriety FACTS:

are essential to the performance of all the activities

The complainant initiated this administrative

of a judge.

matter by filing an affidavit-complaint dated October 23, 2008 to charge Sandiganbayan Justices Gregory

SECTION 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their

S. Ong (Justice Ong); Jose R. Hernandez (Justice

activities.

Hernandez); and Rodolfo A. Ponferrada (Justice Ponferrada), who composed the Fourth Division of

x xx

the Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), with Justice Ong as Chairman, at the time material to the

SEC. 6. Judges, like any other citizen, are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association

complaint,

with

Improprieties

During

Hearings

and assembly, but in exercising such rights, they

 Amounting to Gross Abuse of Judicial A Authority uthority and

shall always conduct themselves in such a manner

Grave Misconduct.

as to preserve the dignity of the judicial office and

 Allegedly, Justice Ong and Justice Hernandez Herna ndez

the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.

made the following intemperate and discriminatory utterances during hearings. Firstly, the complainant

 A judge must consistently be temperate in words

alleged that Justice Ong uttered towards the

and in actions. Respondent Judge Belen‘s insulting

complainant during the hearing held in Cebu City in

statements,

September 2006 the following:

tending tending

to

project

complainant‘s

ignorance of the laws and procedure, coming from

―We are playing Gods here, we will do will  do what

his inconsiderate belief that the latter mishandled the

we want to do, your contempt is already out, we

cause

clearly

fined you eighteen thousand pesos, even if you will

Such

appeal, by that time I will be there, Justice of the

of

insensitive,

his

client

is

obviously

distasteful, and

and

inexcusable.

Supreme Court. ―  ― 

abuse of power and authority could only invite disrespect from counsels and from the public.

Secondly, Justice Ong often asked lawyers

Patience is one virtue that members of the bench

from which law schools they had graduated, and

should practice at all times, and courtesy to

frequently inquired whether the law school in which

everyone is always called for.

Justice Hernandez had studied and from which he had graduated was better than his (Justice Ong‘s)

24

 

Legal Ethics 3B

own alma mater. The complainant opined that the

the absence of a clear showing to the contrary, the

query was manifestly intended to emphasize that the

Court must accept such transcripts as the faithful

San Beda College of Law, the alma mater of Justice

and true record of the proceedings, because they

Ong, and the UP College of Law, that of Justice

bear the certification of correctness executed by the

Hernandez, were the best law schools.

stenographers who had prepared them. Even

Thirdly, on another occasion in that hearing

so,

Justice

Ong

and

Justice

in Cebu City in September 2006, Justice Hernandez

Hernandez admitted randomly asking the counsels

discourteously

Prosecutor

appearing before them from which law schools they

HazelinaTujan-Militante, who was then observing

had graduated, and their engaging during the

trial from the gallery: You are better than Director

hearings

Somido? Are you better than Director Chua? Are

respective law schools. They thereby publicized their

you here to supervise Somido? Your office is

professional qualifications and manifested a lack of

wasting funds for one prosecutor who is doing

the

nothing.

magistrates. Their doing so reflected a vice of self-

shouted

at

in

requisite

casual

conversation

humility

demanded

about

of

their

public

Finally, Justice Hernandez berated Atty.

conceit. We view their acts as bespeaking their lack

Pangalangan, the father of former UP Law Dean

of judicial temperament and decorum, which no

Raul Pangalangan, thus:Just because your son is

 judge worthy of the judicial robes should avoid

always nominated by the JBC to Malacañang, you

especially

are acting like that! Do not forget that the brain of

functions. They should not exchange banter or

the child follows that of their (sic) mother.

engage in playful teasing of each other during trial

during

their

performance

of

judicial

proceedings (no matter how good-natured or even if ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent justices are

meant to ease tension, as they want us to believe).

liable for Improprieties During Hearings Amounting

Judicial decorum demands that they behave with

to Gross Abuse of Judicial Authority and Grave

dignity and act with courtesy towards all who appear

Misconduct?   Misconduct?

before their court. Indeed, Se cti o n 6 , C a n o n 6 o f th e N e w

RULING OF THE COURT:Unbecoming COURT:Unbecoming Conduct of

Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine

Justice Ong and Justice Hernandez.

Ju d i c i a ry cl e a arl rl y e n j o i n s th a t  :

Court

Section 6 . Judges shall maintain order and decorum

 Administrator‘s finding and recommendation that no

in all proceedings before the court and be patient,

evidence supported the complainant‘s charge that

dignified and courteous in relation to litigants,

Justice Ong and Justice Hernandez had uttered the

witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge

improper and intemperate statements attributed to

deals in an official capacity. Judges shall require

them.A review of the transcripts of the stenographic

similar conduct of legal representatives, court staff

notes for the hearings in which the offensive

and others subject to their influence, direction or

statements were supposedly uttered by them has

control.

The

Court

approves

the

failed to substantiate the complainant‘s charge. In

25

 

Legal Ethics 3B

but of ethical practice or logical procedure or

We point out that publicizing professional

prescribed method.‖  method.‖ 

qualifications or boasting of having studied in and graduated from certain law schools, no matter how prestigious, might have even revealed, on the part of Justice Ong and Justice Hernandez, their bias for or against

some

lawyers.

Their

conduct

(23) Velasco vs. Judge Angeles September 06, 2010

was

impermissible, consequently, for Se cti o n 3 , C an an o n 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the

Facts:   Respondent, Facts:

Ph i l i p p i n e Ju d i ci a ry  , demands that judges avoid

Presiding

Judge

of

the

Caloocan Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 121

situations that may reasonably give rise to the

(until her retirement on May 23, 2010), was charged

suspicion or appearance of favoritism or partiality in

by then petitioner with violation of Supreme Court

their personal relations with individual members of

Circulars, the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the

the legal profession who practice regularly in their

Code

courts.

of

Judicial

Conduct,

specifically

for

unauthorized practice of law, unauthorized absences Judges should be dignified in demeanor,

and

falsification

of

certificate

of

service. By

and refined in speech. In performing their judicial petitioner‘s allegation, respondent actively participated in the prosecution of Criminal Case No.

duties, they should not manifest bias or prejudice by word or conduct towards any person or group on

04-230908, for libel, which was, on her complaint,

irrelevant grounds. It is very essential that they

filed against him before the Manila RTC, she

should live up to the high standards their noble

appearing at Branch 26 thereof (to which the case

position on the Bench demands. Their language

was raffled) without her filing leaves of absence on

must be guarded and measured, lest the best of

the following dates  –  –   February 2, 2005, May 3 and

intentions be misconstrued.

19, 2005, June 14, 15, 22 and 30, 2005, July 12-13,

an o n 5 o f t h e In this regard, Se cti o n 3 , C an

2005 and August 3 and 11, 2005. Petitioner thus

New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine

concluded that when respondent indicated in her

J u d i c i a r y ,  mandates judges to carry out judicial

Certificates of Service that she had rendered service

duties with appropriate consideration for all persons,

during the questioned dates, she is guilty of

such as the parties, witnesses, lawyers, court staff,

falsification and of violation of Canons 3 and 5 of the

and judicial colleagues, without differentiation on any irrelevant

ground,

immaterial

to

the

Code of Judicial Conduct and Canons 3, 7, 22 and

proper

31 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. After concluding

performance of such duties.

his

In view of the foregoing, Justice Ong and

investigation,

the

Investigating

Justice

considering only the remaining issues of falsification

Justice Hernandez were guilty of unbecoming

and incurring unauthorized absences, reported that

conduct, which is defined as improper performance.

respondent is guilty of unauthorized absences on

Unbecoming conduct ―applies to a broader range of

May 3 and August August 3, 2005. With respect to the rest

transgressions of rules not only of social behavior

of the questioned dates, he held hel d that respondent‘s absence thereon was ―legally justified‖ as she

26

 

Legal Ethics 3B

merely complied with the subpoenas issued by the

leaves of absence for May 3 and August 3, 2005

trial court. court . Respondent filed a Motion for Partial

because she did not have to. Indeed, if respondent

Reconsideration which was denied by Resolution of

committed no lapse or violation, then the Court‘s

February 22, 2010 of the Court of Appeals. Hence,

denial of her first motion for partial reconsideration

the

on the basis of the Panganiban Panganiban decision  decision deserves to

present

second

Motion

for

Partial

be reviewed. Respecting respondent‘s presence at

Reconsideration.

the trial court on May 3, 2005, while admittedly no

Issue:   Whether or not the respondent incurred Issue:

subpoena was served on her to appear on said date

unauthorized absences during her attendance at the

that was a re-scheduled date of hearing, the earlier-

hearing in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila

scheduled hearing having been postponed. There

on 3 May 2005, where her attendance thereat as a

was

private complainant was without subpoena which

thus

no

absolute

need

for

her

to

be

subpoenaed for the purpose.

resulted in her unjustified absence from her own court and on 3 August 2005 where respondent failed to file a leave of absence rationalizing that she was

 As to the Investigating Judge‘s observation that

out only for a few minutes which she compensated

assuming that respondent‘s attendance in the May 3, 2005 hearing was covered by subpoena, she still

by staying in the office and working beyond office hours and the forfeiture of her leave credits in the

needed to secure a Certificate of Service because

name of public service.

she was the private complainant: The Court notes

Held: No, the respondent the respondent did not

that

incur unauthorized absences during her attendance

government employees who need such certification

at the hearing in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of

to show to their superiors that they indeed attended

Manila on 3 May 2005 and on 3 August 2005.

the hearing. In any case, the minutes of a hearing

this

is

merely

a

matter

of

practice

for

show the parties who are present, hence, such certification In denying respondent‘s first motion for partial

becomes

a

mere

surplusage.

Respecting respondent‘s going to the trial court

reconsideration, the Court in its February 22, 2010 on August 3, 2005; the same sam e did not require the filing of a leave of absence. The Investigating

Resolution, applied the ruling in Office of the Court  Administrator v. Judge Delia H. Panganiban Panganiban where  where it

Justice himself noted that her absence involved only

was held that a Judge‘s unblemished record will not

a ―fraction of her official time.‖  time.‖  

 justify her lapses. However, as correctly pointed out by respondent in her second motion for partial (24) SUSAN O. REYES v . JUDGE MANUEL N.

reconsideration, said case should not have been

DUQUE

applied, as it presupposes that respondent indeed

A.M. No. RTJ-08-2136, 21 September 2010, E N

committed lapses which her long service and

B A N C  (Carpio,   (Carpio, J .)

unblemished reputation would not justify while she has always maintained that she had not committed FACTS:

the act complained of, that is, the non-filing of the

27

 

Legal Ethics 3B

Complainant

Susan

respondent

Judge

Manuel

Impropriety,

Corruption

and

O.

Reyes

N. Gross

records that Reyes filed her intended complaint

charged

Duque

before Judge Duque retired. Consequently, the

with

Court

Misconduct.

no

doubt

has

jurisdiction

over

this

administrative case.

Reyes alleged that she was a party-in-intervention in a land registration case. Atty. Herminio Ubana, Sr., the lawyer of Reyes, introduced her to Judge Duque.

On the charge of graft and corruption, the

When Reyes was unable to re-negotiate with the

Investigating Justice and the OCA found insufficient

bank with regard to the pending case, she allegedly

evidence to sustain Reyes‘ allegation that Judge

received a phone call from Judge Duque, instructing

Duque demanded and received money from her in

her to go ―to his house and bring some money in

consideration of a favorable ruling. Thus, this charge

order that he can deny the pending motion to break

should be dismissed for being unsubstantiated.

open.‖

Judge Duque demanded P100,000 but

Reyes was unable to give the full amount. When

On the charge of impropriety and gross

Reyes went again to his house, he allegedly scolded

misconduct, and after a thorough investigation

her, locked the main door of his house and asked

conducted by the Investigating Justice, it was

Reyes to step into his office. Judge Duque touched

established, and Judge Duque admitted, that Reyes

her private parts and attempted to have sexual

went to his house. Substantial evidence also pointed

intercourse with her.

to Judge Duque‘s liability for impropriety and gross misconduct when he sexually assaulted Reyes. The

On the other hand, Judge Duque averred

Investigating Justice likewise observed that Judge

that since the complaint of Reyes was filed after he

Duque merely attempted to destroy the credibility of

retired, he was no longer under the jurisdiction of the

Reyes when he insinuated that she could be a

Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). He denied

―woman of ill repute or a high class prostitute‖ or one

the charges hurled against him and claimed the

whose ―moral value is at  at   its lowest level.‖ However,

allegations were ―fabricated, false and malicious.‖  malicious.‖  

no judge has a right to solicit sexual favors from a party litigant even from a woman of loose morals. In Tan v. Pacuribot , this Court further stressed:

ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Duque should be held

We have repeatedly reminded members of

liable for impropriety and gross misconduct for

the Judiciary to so conduct themselves as to be

soliciting sexual favors from a party litigant

beyond reproach and suspicion, and to be free HELD:   HELD:

from any appearance of impropriety in their Yes. First, on the question of jurisdiction as

personal behavior, not only in the discharge of

Judge Duque is no longer a member of the judiciary

their official duties but also in their everyday lives.

having retired from the service on 21 February 2008,

For no position exacts a greater demand on the

the records show that Reyes filed four similar

moral righteousness and uprightness of an

complaints against Judge Duque. It is clear from the

individual than a seat in the Judiciary. Judges are

28

 

Legal Ethics 3B

mandated to maintain good moral character and are

at

all

times

expected

to

violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices  Act, Gross Misconduct in violation of the Judicial Conduct, and knowingly rendering an unjust  judgment in connection with the reopening of a criminal case whose decision was already final and executor and subject of an entry of judgment in the Court of Appeals.

observe

irreproachable behavior so as not to outrage public decency. We have adhered to and set forth the exacting standards of morality and decency, which every member of the judiciary 2.

must observe. A magistrate is judged not only by his official acts but also by his private morals, to the

extent

that

externalized.   He externalized.

such

private

should

not

morals only

are

possess

proficiency in law but should likewise possess moral integrity for the people look up to him as a virtuous and upright man. 3.

The conduct of Judge Duque fell short of the exacting standards for members of the judiciary. He

OCA required Judge Pinto to comment on the anonymous letter-complaint and Judge Pinot alleged that the outright denial of the motion to re-open the case was improper, without violating the accused‘s opportunity to be heard. She also alleged that even granting that her acts were indeed erroneous, they were done in the exercise of her adjudicative functions which cannot be made subject of a disciplinary, civil, or criminal action absent fraud, dishonest, and corruption on her part. OCA recommended tha thatt Judge Pinto be held guilty of Gross Ignorance of Law and Procedure and be suspended from service without salary and other benefits for a period of six month with a stern warning. The Court agreed with the resolution of OCA but changed the penalty to dismissal from service.

failed to behave in a manner that would promote confidence in the judiciary. Considering that a judge is a visible representation of the law and of justice, he is naturally expected to be the epitome of

ISSUE:

integrity and should be beyond reproach. Judge

Whether or not Judge Pinto should be dismissed from service on the ground of Gross Ignorance of Law and Procedures.

Duque‘s Duque ‘s conduct indubitably bore the marks of impropriety and immorality. He failed to live up to the high moral standards of the judiciary and even

RULING:

transgressed the ordinary norms of decency of society.

Had

Judge

Duque

not

retired,

his

The court said that in order to render substantial justice and maintain public confidence in the legal system, judges should be embodiments of competence, integrity and independence. They are likewise expected to demonstrate mastery of the principles of law, keep abreast of prevailing  jurisprudence and discharge duties in accordance therewith. Judge Pinto‘s actions clearly deviate from the exacting standards.

misconduct would have merited his dismissal from the service.

(25) Re: Anonymous Letter- dated August 12, 2010, complaining against Judge Ofelia T. Pinto, Regional Trial Court, Branch 60, Angeles City, Pampanga.

A letter-complaint was filed before the Office of

Judge Pinto had no jurisdiction to entertain the motion filed by the accused-movant to reopen Criminal Case No. 91-937 91- 937 because the CA‘s decision, which affirmed the accused-movant‘s accused-movant‘s

the Court Administrator against Judge Ofelia Pinto where she was charged with dishonesty,

conviction, had become final and executory. Judge Pinto‘s conduct was contrary to the clear language

FACTS: 1.

29

 

Legal Ethics 3B

of Section 24, Rule 119 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. In other words, a motion to reopen a criminal case is not the proper procedural recourse when there is already a final judgment of conviction. This rule is con consistent sistent with the doctrine of finality of judgment which Judge Pinto failed to apply. ―The doctrine of finality of judgment, which is

2.

Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or 3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.13 We note that this not the first time that we found Judge Pinto administratively liable. We

grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice, dictates that at the risk of occasional error, the judgments of the courts must become final and executory at some definite date set by law.‖ In this case, the final decision of the CA should have been given effect.

found her liable in two other administrative cases. 26. Rolando Marcos vs.Judge Ofelia Pinto A.M. OCA No. RTJ-09-2180July 26, 2010 FACTS: Judge Pinto is the presiding judge in a

Even granting that Judge Pinto had been motivated by good intentions leading her to disregard the laws and rules of procedure, these personal motivations cannot relieve her from the administrative consequences of her actions as they affect her competency and conduct as a judge in the

criminal case for violation of R.A. 7610 where Marcos is a witness. While the case is being tried, the DOJ Secretary issued a resolution granting the motion for reconsideration filed by the defense

discharge of her official functions. We have previously held that when a law or a rule is basic, judges owe it to their office to simply apply the law. ―Anything less is gross ignorance of the law.‖ There is gross ignorance of the law when an error committed by the judge was ―gross or patent, deliberate or malicious.‖ malicious .‖ It may also be committed when a judge ignores, contradicts or fails to apply settled law and jurisprudence because of bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption. Gross ignorance of the law or incompetence cannot be excused by a claim of good faith. In this case, Judge Pinto‘s utter disregard to apply settled laws and rules of procedure constitutes gross ignorance of the law which merits administrative sanction. Section 8(9), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court classifies gross ignorance as a serious charge with the following imposable penalties: 1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or  part of the benefits as the Court may d determine, etermine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits;

questioning the filing of the information against the accused. By virtue of this resolution, Judge Pinto issued an order terminating the proceedings and required the prosecution to file a comment thereon. The prosecution failed to file such comment within the given period and as a result, the proceeding was terminated. Marcos filed an administrative case against Judge Pinto for gross ignorance of the law by not reviewing such resolution of DOJ, for manifest bias and partiality on the basis that Judge Pinto acted as the solemnizing solemnizing officer in the accused son‘s wedding during the same year the case was terminated. In her defense, Judge Pinto claimed that she duly exercised judicial discretion at every stage of the proceeding and that she is allowed by law to solemnize marriage under the Family Code. Upon investigation of the presiding Justice of Court of Appeals found no basis for the alleged violation of Canon 2.

30

 

Legal Ethics 3B

ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Pinto the Code of

2.

The complaint originated from the alleged ex-

Judicial Conduct? (Yes but under Section 1 of

parte

Canon 4)

respondent Judge without notice given to the

HELD:   HELD:

complainant. Upon assumption of office a Judge becomes

3.

ocular

inspection

conducted

by

In the Judge‘s Comment he raised as defense

the visible representation of the law and of justice.

that he went to the subject property with his

Faithful observance of the Canons is the price one

utility personnel only to conduct his own

has to pay for being a magistrate. He must conduct

investigation and no one from the plaintiffs or

himself in a manner that will withstand the most

the defendant ever entertained him. He

searching public scrutiny, for the ethical principles

argues that he made the inspection in good

and sense of propriety of a judge are essential to the

faith and with noble intentions.

preservation of the people‘s faith in the judicial

4.

The

Office

of

the

Court

Administrator

system. The Supreme Court does not require of

recommended that respondent be declared

 judges that they measure up to the standards of

guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest

conduct of the saints and martyrs, but we do expect

of the service in violation of Sec. 1, Canon 4

them to be like Caesar‘s wife in all their activities.

of The New Code of Judicial Conduct.

In acting as the solemnizing officer is improper

and

highly

unethical

for

a

ISSUES:

judge

1.

Whether or not Judge Dacanay should be

considering that the accused is a party in a case

held

pending before her sala.

prejudicial to the best interest of the service

* C an an o n 4 , Se Secti cti o n 1 –   Judges shall avoid impropriety  –Judges

for conducting an ocular inspection without

and the appearance of impropriety in all of their

informing the parties

activities.

2.

administratively

liable

for

conduct

Whether Judge Dacanay should be held administratively liable for the delay in the

(27). D R . JAN OS B. VIZC VIZC AYN O, co mp l a i n a n t vs.

resolution of the Motion for Inhibition

JU D GE JASPER JESSE G. D AC AN AY, i n h i s

H EL D :

o ffi ci a l ca p a ci ty a s th e Pre si d i n g j u d g e o f th e

1.

Mu n i ci p a l

C i rcu i t

Tri a l

C o u rt

of

Judge Dacanay is guilty o off conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Section 1,

Liloan-

C o m p o s t e la la , C e b u , r e s p o n d e n t

Canon 4 of The New Judicial Conduct states

(A.M. N o . MTJ-1 0 -1 7 7 2 ; Se co n d D i vi so n ; J.

that ―judges shall avoid impropriety and the

Carpio ; Decemb er 5, 2012)

appearance

FAC TS:

activities.‖ The court previously ruled in similar

1.

of

impropriety

in

all

their

Dr. Vizcayno filed an administrative complaint

cases that an ocular inspection without notice

against Judge Dacanay for gross Ignorance of

to nor presence of the parties is highly

the

improper.

Law,

Abuse

of

Authority,

Manifest

Good

and

noble

intentions

notwithstanding, Judge Dacanay‘s actuations

Partiality and Delay relative to a Civil Case.

gave an appearance of impropriety. His

31

 

Legal Ethics 3B

2.

behavior diminished public confidence in the

respondent

Judge‘s

impartiality.

They

doubted

integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. All

Judge Ros‘ fairness in handling the aforementioned

those involved in the dispensation of justice,

criminal cases because of the speed at which he

from the presiding justice to the lowliest clerk,

disposed them when they had just been raffled to

must always be beyond reproach. Their

him. The petitioners could not believe that he could

conduct must, at all times, be circumscribed

resolve the cases within the same day considering

with the heavy burden of responsibility free

that the records thereof are voluminous and that the

from any suspicion that may taint the judiciary.

criminal cases were raffled to him on the day he

The Respon Respondent dent Judge expunged from the

issued the order of dismissal. Nevertheless, the

records the said motion because the counsel

petitioners continued to respect the respondent‘s

of complainant failed to indicate the date of

order and sought other legal remedies such as the

issue and number of MCLE Compliance as

filing of a motion for reconsideration. However, when

required by Bar Matter No. 1922. Said Order

Judge Ros issued the order resolving the motion for

may therefore be considered as a denial of

reconsideration after two (2) days from the filing of

the Motion for Inhibition, which was issued

the comment and without awaiting for PSC‘s reply, reply ,

within the 90-day period to resolve a motion.

petitioners were convinced that respondent Judge Ros acted with partiality and malice, thus the petition

(28). AMBASSADOR HARRY C. ANGPING and

filed against him. Issue/s:

ATTY. SIXTO BRILLANTES vs.JUDGE REYNALDO G. ROS

Whether or not respondent Judge Ros is

A.M. No. 12-8-160-RTC

liable for violation of Canons 2 and 3 of the Code of

December 10, 2012

Judicial Conduct.

Facts: Held:

The petitioners charged respondent Judge

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the

Ros for violating Canons 2 and 3 of the Code of letter-complaint

charge against Judge Reynaldo G. Ros for violation

emanated from the actions and rulings of Judge Ros

of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct is

relative to Criminal Case Nos. 10-274696 to 10-

hereby DISMISSED. However, for failing to live up to

274704. Petitioners alleged that on March 23, 2010,

the degree of propriety required of him under Canon

the above cases were raffled to Branch 33, RTC-

2

Manila. However, on the very same day the said

hereby ADMONISHED and STERNLY

case was raffled to the respondent judge, the latter

WARNED that a repetition r epetition of the same or similar sim ilar

issued an order dismissing the criminal cases for

acts would be dealt with more severely.

Judicial

Conduct.

The

said

of

the

same

Code,

he

is

lack of probable cause. Ratio: Jurisprudence

The aforesaid incidents started to create

repeatedly

teaches

that

litigants are entitled to nothing less than the cold

reservations in the mind of the petitioners on the

32

 

Legal Ethics 3B

neutrality of an impartial judge. The other elements

another order dated May 21, 20085 giving the parties fifteen (15) days within which to file their memoranda.

of due process, like notice and hearing, would become meaningless if the ultimate decision is rendered by a partial or biased judge. Judges must not only render just, correct and impartial decisions,

Prosecutor Tilan claimed that in both cases, Judge Piscoso-Flor resorted to the issuance of an order requiring requiri ng the submission of the parties‘ memoranda to circumvent the statutory period for the resolution of cases.

but must do so in a manner free of any suspicion as to their fairness, impartiality and integrity. In the instant administrative complaint, while no evidence directly

shows

partiality

and

malice

on

the ISSUE:

respondent‘s action, this Court cannot ignore the fact that the dispatch by which the respondent Judge

Whether or not Judge Piscoso-Flor failed to render speedy disposition of cases.

dismissed the criminal cases provokes in the minds of the petitioners doubt in the partiality of the

Whether or not Judge Piscoso-Flor failure to decide cases and resolve motions within the reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency and gross negligence.

respondent.   respondent.

29. PROSECUTOR HILARIO RONSON H. TILAN vs. JUDGE ESTER PISCOSO-FLOR, RTC, BRANCH 34, BANAUE, IFUGAO A.M. No. RTJ-09-2188 (Formerly A.M. OCA-IPI No. 08-2995-RTJ)   08-2995-RTJ) January 10, 2011  2011 

HELD: The OCA evaluation tells us that Judge Piscoso-Flor is guilty of failing to decide cases within the required periods, citing Criminal Case No. 127 (People ( People v. Juanito Baguilat ) as the principal basis of its conclusion. In this case, the OCA faulted Judge Piscoso-Flor for using as justification for her inaction the parties‘ failure to submit their respective memoranda. The OCA opined that this is not a valid reason for not deciding the case; if she believed she would not be able to decide the case on time, she could have asked the Court for an extension of the required period. The OCA acknowledged though that Judge Piscoso-Flor requested for an extension to decide the case in her monthly report of cases and certificate of service.

FACTS: In People v. Baguilat, Judge Piscoso-Flor issued an order dated October 20, 20072 directing the parties to submit their respective memoranda within thirty (30) days from receipt of the order. The complainant alleged that the judge failed to render a decision within the ninety (90)-day reglementary period; instead, she issued an order, dated April 8, 2008, reiterating her earlier directive for the parties to submit their respective memoranda.

We find the OCA evaluation in order. Although Judge Piscoso-Flor claimed that she had requested for an extension of time to decide Criminal Case No. 127, there was no showing that the request was ever granted. Over and above this consideration, she allowed the parties to control the period of disposition of the case through their lukewarm response to her call for the submission of memoranda, which she had to do twice. She could have acted more firmly, considering, as she said, that she only inherited the case, which implies that it had been on the docket for quite some time. In any event, Judge Piscoso-Flor should have known that

In People v. Talanay, Judge Piscoso-Flor issued an order dated September 25, 20074 giving the accused fifteen (15) days to file his formal offer of evidence, and five (5) days for the prosecution to file its comment/objections. Allegedly, Judge PiscosoFlor again failed to resolve the case within the 90day reglementary period; instead, she issued

33

 

Legal Ethics 3B

"[t]he Court may grant extension of time to file memoranda, but the ninety (90) day period for deciding the case shall not be interrupted thereby."

December 2005, another affidavit-complaint was filed against Judge Pacuribot by B charging him with sexual harassment.

On the whole, we find Judge Piscoso-Flor guilty of undue delay in the disposition of cases. Except for People v. Dimpatan, Judge Piscoso-Flor failed to resolve the other cases within the required period, in violation of the law and the rules. No less than the Constitution sets the limits on this all-important aspect in the administration of justice. It mandates that lower courts have three (3) months or ninety (90) days within which to decide cases or matters submitted to them for resolution. Also, the Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to dispose of the Court‘s business promptly and decide cases within the prescribed period.

* Ms. A’s Story  A was working under Judge Tan. On 20 October 2004, she filed a half-day leave of absence to attend a wedding in Cagayan de Oro City. At around 8 o‘clock in the evening, while Ms. A was enjoying the wedding reception, she received a call from Judge Pacuribot. Judge Pacuribot asked her when she was going back to Gingoog City. She answered that she would go back after the wedding reception. Judge Pacuribot offered Ms.A a ride to the Agora Bus Station. She declined the offer. Judge Pacuribot, then, ordered her to come out of the reception area, saying he was already waiting outside. Aware of his tendency to humiliate anyone in public when angry, she decided to abruptly leave the wedding reception and comply. When she went out, she saw Judge Pacuribot alone in his car. When A went inside the car, she saw, in between their seats, Judge Pacuribot‘s clutch bag containing a gun. He brought her to a motel instead, and the Judge succeeded in raping A. After, A told Judge Pacuribot that she would just take the taxi to the bus station. However, instead of driving her to the bus station, Judge Pacuribot took her to another place. When A protested, the Judge told her that it would be safer if she slept there as it was already nearing midnight. Still frightened, she failed to ask for help or call her husband. When the judge left the place, A tried to leave but the bellboy told her that she should settle the account first, which she could not do because she had no money. In the meantime, the Judge kept calling her and threatening her. A was also afraid of what the Judge would do to her family, and what reaction her husband would have if she were to tell him. The next day, Judge Pacuribot went back. The  judge again succeeded in raping A. After, the Judge drove her to Cogon, Cagayan de Oro City. Judge Pacuribot left her there. The next day, A did not report for work.

It cannot be over emphasized that judges need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously. Delay in the disposition of cases, it must again be stated, is a major cause in the erosion of public faith and confidence in the justice system. For this fundamental and compelling reason, judges are required to decide cases and resolve motions with dispatch within the reglementary period. Failure to comply constitutes gross inefficiency, a lapse that warrants the imposition of administrative sanctions against the erring magistrate. (30) RE: SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMMITED BY (30) JUDGE REXEL M. PACURIBOT, RTC, BR. 27, GINGOOG CITY  CITY  AM No. RTJ-06-1983 (December 14, 2007)  2007) 

This case with violence against through thedeals commission of rape and women sexual harassment, by no less than a member of the Bench. Aside from using his position and ascendancy in having his way with the women, he also attempted to discredit their testimonies by  perpetuating gender stereotypes on how women victims of rape “should have behaved” and why the other was simply motivated by ill-will and revenge in accusing him. The Court sifted through and beyond the arguments raised by the Respondent Judge, demonstrating commendable sensitivity to the plight of the women.  women.  Facts:: Facts

On

December

4,

2005,

―A,‖

 A did not tell anyone of what happened to her and Judge Pacuribot. From then on, the Judge‘s advances to her went unabated. Whenever she would go inside Judge Pacuribot‘s Pa curibot‘s chambers, he would grab her blouse, mash her breast, and kiss her neck. The Judge also told A to send him text

Clerk Clerk-

Stenographer of RTC,against Branch Judge 27, Gingoog City, filed an affidavit-complaint Rexel Pacuribot (―Judge Pacuribot‖) charging him with rape. On 20

messages of endearment. He warned her that her failure to do so would prejudice her performance

34

 

Legal Ethics 3B

rating. The situation got worse when the Judge rented a room, such that whenever A‘s husband was not around, the Judge would knock at her door, ordering A to go to his room. A tolerated the judge because of his threats to her performance rating. Her performance rating eventually went down, from very satisfactory to satisfactory.

The Judge always threatened B that he would publish her naked picture, that he was going to tell her mother-in-law (who was the Mayor of Gingoog City at that time), and that he was going to destroy her. The Judge went so far as to order B to petition to annul her marriage from her husband. When she failed to do so, she was summoned to the judge‘s chambers and when she was inside, he slapped her.

* Ms. B’s Story  Story  * Judge Pacuribot’s Defenses  Defenses   B first met Judge Pacuribot sometime in November 2004 at the lobby near the Probation Office where she was working. Her childhood friend was the driver of the Judge. One day, B received a cellphone call from Judge Pacuribot followed by text messages telling her how pretty and sexy she was, how her mini-skirt suited her, etc Thereafter, Judge Pacuribot started inviting her to dinner, which invitations she always refused, being herself married and knowing that the Judge was, too. In the last week of February 2005, she again received a call from Judge Pacuribot. The Judge was fuming mad because she refused his dinner invitations. Scared, she finally relented.

Judge Pacuribot denied the charges of A and B. He belied A‘s charge, saying that her behavior was not reflective of a rape victim, as she did not immediately report the incident to the authorities. He contended that a 43-year old lady was no longer naïve and having assisted as stenographer in a number of rape cases, she knew how important it was to report the incident immediately. He also contended that even a month after the supposed incident, A even invited Judge Pacuribot to her birthday party. Judge Pacuribot also belied the charge of B. He contended that B was just a woman scorned and that she was out to seek revenge. He alleged that B was the one who called him repeatedly, sending him alluring and seductive text messages— messages—and that he rejected all of these advances. He also alleged that B was angry with him because, in one of his cases, he mentioned her incompetence, inexperience, and unprofessional attitude toward her work.

The dinner was set on 22 February 2005. She picked a restaurant owned by her relative, feeling that she would be safe there. The Judge picked her up. While they were talking inside the car, Judge Pacuribot took out his gun, cocked it, and put it in between them. When B noticed that the Judge was going the wrong way, she called his attention. Judge Pacuribot responded that he knew a good place in Butuan City. After an hour of driving, they entered a compound. It was then that B realized that Judge Pacuribot brought her to a motel. Inside the room, the judge succeeded in forcing himself on B. The Judge, using his mobile phone, even took a picture of her while she was naked. Judge Pacuribot told her nobody in his right mind would refuse his demands because he could easily cause damage to anybody‘s honor if he wanted w anted to.

Held: Judge Pacuribot was found guilty of the Held: charges of rape (of A) and the sexual harassment (of B).

The Courtattraction‖ disbelieved Judge him. Pacuribot‘s theory of B‘s ―fatal towards The Judge was known in the community as a terror: that he was fond of humiliating people in public, using excruciating language on his victims, and that female employees avoided him and veered away from him (every time they would run into him in the Hall of Justice). In stark contrast to his nature, the Court found it hardly likely that a 29-year old, very pretty married woman would fall for such character. The Court also found the Judge‘s contention—that contention— that B was very much capable of protecting herself, having relatives in positions of power —to be not valid. The Court held that, on the contrary, it was the fact that B had relatives in public positions that compelled her to protect them at all costs from any scandal.

The next day, B reported back to work. When she arrived, she was told that Judge Pacuribot had already called her twice. When the judge called again, Judge Pacuribot belittled her, yelling ―Prostitute,‖ ―Animal,‖ ―Devil.‖ She was consumed with fear. Days passed, Judge Pacuribot threatened her with a publication of her naked picture. She tried to pacify him sensing that he could make real his threats. She was scared to figure in a scandal, being married to an overseas worker with two kids. B was also ordered by the judge to send him text messages of endearment, love letters, etc.

35

 

Legal Ethics 3B

The Court rejected the argument of Judge Pacuribot that rape could not have happened as A did not report the incident immediately. The Court held that  A cannot be put in the same footing as other rape victims where the offender holds no control on the victim‘s survival and has no moral ascendancy over her. In the case at bar, A valued her job, in fact, she conscientiously kept track of her performance

sheriff of RTC, arresting officer and court employees in arbitrarily approving fake bonds for a fee of P1,000.00 ―per count ng kaso‖. Through a discreet investigation conducted by the office of the Court  Administrator (OCA), it was revealed that the judge

ratings. An underling who believes that her superior wields control over her continued employment will cower in fear to the point of tolerating the indignities committed on her. Hence, her delay in reporting the incident was understandable.

had approved bail bonds issued by a blacklisted assurance company (COVENANT). Although some were

secured

through

legitimate

assurance

companies, it was found that judge approved bail bonds in San Juan despite availability of judges in

The Court also rejected Judge Pacuribot‘s contention that  A‘s behavior was not typical of a rape victim. The Judge contended that a rape victim normally behaves with animosity and grievance toward the offender. The Court held that A could not display her animosity and grievance toward Judge Pacuribot as this would have cost her to lose her  job. The Court also found that the delay of A in filing the case was of no moment, as she was afraid of

RTC of Mandaluyong to which court the cases are pending. In answer, Judge Tamang admitted that she approved the bail bonds but she insisted that she merely relied on the representation of her duly authorized personnel that the bail bonds were in order.

Judge Pacuribot‘s power and influence.  influence.  The Court, further, reiterated that it is against human nature for a married woman to fabricate a story that would not just put herself in a lifetime of dishonor, but would destroy her family as well. The fact that the victim resolved to face the ordeal and relate it in public evinces that she did so to obtain justice.

ISSUE: WON ISSUE:  WON Judge Tamang competently act in

The Court dismissed Judge Pacuribot from service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch or service.

―The  New ―The

approving the bail bonds.

HELD:

Code

of

Judicial

Conduct

for

the

Philippine Judiciary  requires  requires that a magistrate be the  

embodiment of judicial competence.  According to Webster, competence competence  means ―the quality or state of

31 R e : ANONYMOUS LETTER-COMPLAINT

being functionally adequate or having sufficient

AGAINST HON. MARILOU RUNES- TAMANG,

knowledge, judgment, skill, or strength.

PRESIDING JUDGE, MeTC PATEROS, METRO

Judge Tamang‘s excuse of simply s imply relying on the

MANILA AND PRESIDING JUDGE, MeTC SAN

representation

JUAN, METRO MANILA (April 7, 2010)

unfortunately took advantage of her leniency and

of

the

court

personnel

who

kindness betrayed a deficiency in that requisite FACTS:

degree of circumspection demanded of all those

Chief Justice Hilario Davide received an anonymous

who don the judicial robe. She cannot now thereby

letter

which

exculpate herself, or take refuge behind that excuse,

contains a request for an investigation of an alleged

for, in fact, such reliance was actually her admission

connivance of Judge Tamang, her husband who is a

of being neglectful and of lacking the diligent care in

from

―Concerned

Filipino

Citizen‖

36

 

Legal Ethics 3B

paying attention to the judicial matters brought to her

(complainant‘s

husband),

for signature.‖  signature.‖ 

the Regional Trial Court of

before

Marawi City

then

presided by Judge Pangadapun but the said judge ―Although her approval ap proval of the bail bonds and her

died during the pendency of the case which resulted

issuance of the orders of release manifested a

to its transfer to different judges designated by the

degree of incompetence on her part, we should not find Judge Tamang guilty of simple misconduct, a

Supreme Court. Later on, by virtue of Administrative Order No. 201-2007, the Supreme Court designated

less

Rule

Judge Mamindiara Mangotara, Presiding Judge of

140, Rules of Court . Instead, we find her guilty of

the RTC of Iligan City, Lanao Del Norte, as Acting

simple neglect of duty, a light charge under Section

Presiding Judge. Judge Mangotara suffered a mild

10, Rule 140, Rules of Court,  Court, for we are all too t oo

stroke; hence, the Supreme Court, by virtue of

aware of the pitfalls that a judge like her frequently

 Administrative

stumbles into when detailed in another station. She

December 26, 2007, revoked the earlier designation

became an unwitting victim of the continuing illegal

of Judge Mangotara and designated Judge Busran

activities of Medrano, who took advantage of her

as the new Acting Presiding Judge. On December

being too busy with her judicial and administrative

28,

duties and tasks to have noticed and prevented his

Decision and

illegal activities.‖ Her liability was mitigated Medrano

Dipatuan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the

(Clerk of Court) admitted his liability and totally

crime

exonerated Judge Tamang of any participation in or

imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and likewise,

knowledge of the anomalous scheme of submitting

increased the accused‘s bail bond from P75,000.00 from  P75,000.00

blacklisted

to P200,000.00.

serious

charge

bonds

under

for

Section

approval;

9,

Second : It

is

2007,

Order

No.

Mangotara

of

found

issued

both

murder

and

As

a

220-2007

issued

the

accused

result,

disputed

Abdul

sentenced

on

them

Hadja

and

to

Sohurah

undisputed that upon learning about the anomaly in

Dipatuan (spouse of the Dipatuan) filed in the

 August 2003 Judge Tamang immediately took steps

Supreme

to

an

Mangotara for Gross Ignorance of the Law and

and

Grave Abuse of Authority alleging that the judge

Medrano later to explain their participations in the

displayed bias and prejudice considering that he is a

frontally

investigation,

deal

with

it

and

directing

by

conducting

Sorio

at

first

[

Court

a

complaint

against

Judge

uncovered anomaly. anomaly.   Third : The offense is Judge

relative by affinity and consanguinity of the victim

Tamang‘s first administrative charge as a judge.‖  judge.‖  

Elias Ali Taher, he reside in the same locality where Taher

(32) A.M. No. RTJ-09-2190 April RTJ-09-2190 April 23, 2010 HADJA

SOHURAH

DIPATUAN

vs

also

used

to

reside,

and

despite

the

designation of Judge Busran as Acting Presiding JUDGE

Judge, he acting with grave abuse of authority,

MAMINDIARA MANGOTARA  MANGOTARA 

illegally

and

maliciously

rendered

the disputed Decision as well as the two Orders FACTS: On September 2001, a cr criminal iminal case for

dated February 2008.

murder for the killing of Elias Ali Taher was filed against

Ishak

Abdul

and

Paisal

Dipatuan

37

 

Legal Ethics 3B

ISSUE:   Whether or not there is bias or partiality on ISSUE:

respondent‘s

the part of Judge Mangotara resulting to

case. Complainant merely m erely pointed on the alleged

grave abuse of authority.

adverse and erroneous rulings of respondent Judge

Whether or not there is gross ignorance of

voluntary

inhibition

from

the

to their prejudice. By themselves, however, they do

the law on part of Judge Mangotara in

not sufficiently prove bias and prejudice.

deciding the case.

To be disqualifying, the bias and prejudice must be

RULING:   Petition GRANTED. WHEREFORE, the RULING:

shown to have stemmed from an extrajudicial source

Court

and result in an opinion on the merits on some basis

finds JUDGE M MANGOTARA, ANGOTARA,

GUILTY of

GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW for which he

other

is FINED in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos

participation in the case. Opinions formed in the

(P20,000,00), (P20,000,00 ),  to be deducted from f rom his retir retirement ement

course of judicial proceedings, although erroneous,

benefits.

as long as they are based on the evidence

than

what

the

judge

learned

from

his

presented and conduct observed by the judge, do st

On the 1  issue, the Court rule in the negative.

not prove personal bias or prejudice on the part of the judge. As a general rule, repeated rulings

 As correctly observed by the Investigating Justice,

against a litigant, no matter how erroneous and

complainant indeed failed to specify the degree of

vigorously and consistently expressed, are not a

relationship of respondent Judge to a party in the

basis for disqualification of a judge on grounds of

subject case. She failed to present any clear and

bias and prejudice. Extrinsic evidence is required to

convincing

was

establish bias, bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose,

disqualified being related within the prohibited

in addition to the palpable error which may be

degree with the victim under Section 1, Rule 137 of

inferred from the decision or order itself. Although

the Revised Rules of Court.

the decision may seem so erroneous as to raise

proof

that

respondent

Judge

doubts

concerning

a

judge's

integrity,

absent

This being the case, the inhibition was indeed

extrinsic evidence, the decision itself would be

discretionary or voluntary as the same was primarily

insufficient to establish a case against the judge.

a matter of conscience and sound discretion on the

Moreover, we

part of the respondent Judge. When Mangotara

respondent Judge administratively liable anent his

chose

issuance of the Decision dated December 2007. As

not

to

inhibit

and

proceed

with

the

likewise found

by

the

basis

Investigating

to

hold

promulgation of the disputed decision, he cannot be

aptly

faulted by doing so. Significantly, complainant while

Mangotara acted in good faith when he issued the

asserting that Mangotara should have inhibited in

subject decision, since he received notice of his

the said case, she nonetheless failed to institute any

replacement by Judge Busran, dated December 26,

motion for inhibition.

2007, only on January 26, 2008. It must be stressed

Complainant failed to cite any specific act that would

that not every error or mistake that a judge commits

indicate bias, prejudice or vengeance warranting

in the performance of his duties renders him liable,

38

observed

no

Justice,

 

Legal Ethics 3B

unless he is shown to have acted in bad faith or with deliberate intent to do an injustice. Good faith and absence of malice, corrupt motives or improper

(33) FRANCISCO P. OCAMPO vs. JUDGE

considerations are sufficient defenses in which a

EVELYN S. ARCAYA-CHUA

 judge can find refuge. In this case, complainant

 April 23, 2010 FACTS: Sylvia Santos

adduced no evidence that Mangotara was moved by bad faith when he issued the disputed order.

filed a Complaint against

Judge Arcaya-Chua for serious misconduct and nd

On the 2   issue, the Court ruled on the

dishonesty. Santos, an aunt of respondent Judge‘s

affirmative.

husband, alleged that she asked for the Judge‘s Jud ge‘s help regarding the cases of her friend pending

Section 5, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules on

before the Supreme Court. Judge Arcaya-Chua, a

Criminal

when

former employee of the Supreme Court, said that

discretionary.  –  –   Upon conviction by the Regional

she could help as she had connections with some of

Trial Court of an offense not punishable by

the Justices therein; she just needed P100,000.00

death, reclusion

which she would give to an employee of the Court

Procedure

provides:

perpetua or

life

― Bail, ―Bail,

imprisonment,

admission to bail is discretionary.xxx‖  discretionary.xxx‖  

for the speedy resolution of the said cases. Santos

The rule is very explicit as to when admission to bail

gave the Judge the P100,000.00 in the privacy of

is discretionary on the part of the respondent Judge.

the latter‘s chamber. But when Santos followed up

It is imperative that judges be conversant with basic

the cases, Judge A Arcaya-Chua rcaya-Chua told her that there

legal principles and possessed sufficient proficiency

was a problem, as the other party was offering P10

in the law.

million

In offenses punishable by reclusion

to

the

Justices.

Complainant

asked

perpetua or death, the accused has no right to bail

respondent to return the P100,000.00;

however,

when the evidence of guilt is strong. Thus, as the

respondent could no longer be contacted.

accused in Criminal Case No. 3620-01 had been

ISSUE: WON the conduct of the judge is violative of

sentenced to reclusion perpetua, the bail should

Canons 1, 2 and 4 of the New Code of Judicial

have been cancelled, instead of increasing it as

Conduct.

respondent Judge did. RULING: Clearly, in the instant case, the act of Mangotara in

YES. The conduct of Judge Arcaya-Chua is

increasing the bail bond of the accused instead of

violative of the provisions of the New Code of

cancelling it is not a mere deficiency in prudence,

Judicial Conduct, thus:

discretion and judgment on the part of respondent

Canon 1, Sec. 4. A judge shall not allow family,

Judge, but a patent disregard of well-known rules.

social, or other relationships to influence judicial

When an error is so gross and patent, such error

conduct or judgment. The prestige of judicial office

produces an inference of bad faith, making the judge

shall not be used or lent to advance the private

liable for gross ignorance of the law.

interests of others, nor convey or permit others to

39

 

Legal Ethics 3B

convey the impression that they are in a special

However, the statement they made was aggravated

position to influence the judge.

by additional imputations against the court and criticizing it beyond reproach.

Canon 2, Sec. 1. Judges shall ensure ensure that not only

ISSUE:: WON the criticisms made by the members of ISSUE

is their conduct above reproach, but that it is

UP College of law is proper

perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.

HELD:

Canon 2, Sec. 2. The behavior and conduct of

No. while most agree that the right to criticize the

 judges must reaffirm the people‘s faith in the  judiciary is critical to maintaining mainta ining free and democratic

integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely b be e done but must also be seen to be done.

society, there is also a general consensus that the

Canon 4, Sec. 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety

healthy criticism only goes so far. These potentially

and the appearance of impropriety in all of their devastating attacks and unjust criticism can threaten

activities.  All those who don the judicial robe must

the independence of the judiciary. The court must

always instill in their minds the exhortation that the ―insist on being permitted to proceed to the

administration of justice is a mission. Judges, from

diposition of its business in an orderly manner, free

the lowest to the highest levels, are the gems in the vast government bureaucracy, beacon lights looked

from outside interference obstructive of its functions

upon as the embodiments of all what is right, just

and tending to embarrass the administration of

and proper, the ultimate weapons against injustice  justice‖.    justice‖.

and oppression. Those who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity have no place in the judiciary.

(35) RE: LETTER OF THE UP LAW FACULTY ENTITLED “RESTORING INTEGRITY: A STATEMENTBYTHEFACULTYOFTHEUNIVERSITYOFTHE

Judge Arcaya-Chua was suspended from office for six months.

PHILIPPIN NE ESCOLLEGEOF L AW ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF PLAGIARISM AND MISREPRESENTATION IN THESUPREME THESUPREMECOURT”  COURT” 

(34) Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty, October 19, 2010

 A.M. NO. 10-10-4-SC, 8 MARCH 2011,

FACTS:

(G.R.No. 162230). Counsels Attys. H. Harry L. Roque, Jr. (Atty. Roque) and Romel Regalado Bagares (Atty.Bagares) for Vinuya, et al . (the ―Malaya Lolas‖), filed a supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, on theground that, inter alia, charge of plagiarism as one of the grounds for reconsideration of theVinuya decision and a twisting of the true intents of the plagiarized sources by the ponenciawas made to suit the arguments of the assailed Judgment for denying the Petition. Works

 Atty. Harry Roque, Jr. and Atty. Romel Bagares alleged that Justice Mariano Del Castillo committed an intellectual offense when the latter plagiarized its discussion of the principles of jus cogens and erga omnes in Vinuya vs. Executive Secretary case. By reason of such allegation, members of UP College of Law call for the resignation of Justice del Castillo.

40

 

Legal Ethics 3B

allegedly plagiarized in the Vinuya decision were namely: (1) Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox-Decent‘s Fox-Decent‘s article ―A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens;‖ (2) Christian J T a m s ‘ b o o k   Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations in International Law; and (3) Mark Ellis‘ article  article   ―Breaking the Silence: On Rape as an International Crime. Such supplemental motion for

The administrative matter is decided by reminding the Thirty-five UP professors of their duty as officers of the court while Dean Marvic M.V.F. Leonen was admonished to be more mindful of his duty, as a member of the Bar, an officer of the Court, and a Dean and professor of law, to observe full candor and honesty in his dealings with the Court and

reconsideration appeared on internet sites. Thereafter, a statement entitled ―Restoring Integrity:  A Statement by the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court‖ was submitted by Dean Marvic M.V.F. Leone to the Court through Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. The statement basically conveys that the plagiarism committed in the case of Vinuya v Executive Secretary is unacceptable, unethical and in breach of the high standards of moral conduct and  judicial and professional competence expected of the Supreme Court. (See attachment for complete

warned that the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely. While a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage, such (36) In The Matter of Charges of Plagiarism Against Justice Mariano del Castillo A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC, February 8 , 2011 Per Curiam: Facts:

Petitioners Isabelita C. Vinuya, et al., al., all

members of the Malaya Lolas Organization, seek reconsideration of the decision of the Court dated

text of the statement). The SC Ethics Committee referred this matter to the Court en banc.

October 12, 2010 that dismissed their charges of plagiarism, twisting of cited materials, and gross

The high court said the UP law professors ‗statement was evidently intended to ―discredit‖ its  April 28 decision on the Vinuya et al. v the Executive Secretary et al. case. It claimed that the law faculty wanted wan ted to ―undermine the court‘s honesty, integrity and competence in addressing‖ the motion for reconsideration of 70 ―comfort women.‖  women.‖  

neglect against Justice Mariano Del Castillo in connection with the decision he wrote for the Court in G.R. No. 162230, entitled Vinuya v. Romulo. Romulo. Petitioners claim that the Court has by its decision legalized

or

approved

of

the

commission

of

plagiarism in the Philippines. This claim is absurd. absurd.

 Accordingly,the Court directed the 37 UP law faculty-signatories to show cause, within ten (10)days from receipt why they should not be

The Court, like everyone else, condemns plagiarism as the world in general understands and uses the

disciplined as members of the Bar for violation of Canons 1, 11 and13 and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

term Issue: 1.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there is plagiarism in the case at bar.  bar. 

Whether or not respondents should be disciplined as Members of the Bar under the Code of Professional Responsibility

2.

HELD: All lawyers, whether they are judges, court HELD: employees, professors or privatepractitioners, are officers of the Court and have voluntarily taken an oath, as an indispensable qualification for admission

Held:

Whether or not Justice Del Castillo is guilty of misconduct and gross negligence  negligence  

(1) No. It has been a long standing practice in this  jurisdiction not to t o cite or acknowledge the originators

to the Bar, to conduct themselves with good fidelity towards the courts.

of passages and views found in the Supreme

41

 

Legal Ethics 3B

Court‘s decisions. These omissions are true for

In short, with the remaining attributions after the

many of the decisions that have been penned and

erroneous clean-up, the passages as it finally

are being penned daily by magistrates from the

appeared in the Vinuya decision still showed on their

Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of

face that the lifted ideas did not belong to Justice

Tax Appeals, the Regional Trial Courts nationwide

Del Castillo but to others. He did not pass them off

and with them, the municipal trial courts and other first level courts. Never in the judiciary‘s more than

as his own.

100 years of history has the lack of attribution been

The Court DENIES DENIES  petitioners‘ motion for

regarded and demeaned as plagiarism.

reconsideration for lack of merit.

(37) OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATOR v.

 As put by one author Joyce C. George from her

JUDGE MA. ELLEN M. AGUILAR

Judicial Opinion Writing Handbook: A judge writing to resolve a dispute, whether trial or appellate, is exempted from a charge of

A.M. No. RTJ-07-2087 , 7 JUNE 2011, E N B A N C   

plagiarism even if ideas, words or phrases from

(Leonardo-De Castro,J .)

a law review article, novel thoughts published in a legal periodical or language from a party’s brief

Facts:   While Judge Aguilar was still the Legal Facts:

are used without giving attribution. Thus judges

Officer of Olongapo City, a complaint for Falsification

are free to use whatever sources they deem

of Public Document, Perjury and Estafa was filed

appropriate to resolve the matter before them,

against her before the Office of Regional Prosecutor

without fear of reprisal. This exemption applies

and Ombudsman and the same was dismissed in

to judicial writings intended to decide cases for

the former. Following her retirement, then Atty.

two reasons: the judge is not writing a literary

 Aguilar applied for the position of judge, supported

work and, more importantly, the purpose of the

with her accomplished Personal Data Sheet (PDS),

writing is to resolve a dispute. As a result,

Question No. 23 of the PDS asked: "Is there any

 judges adjudicating cases are not subject to a

pending civil, criminal or administrative (including

claim of legal plagiarism.

disbarment) case or complaint filed against you pending before any court, prosecution office, any

(2)

No. Justice Del Castillo is not guilty of

other

office,

agency or

instrumentality

of the

misconduct. The error here is in good faith. There

government,

was no malice, fraud or corruption. Though the

Philippines?" In answer to said question, Atty.

ponencia of Justice Del Castillo accidentally deleted

 Aguilar wrote "None" so Atty. Aguilar was appointed

the attribution to them, there remained in the final

as RTC Judge of Burgos, Pangasinan. After her

draft of the decision attributions of the same

appointment, the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon

passages to the earlier writings from which those

found

authors borrowed their ideas in the first place.

dishonesty but only for misconduct and imposed the

no

or

liability

the

on

Integrated

Atty.

Bar

Aguilar‘s

of

part

the

for

penalty of one month suspension. Atty. Aguilar

42

 

Legal Ethics 3B

assumed her judicial position on February 8, 2006

in the Judiciary, the importance of answering the

and accomplished another PDS for submission to

same with candor need not be gainsaid. With

the Supreme Court and were asked:37. a. Have you

respect to Judge Aguilar‘s supposed omission in her

ever been formally charged? b. Have you ever been

PDS submitted with her judgeship application, we

guilty of any administrative offense?38. Have you

are guided by the ruling in Plopinio v. Zabala-Cariño

ever been convicted of any crime or violation of any law, decree, ordinance or regulation by any court or

wherein we clarified that a person shall be considered formally charged in administrative cases

tribunal? Judge Aguilar answered "No" to all the

only upon a finding of the existence of a prima facie

questions.

case by the disciplining authority, in case of a complaint filed by a private person. However, Judge

Issue: Is Issue:  Is Judge Aguilar guilty of dishonesty in filling

 Aguilar‘s failure to disclose OMB OMB-L-A-03-0718-G -L-A-03-0718-G in

out her PDS ?

her PDS filed upon her assumption of office when she already had notice of the adverse decision

Held: Yes. Held:  Yes. Judge Aguilar admitted that in two of her

therein constitutes dishonesty, considered a grave

PDS  –   –  one accomplished in September 2004,

offense under the Administrative Code of 1987, as

attached to her application for judgeship position,

well as the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases

and the other accomplished on March 6, 2006, upon

in the Civil Service (Civil Service Rules), with the

her

corresponding penalty of dismissal from service

assumption

as

RTC

Judge

of

Burgos,

Pangasinan – Pangasinan  – Judge  Judge Aguilar answered that she had

even for the first offense.

no pending administrative case against her; and that (38) RE: PETITION FOR RADIO AND TELEVISION COVERAGE OF THE MULTIPLE MURDER CASES AGAINST MAGUINDANAO GOVERNOR ZALDY AMPATUAN, ET AL .,    AM No. 10-11-5-SC June 14, 2011

she had not been formally charged nor found guilty of any administrative charge. All the while, Arnel Sison‘s

administrative

complaint

against

Judge

 Aguilar, OMB-L-A-03-0718-G OMB-L-A-03-0718-G,, was pending before the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon. The Deputy Ombudsman

for

Luzon,

in

a

Decision

FACTS:

dated

Petitioners seek the lifting of the absolute ban on live television and radio coverage of court proceedings of the Maguindanao Massacre. They principally urge the Court to revisit the 1991 ruling in Re: Live TV and Radio Coverage of the Hearing of President Preside nt Corazon C. Aquino‗s Libel Case and the 2001 ruling in Re: Request Radio-TV Coverage of the Trial in the Sandiganbayan of the Plunder Cases  Against the Former President Joseph E. Estrada which were rulings that violated the doctrine that proposed restrictions on constitutional rights that are to be narrowly construed and outright prohibition cannot stand when regulation is a viable alternative. Petitioners state that the trial case has attracted intense media coverage due to the gruesomeness of

November 29, 2005 in OMB-L-A-03-0718-G, found Judge Aguilar guilty of misconduct and imposed upon her the penalty of one month suspension; and in an Order dated January 31, 2006, denied Judge  Aguilar‘s motion for f or reconsideration, reconsideration, but modified the penalty imposed by converting it to a fine equivalent to one month salary. The accomplishment of the PDS is a requirement under the Civil Service Rules and Regulations for

the crime, prominence of the accused, and the number of media personnel killed. They inform that

employment in the government. Since truthful completion of PDS is a requirement for employment

43

 

Legal Ethics 3B

reporters are being frisked and searched for cameras, recorders, and cellular devices upon entry, and that under strict orders of the trial court against live broadcast coverage, the number of media practitioners allowed inside the courtroom has been limited to one reporter for each media institution. The record shows that NUJP Vice-Chairperson Jose Jaime Espina, by January 12, 2010 letter to Judge Solis-Reyes, requested a dialogue to discuss concerns over media coverage of the proceedings of the Maguindanao Massacre cases. Judge SolisReyes replied, however, that matters concerning media coverage should be brought to the Court‗s attention through appropriate motion.

(39) ATTY. CONRADO B. GANDEZA vs. JUDGE MARIA TABIN  A.M. No. MTJ-09-1736 | July 25, 2011 2 011 | Peralta, J. J.   FACTS: 2007, car collision betweenOn that20of November complainant‘s car,a driven by his driver Guimba Digermo, and the car of the nephew of respondent Judge Tabin. When Atty. Gandeza arrived at the scene, respondent Judge was conferring with the police investigator and when he approached complainant, he spoke in a harsh tone accusing the driver to have been driving under the influence of liquor. This allegation was repeatedly said to the investigator by Judge Tabin. When they were all in the hospital, Judge Tabin continued her allegations and when the breath examination for alcohol alcoh ol came out ―negative‖, she even demanded a re-examination.

ISSUE: Whether or not there can be live broadcast by television and radio of the trial court proceedings without violation of Canon 1 Section 1 of The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary?

Complainant also suspected Judge Tabin to be conspiring with the prosecutor since the complaint was already filed barely a week after the collision. Additionally, complainant‘s wife, also a lawyer, even saw an employee of Judge Tabin carrying the folder of the criminal case, which the employee said that she was to bring it to the sala of the judge. Further, when complainant‘s wife was to move for the postponement of the mediation of the case before the Philippine Mediation Center, she was informed by the clerk that Judge Tabin likewise inquired about the same. Thus, the administrative complaint was filed by Atty. Gandeza against Judge Tabin before the OCA, who referred the case to the Executive Judge of RTC Baguio.

RULING: Yes. The Court partially granted pro hac vice (for this occasion) petitioners‗ prayer for a live broadcast of the trial court proceedings. The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary Canon 1, Section 1 provides: ―Judges shall exercise the judicial function independently on the basis of their assessment of the facts and in accordance with a conscientious understanding og the law, free of any extraneous influence, inducement, pressure, threat or interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter of for any reason.‖  reason.‖   According to t o the ruling penned by b y Conchita CarpioMorales, indication serious risks posed by live mediathecoverage to ofthe accused‗s right to due process, left unexplained and unexplored in the era obtaining in Aquino and Estrada, has left a blow to the exercise of press freedom and the right to public information. In this day and age, it is about time to craft a win-win situation that shall not compromise rights in the criminal administration of justice, sacrifice press freedom and allied rights, and interfere with the integrity, dignity and solemnity of  judicial proceedings. Compliance with regulations, not curtailment of a right, provides a workable solution to the concerns raised in these administrative matters, while, at the same time, maintaining the same underlying principles upheld in the two aforementioned cases.

Investigation Judge Clavarall recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack of evidence but OCA held that Judge Tabin was guilty of violation of Canon 4, Section 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. ISSUE: WON Judge Tabin is guilty of Canon 4, Section 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct on Propriety HOLD:  Yes, Judge Tabin is guilty of violating said provision. Even though there was no evidence of malice amounting to gross misconduct and conduct

44

 

Legal Ethics 3B

unbecoming of a judge, the acts of Judge Tabin such as directing a second test for alcohol be taken and interfering in the investigation of the incident. Even though there was no disclosure made by Judge Tabin of her personality, both the police and the complainant knew her to be a judicial officer, and that should have been enough cause for her to refrain from her actions.

accomplished his Personal Data Sheet (PDS) for the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) when he placed an "x" in the box indicating a "No" answer to the question: "Have you been charged with or convicted of or otherwise imposed a sanction of any law, decree, ordinance or regulation by any court, tribunal, or any other government office, agency or

―To stress how the law frowns upon even any appearance of impropriety in a magistrate‘s activities, it has often been held that a judge must be like Ceasar‘s wife wife  –  –   above suspicion and beyond reproach.‖ SC held Judge Tabin guilty of impropriety, was reprimanded and given a stern warning that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more severely.

instrumentality in the Philippines or any foreign country, or found guilty of an administrative offense or imposed any administrative sanction? (Question No. 24), and Have you ever been retired, dismissed or forced to resign from employment? (Question No. 25)." Respondent was alleged to had been criminally

(40) Atty . Jo se Vi ce n te D . Fe Fern rn a n d e z v. Ju d g e

charged for indirect bribery in the early 1970s and

An geles S. Vasq uez, A.M. No. RTJ-11-2 RTJ-11-2261 261

tendered his resignation from his position as clerk of

Jul y 26, 2011, Perez, J.  

court to evade the administrative case that may Facts:   Atty. Jose Vicente D. Fernandez is the Facts:

arise from the indirect bribery incident, thus, in

counsel of several cases instituted for the recovery

brazenly giving untruthful statements in his PDS,

of the properties against spouses Ranolas which

respondent committed dishonesty and falsification of

were all raffled to the court presided over by

public documents.

respondent Judge Vasquez. Respondent judge asked complainant to file a motion for his inhibition

Issue:   Whether or not respondent judge is guilty of Issue:

on the ground that respondent judge was the

gross dishonesty and falsification of an official

counsel,

document in violation

prior

to

his

appointment

as

public

Conduct.

prosecutor, of the Rañola family. No action was taken by respondent judge on the Motion. only

after

a

year,

after

complainant

It was filed

Held:   We agree with the findings of the OCA on Held:

a

respondent‘s

Supplemental Motion for Inhibition, on the ground of

denied

the

two

motions

which

ruled

according

to

The

and

dishonesty

Court,

in

the

exercise

of

its

administrative supervision over the lower courts, has

was triggered by the apparent bias of respondent

the authority to look into the time spent by

 judge for the Spouses Rañola. matter

inefficiency

imposed.

and

complainant, the Supplemental Motion for Inhibition

 Another

gross

although we differ with respect to the penalty

manifest bias, partiality and inexcusable delay in the proceedings, that respondent judge

of the Code of Judicial

respondent judge in resolving the incident. As that

observed by the OCA, respondent judge failed to

complainant

resolve the motion for his inhibition within the 90-day emphasized in his complaint was the dishonesty allegedly committed by respondent when he

reglementary period. In the orderly administration of

45

 

Legal Ethics 3B

Service  for interfering with the order of a co-equal Service  court, Branch 6 of the Iligan City RTC.

 justice, judges are required to act with dispatch in resolving motions filed in their court. The parties

ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Balindong violated the principle of judicial stability.

have the right to be properly informed of the outcome of the motions they have filed and the

HELD: YES. Respondent Judge clearly ignored the principle of judicial stability by issuing a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to restrain Sheriff Gaje from enforcing the writ of execution issued by a coequal court, Branch 6 of the Iligan City RTC, and from pursuing the garnishment from MSU‘s account with LBP, Marawi City Branch.  Branch.  

Constitutional right to a speedy disposition of their case. Taking into account the circumstances in this case, we find no reason for respondent judge‘s delayed action. Delay in resolving motions and incidents pending before a judge‘s sala within the reglementary period fixed by the Constitution and

The doctrine of judicial stability or noninterference in the regular orders or judgments of a co-equal court is an elementary principle in the administration of justice: no court can interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders of another court of concurrent jurisdiction having the power to grant the relief sought by the injunction. The rationale for the rule is founded on the concept of  jurisdiction: a court c ourt that acquires acquir es jurisdiction o over ver the

the law is not excusable and cannot be condoned. That respondent is guilty of dishonesty in accomplishing his PDS is impossible to refute. It was not mere inadvertence on his part when he answered "No" to that very simple question posed in the PDS. He knew exactly what the question called for andofwhat it meant, that he to was an act dishonesty butand proceeded do committing it anyway. Clearly, there was an obvious lack of integrity, the most fundamental qualification of a member of the  judiciary.

case and renders judgment therein has jurisdiction over its judgment, t o t h e e x c l u s i o n o f a l l o t h e r c o o r d i n a t e c o u r t s , f o r i t s e x e c u t iio on and over all its incidents, and to c ontrol, in furtherance of  ju s t i c e, t h e c o n d u c t of m i n is t er i al of f ic er s ac t in g in connection with this judgment  .

(41) ATTY. TOMAS ONG CABILI, Complainant, versus JUDGE RASAD G. BALINDONG, Acting Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 8, Marawi City, Respondent. A.M. No. RTJ-10-2225 September 6, 2011

His lack of familiarity with the rules in interfering with the acts of a co-equal court undermines the public confidence in the judiciary through his demonstrated incompetence. When the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to know and to simply apply it. Anything less would be constitutive of gross ignorance of law.

FACTS: Branch 6 of the Iligan City RTC RTC   rendered a decision holding the Mindanao State

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATO R V. (42)JUDGE UYA G USMA N, A.M. No. SCC-08 SCC-08-12, -12,

University (MSU) liable for damages amounting to P2, 726, 189.90. When MSU failed to comply with the writ of execution, Sheriff Gerard Peter Gaje served a Notice of Garnishment on MSU‘s depository bank, Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), Marawi City Branch. Consequently, MSU filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus with an application for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or preliminary injunction against the LBP and Sheriff Gaje, which was raffled to Branch 8 Marawi City RTC presided RTC  presided by Judge Balindong. Balindong. Respondent Judge issued the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), hence, an administrative complaint was filed charging him with   Gross Ignorance of the Law, Grave Abuse of

Th i rd D i v i si o n , Oct o b e r 1 9 , 2 0 1 11 1 , Me n d o za , J.

FACTS: Complainant alleged that respondent acquired a Complainant  brand new SUV, specifically a Kia Sorento EX,  Automatic Transmission and 2.57 CRDI Diesel for ₱1,526,000.00; that he paid in cash the total down payment of ₱344,200.00; and that the remaining balance was payable in 48 months with a monthly amortization of ₱34,844.00 to the t he Philippine Savings Bank (PS Bank), Bank), Ozamis City Branch. Complainant further averred that respondent had just been recently appointed as a judge and since he assumed his post, he seldom reported for work and could not be located within the court‘s premises during office

 Authority, of toDiscretion, Grave Misconduct Abuse Prejudicial the Interest and/or of the Judicial

46

 

Legal Ethics 3B

hours. Respondent‘s financial capability to t o acquire said vehicle has been questioned because he is the sole bread winner in his family and he has seven (7) children, two (2) of whom were college students at the Medina College School of Nursing, a private school. Respondent bared that, at present, he is receiving a monthly take home pay of more than ₱40,000.00 including his salary and allowances plus honorarium from the local government.

and uprightness of an individual than a seat in the Judiciary. Hence, judges are strictly mandated to abide with the law, the Code of Judicial Conduct and with existing administrative policies in order to maintain the faith of our people in the administration of justice.

(43) ROLAND ERNEST MARIE JOSE SPELMANS vs. JUDGE GAYDIFREDO T. OCAMPO, A.M. No. MTJ-07-1663, March 26, 2010 ABAD, J .

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent is is guilty of violating Section 7 of R.A. No. 3019 and Section 8 of R.A. No. 6713.

FACTS: 1.

HELD: The Court agrees with the finding of the OCA that the charges against respondent were not fully substantiated. The evidence adduced in the case, consisting of documents submitted by respondent are sufficient to prove that it was, indeed, his mother who paid the down payment and the monthly amortizations for the subject vehicle.

2.

The Court also agrees with the OCA that respondent is guilty of violating Section 7 of R.A. No. 3019 otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees and of Section 7 of R.A. No. 3019, known as the  Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act 3. It is imperative that every public official or government employee must make and submit a complete disclosure of his assets, liabilities and net worth in order to suppress any questionable accumulation of wealth. This serves as the basis of the government and the people in monitoring the income and lifestyle of public officials and employees in compliance with the constitutional policy to eradicate corruption, to promote transparency in government, and to ensure that all government employees em ployees and officials of ficials lead just and modest lives, with the end in view of curtailing and minimizing the opportunities for official corruption and maintaining a standard of honesty in the public service.

4.

Roland Ernest Marie Jose Spelmans, a Belgian, filed before the Office of the Ombudsman complaint for theft and graft and corruption against respondent Municipal Trial Court Judge Ocampo wherein Spelmans‘ wife orchestrated a scheme of removing properties in their home by filing a complaint a complaint of theft. In the course of the investigation of the complaint, Judge Ocampo, together with the parties, held an ocular inspection of that rented house and another one where Spelmans kept some of the personal belongings of his late mother and that during the inspection Judge Ocampo allegedly took some of the personal properties in the house. Judge Ocampo Ocampo denied the charge, pointing out that Spelmans‘ wife, Villan wife, Villan gave him certain household items for safekeeping before she filed the case of theft and according to him when he received a copy of Spelmans‘ complaint for grave misconduct did he learn of the couple‘s separation and his unwitting part in their legal battles. OCA found Judge Ocampo guilty of committing acts of impropriety and maintaining close affinity with a litigant in violation of Canons 1 and 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary

ISSUE:  Whether or not Judg ISSUE:  Judge e Ocampo‘s Ocampo‘s taking  taking and keeping of the personal items belonging to Spelmans but supposedly given to him by the latter‘s wife for safekeeping constitutes a violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.

In the present case, respondent clearly violated the above-quoted laws when he failed to file his SALN for the years 2004-2008. He gave no explanation either why he failed to file his SALN for five (5) consecutive years. While every office in the government service is a public trust, no position exacts a greater demand on moral righteousness

47

 

Legal Ethics 3B

HELD:

Islands Co., Inc. (NICI) which is engaged in the manufacture, distribution, and sale of various home appliances bearing the ―3―3-D‖ trademark. The spouses also organized Lincoln Continental Development Corporation, Inc. (Lincoln Continental) as a holding company of 50% of the 20,160 shares of stock of NICI in trust for their three daughters

Yes, Judge Ocampo is guilty of misconduct. Judge Ocampo did not explain why, of all people in Polomolok, Spelmans‘ wife would entrust to him, a municipal judge, certain personal items for safekeeping. He also does not deny that he conducted an ocular inspection of the houses that Spelmans used in Polomolok but Judge Ocampo did not explain what justified it. The charge was not robbery where he might have an interest in personally looking at where and how the break-in took place. It was a case of theft where it would be sufficient for the complainant to simply state in her complaint-affidavit where the alleged theft took place. If Judge Ocampo received the pieces of antique from Villan for safekeeping, this meant that a relation of trust existed between them. Consequently, Judge Ocampo had every reason to inhibit himself from the case from the beginning. He of course claims that he dismissed the case against Rencio eventually but this is no

Geraldine, Gladys and Grace-sisters of Gilbert. Finding that their son Gilbert had been dissipating the assets of Lincoln Continental, the spouses Guy caused the registration of 50% of the 20,160 shares of stock of NICI in the names of their three daughters, thus enabling the latter to assume an active role in the management of NICI. Herein Smartnet, one of the occupants of the NICI premises, filed on December 16, 2004 with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City a complaint for forcible entry against NICI and the Guy family.

excuse since his ruling could have gone the other way. Besides, Spelmans claims that the complaint was just a scheme to enable Villan to steal his personal properties from the two houses.

In the meantime, the CA-Eighth Division directed the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction prayed for by NICI and the Guy family in their new petition, CAG.R. SP No. 87104, and a writ was accordingly issued on December 22, 2004.

Further, Judge Ocampo only did return the items after four years. years. Hence, Respondent judge   should be made accountable for gross misconduct constituting violations of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically Section 6 of Canon 1, Section 1 of Canon 2, and Section 1 of Canon 4. From the circumstances, his acts were motivated by malice. He was not a warehouseman for personal properties of litigants in his court. He certainly would have kept Spelmans‘ properties properties had the latter not filed a

Issue: Whether or not Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019 Issue: has been violated? Held:

(44). 3-D INDUSTRIES, INC. and SMARTNET PHILIPPINES, INC. vsJUSTICES VICENTE Q. ROXAS and JUAN Q. ENRIQUEZ, JR.,

Smartnet‘s

Resolutions

issued

by

While respondents may have based the assailed Resolutions on mere allegations, thus disregarding what has been established in jurisprudence that ―mere allegation that a corporation is the alter ego of the individual stockholders stockholders is insufficient,‖ this does not render them administratively liable because not every error or mistake that a judge commits in the performance of his duties renders him liable, unless

Facts: complainant

assailed

respondents favored NICI and the Guy family does not necessarily render respondents guilty of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, absent proven particular acts of manifest, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence, good faith and regularity being generally presumed in the performance of official duties by public officers.

complaint against him. the He performance was guiltyof his of covetousness. It affected duties as an officer of the court and tainted the  judiciary‘s integrity. integrity.   He should be punished accordingly.

Herein

No.The No.The

representative

Gilbert is the son of the spouses Francisco and Simny Guy. The spouses organized Northern

48

 

Legal Ethics 3B

he is shown to have acted in bad faith or with deliberate intent to do an injustice, which is not the case here.  here. 

decide the issues involved in Civil Case No. 2003433 for want of jurisdiction. According to complainant, this was brought to the attention of respondent judge, but the latter, being grossly ignorant of existing laws and rules, if not completely insolent of the same, and with grave abuse of discretion, took cognizance of the case.

(45) OCA vs.LERMA October 12, 2010 FACTS: Five (5) administrative cases were filed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) against Judge Alberto L. Lerma (respondent judge) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 256, Muntinlupa City, for violating Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars, for making untruthful statements in his certificates of service, for gross ignorance of the law and/or gross negligence, for delay in rendering an order, for abusing judicial authority and discretion, and for serious irregularity. OCA charged respondent judge with exceeding his authority under the Supreme Court resolution dated June 30, 1998 in A.M. No. 98-6179-RTC. According to the OCA, the authority given

ISSUE: whether or not respondent judge is liable for violating Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars, for making untruthful statements in his certificates of service, for gross ignorance of the law and/or gross negligence, for delay in rendering an order, for abusing judicial authority and discretion, and for serious irregularity? RULING: LIABLE These unjustified absences indubitably established that respondent judge violated Supreme Court Memorandum Order dated November 19,

to respondent judge under the resolution was clearly limited to the arraignment of the accused and the taking of his testimony; it did not authorize respondent judge to decide the merits of the case. The OCA contended that th at the act of respondent judge constituted violation of a Supreme Court directive.  According to the OCA, its records in the Office of the Administrative Services show that respondent judge has incurred absences without filing a leave for such absence, wherein respondent  judge was found playing golf on the dates of his absences.

1973, Administrative Circular No. 3-99 dated January 15, 1999, and Administrative Circular No. 5 dated October 4, 1988, which provides for the observance by judges, among other officials and employees in the judiciary, of a five-day forty-hour week schedule which shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and from 12:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. from Mondays to Fridays. Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Investigating Justice, the Court finds that the actions of respondent judge constitute gross negligence and/or gross ignorance of the law. We have repeatedly held that to warrant a

 Also, respondent judge ofissued divergent orders raising serious questions impropriety that taint respondent judge‘s credibility, probity, and integrity. Coupled with the clandestine issuance of a second order — where one party in a case and even the judge‘s own staff were left completely in the dark —  the action of respondent judge gives rise to an inference of bad faith. Indeed, it is reasonable to believe that the second order was really intended to give counsel of the opposing party the ammunition to oppose the Urgent Manifestation and Motion to Recall Writ of Execution/Garnishment  ,   , which was to be heard by the RTC of Makati City. On August 23, 2007, a complaint was filed with the Supreme Court, contending that respondent  judge did not have the judicial authority to hear and

finding of gross ignorance of the law, it must be shown that the error is ―so gross and patent as to produce an inference of bad faith.‖Gross negligence refers to negligence characterized by want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own property. In cases involving public officials, there is gross negligence when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable. The totality of all these findings underscore the fact that respondent judge‘s actions served to erode the people‘s faith and  and  confidence in

49

 

Legal Ethics 3B

the judiciary. He has been remiss in the fulfillment of the duty imposed on all members of the bench in order to avoid any impression of impropriety to protect the image and integrity of the judiciary. To reiterate, officers of the court have the duty to see to it that justice is dispensed evenly and fairly. Not only must they be honest and impartial,

accused allegedly surrendered voluntarily in the Ormoc City Police Station and filed with the RTC, Branch 17 an Urgent Ex-Parte Ex-Parte Motion  Motion to Grant Bail. Complainant moved to reconsider the order granting the ex-parte ex-parte   motion but without acting on the merits of the said motion, respondent-judge issued an order allowing the accused to submit his comment or

but they must also appear  to be honest and impartial in the dispensation of justice. Judges should make sure that their acts are circumspect and do not arouse suspicion in the minds of the public. When they fail to do so, such acts cast doubt upon their integrity and ultimately on the judiciary in [37] general..   ―Courts will only succeed in their task general and mission if the judges presiding over them are truly honorable men, competent and independent, honest and dedicated.‖  dedicated.‖   Respondent judge failed to live up to the  judiciary‘s exacting standards, and this Cour t will not withhold penalty when called for to uphold the

opposition within ten days; thereafter, the matter would be submitted for resolution. Respondent judge‘s differing treatment of the ex-parte ex-parte motion  motion and her motion for reconsideration apparently irked complainant, prompting her to file the present administrative complaint against the RTC judge. Complainant contended that respondent- judge‘s  judge‘s assailed order on the ex-parte ex-parte   motion was contrary to the Rules of Court requirement that a motion to grant bail must be set for hearing to afford the State and the prosecutor their day in court. She further accused respondent-judge of being manifestly partial as evidenced by the two temporary

people‘s faith in the Judiciary.  Judiciary.  

restraining orders (TROs (TROs)) he issued in favor of the accused in another case for quo warranto, warranto, then pending before the RTC, Branch 17.

(46) Villanueva vs. Judge Buaya November 22, 2010 Facts:  Complainant assisted by her father Facts:  Pantaleon Villanueva, charged respondent Acting Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC  ( RTC ), ), Branch 17, of Palompon, Leyte, with Gross Ignorance of the Law and Abuse of Authority. Villanueva accused then Vice-Mayor Constantino S. Tupa of Palompon, Leyte, of the crime of Qualified Seduction and filed another complaint against the

Issue:  Whether or not the respondent is guilty with Issue:  Gross Ignorance of the Law and Abuse of Authority because of the granting of an ex-parte ex-parte  motion to grant bail which must be set for hearing to afford the State and the prosecutor their day in court. Held: Yes, respondent is guilty with Gross Ignorance Held: Yes, of the Law and Abuse of Authority because of the

same accused violation Act of Section 5, paragraph (b), Article III offorRepublic No. 7610 otherwise known as the Special Protection of Children against  Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act   with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC  ( MTC ) of Palompon, Leyte. Judge Eric F. Menchavez, then Presiding Judge of the RTC, Branch 17, of Palompon, Leyte, issued a warrant for the arrest of Tupa, however, the warrant was not served because Tupa went into hiding and could not be located. Meanwhile, Judge Menchavez was reassigned to the RTC in Cebu City which led to the designation of the respondent-judge as Acting Presiding Judge of the RTC, Branch 17. Without hearing and without notice to the prosecution, respondent-judge granted the ex-parte motion and ordered the release of Tupa on bail after the said

granting of an ex-parte ex-parte  motion to grant bail which must be set for hearing to afford the State and the prosecutor their day in court. The Court has always stressed the indispensable nature of a bail hearing in petitions for bail. Where bail is a matter of discretion, the grant or the denial of bail hinges on the issue of whether or not the evidence on the guilt of the accused is strong and the determination of whether or not the evidence is strong is a matter of judicial discretion which remains with the judge. In order for the judge to properly exercise this discretion, he must first conduct a hearing to determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong. This discretion lies not in the determination of whether or not a hearing should be held, but in

50

 

Legal Ethics 3B

the appreciation and evaluation of the weight of the prosecution‘s evidence of guilt against the accused.  

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended the following: (1) Genabe be found guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and conduct unbecoming of a court employee and be fined in an amount equivalent to one month‘s salary; (2) Judge Maceda be reminded to strictly comply with A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, with a warning against a similar violation in the future; and (3) the charge against Escabarte, Agbayani, Chavez, Gerero, Ortiz, Ramos and Villar be dismissed for lack of merit.

In any event, whether bail is a matter of right or discretion, a hearing for a petition for bail is required in order for the court to consider the guidelines set forth in Section 9, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court in  

fixing the amount of bail. This Court has repeatedly held in past cases that even if the prosecution fails to adduce evidence in opposition to an application for bail of an accused, the court may still require the prosecution to answer questions in order to ascertain, not only the strength of the State's evidence, but also the adequacy of the amount of bail.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Genabe should be disciplined, making the order of suspension imposed by Judge Maceda proper

One who accepts the exalted position of a judge owes the public and the Court the duty to maintain professional competence at all time. When a judge displays an utter lack of familiarity with the rules, he erodes the confidence of the public in the courts. A  judge owes the public and the Court the duty to be proficient in the law and is expected to keep abreast of laws and prevailing jurisprudence. Ignorance of the law by a judge can easily be the mainspring of injustice.

HELD: Genabe ought to be disciplined. Without doubt, Genabe‘s negative attitude and penchant for using offensive language can only prejudice the best interest of the service, not to mention that they constitute conduct unbecoming a court employee. It is well to remind Genabe that "the conduct and behavior of everyone connected with x x x the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the x x x lowliest clerk x x x must be characterized with propriety and decorum, as Genabe‘s attitude goes against the principles of public service. Also, every "official and employee of an agency involved in the administration of justice, like the Court of  Appeals, from the Presiding Justice to the most  junior clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility.

(47) ATTY. JONNA M. ESCABARTE, et.al. v. LOIDA MARCELINA J. GENABE A.M. No. P-09-2602, 1 December 2010, THIRD DIVISION FACTS:

We act agree the Maceda OCA observations that while the of with Judge in disciplining Genabe with a 30-day suspension is "not oppressive, capricious or despotic, that is, without color of law or reason, or without supporting facts," he still had no authority to directly discipline her under the terms of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, which provided that the Executive Judge shall have the authority to act upon and investigate administrative complaints involving light offenses as defined under the Civil Service Law and Rules (Administrative Code of 1987), and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act No. 6713), where the penalty is reprimand, suspension for not more than thirty (30) days, or a fine not exceeding thirty (30) days‘ salary, and as classified in pertinent Civil Service resolutions or issuances, filed by (a) a judge against

Judge Bonifacio Maceda issued an order suspending respondent Loida Marcelina Genabe for 30 days for neglect of duty and for being unruly and highly combative during the staff meeting in his chambers, shouting disrespectfully to him and disrupting the meeting. Atty. Jonna M. Escabarte, et. al. alleged that Genabe continued to render service despite her 30-day suspension. Genabe denied the allegations against her and claimed that Judge Maceda treated her oppressively to drive her out of her employment in the judiciary and to get even with her on account of her intolerance of the anomalous practices prevailing in the court. Further, Genabe accused Judge Maceda of malversation when the  judge allegedly diverted to other purposes the court‘s training budget for 2006, 2 006, obtained from the Las Piñas City government.

51

 

Legal Ethics 3B

a court employee, except lawyers, who both work in the same station within the Executive Judge‘s area of supervision; or (b) a court employee against another court employee, except lawyers, who both work in the same station within the Executive Judge‘s area of supervision. In the preceding instances, the Executive Judge shall conduct the necessary inquiry and submit to the Office of the Court Administrator the results thereof with a recommendation as to the action to be taken thereon, including the penalty to be imposed, if any, within thirty (30) days from termination of said inquiry. At his/her discretion, the Executive Judge may delegate the investigation of complaints involving light offenses to any of the Presiding Judges or court officials within his/her area of administrative supervision.

open for disposition. J. Olaza filed various charges against Justice Tinga as follows: The First Charge: Violation of Rule 6.02 J. Olazo claimed that the Justice Tinga abused his position as Congressman and as a member of the Committee on Awards when he exerted undue pressure and influence over the complainant‘s father, Miguel P. Olazo, for the latter to contest J. Olazo‘s sales application and claim the subject land for himself and that Justice Tinga brokered the transfer of rights of the subject land between Miguel Olazo and Joseph Rodriguez, nephew of Justice Tinga‘s deceased wife. As a result of Justice As a Tinga‘s  abuse of his official functions, the sales Tinga‘s application was denied. The conveyance of rights to Joseph Rodriguez and his sales application were subsequently given due course by the DENR.

Under these terms, Judge Maceda‘s order of December 21, 2006 was clearly out of line. But while the Judge overstepped the limits of his authority, we see no reason not to ratify his action in light of its obvious merits. Thus, the 30-day suspension he

The Second Charge: Violation of Rule 6.03

imposed should stand but he should be warned against a repetition of the direct action he took.

J. Olazo alleged that Justice Tinga persuaded Miguel Olazo to direct Manuel to convey his rights over a different piece of land to Joseph Rodriguez. In addition, J. Olazo alleged that Justice Tinga meet with Manuel for the purpose of nullifying the conveyance of rights over the land to Joseph Rodriguez.. J. Olazo claimed that Justice Tinga wanted the rights over the land transferred to one Rolando Olazo, a Taguig Barangay Chairman. Justice Tinga in this regard executed an "Assurance" where he stated that he was the lawyer of Ramon Lee and Joseph Rodriguez.

On the matter of the Judge‘s handling of the Subic seminar fund in September 2006, provided by the Las Piñas City, we agree with the OCA that the  judge cannot not be held liable. Nevertheless, in view of the nature of the fund (which required no liquidation and is not an accountable judicial fund), we believe that the Judge should have taken steps  –  –   such as the informing the court staff or filing of a report with the OCA – OCA  – on  on how the fund was handled. This precautionary move would have placed the

The Third Charge: Violation of Rule 1.01

Judge above any suspicion of impropriety. We stress

J. Olazo alleged that Justice Tinga engaged in unlawful conduct considering his knowledge that Joseph Rodriguez was not a qualified beneficiary. J. Olazo averred that Joseph Rodriguez is not a bona fide resident of the proclaimed areas and does not qualify for an award.

that

"Judges

shall

avoid

impropriety

and

the

appearance of impropriety in all their actions.

(48 48)) JOVITO S S.. OLAZO OLAZO v. JUSTICE DANTE O. TINGA TINGA   A.M. No. 10-5-7-SC December 7, 2010  2010 

ISSUES : ISSUES  :

FACTS

1.

J. Olazo filed a sales application covering a parcel of land in Taguig. The land was previously part of Fort  Andres Bonifacio that was segregated and declared

52

WON Justice Tinga constitute a breach of the standard ethical conduct while he was still an elective public official and a member of the Committee on Awards; and

 

Legal Ethics 3B

2.

[Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3320-RTJ

WON Justice Tinga constitute a breach of the standard ethical conduct when he was no longer a public official, but a private lawyer who represented a client before the office he was previously connected with.

FACTS: ComplainantJosephine Jazmines Tan filed a Motion for Inhibition against respondent JudgeSibanahUsman. Tan alleged that during the

RULING

hearing of the Motion for Inhibition, Judge Usman became very emotional, coerced her to testify without the assistance of counsel and demanded a public apology from her; and that while she requested to refer the motion to the Executive Judge, Judge Usman interrogated her relentlessly following which he issued an Order finding her guilty of Direct Contempt andordered her detention for a period not exceeding thirty (30) days. Tan was actually detained for 19 days.

NO. SC ruled that there is an absence of any concrete proof that the Justice Tinga abused hisposition as a Congressman and as a member of the Committee on Awards in the manner defined under Rule 6.02 ofthe Code of Professional Responsibility. First, the records do not clearly show if the complainant‘s sales application wasever brought before the Committee on Awards. The circumstances do not show that Justice Tinga did in any way promote, advance or use his private interests in the discharge of his official duties. NO. Under the circumstances, it should be correlated with R.A.No. 6713 and Rule 6.03 of the Code of Professional Prof essional Responsibility Responsibilit y which impose certain restrictions on government lawyers to engage in private practice after their separation from the service. As a rule, government lawyers are not allowed to engage in the private practice of their profession during their incumbency. By way of exception, a government lawyer can engage in the practice of his or her profession under the following conditions: 1) private practice is authorized by the Constitution or by the law; and 2) the practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with his or her official functions. As the records show, no evidence exists

ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Usman is guilty of

showing that the respondent previously interfered with the sales application applicat ion covering Manuel‘s land when the former was still a member of the Committee on Awards.

law. The penalty for direct contempt if imprisonment is imposed should not, as Section 1 of Rule 71 provides, exceed 10 days. In this case, Complainant was detained for 19 days or 9 days more than the limit imposed by the Rules.

gross ignorance of the law.  law.   HELD:: Yes. HELD Failure to follow basic legal commands as prescribed by law and the rules is tantamount to gross ignorance of the law. By accepting the exalted position of a judge, respondent ought to have been familiar with the legal norms and precepts as well as the procedural rules.

Respondent judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the

SC resolved case dismissed the administrative case against Justice Tinga for the J. Olazo‘s failure to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the former committed unethical infractions warranting the exercise of the Court‘s disciplinary power.  power.  

Moreover, Respondent judge did not fix the bond, in violation of the same Section 2 of Rule 71, which complainant could have posted had she desired to challenge the order. And on the same day the Order was issued, respondent ordered the confinement of complainant to the provincial jail.

(49)JOSEPHINE JAZMINES TAN vs. JUDGE SIBANAH USMAN

Thus, the court imposed the penalty of fine. A.M. No. RTJ-11-2666; February 15, 2011; Carpio Morales, J .  

53

 

Legal Ethics 3B

(50) TERESITA D. SANTECO, c o m p l a i n a n t ,  vs.

rdination or disrespect which merits a lawyer‘s suspension or even disbarment. Respondent‘s cavalier attitude in repeatedly ignoring orders of the Supreme Court constitutes utter disrespect to the  judicial institution. Respondent‘s conduct Respondent‘s  conduct indicates a high degree or irr  esponsibility. A Court‘s Resolution is ―not to be construed as a mere request, nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately, or selectively. Respondent‘s obstinate refusal to comply with the Court‘s orders not ―only betrays recalcitrant flaw in her character; it also underscores her disrespect of the Court‘s lawful orders which is only too t oo deserving of reproof.‖ Under Section 27, Rule 27,  Rule 138 of the Rules of Court a member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from office as an attorney for gross misconduct and/or for a wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, to wit:

ATTY. LUNA B. AVANCE, r e s p o n d e n t .  FACTS: Teresita Santeco filed an administrative case against Atty. Luna Avance for mishandling an action to declare a deed of absolute sale null and void and for reconveyance and damages; where Atty. Avance was found guilty. She was ordered suspended from the practice of law for five years and was directed to return to the complainant the amount of P3,900 which the complainant paid her for filing a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals which she never filed. During Atty. Avance‘s five-year five -year suspension from the practice of law, Judge Consuelo Amog-Bocar, sent a letter-report to the Court Administrator, informing him that Atty. Avance appeared and actively participated

SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by

in three cases wherein she misrepresented herself as Atty. LiezlTanglao. Acting on the report, the court required Atty. Avance to comment within ten days from notice. However, despite reiteration of of the directive, Atty. Vance still failed to file the required comment, hence, the court found the respondent guilty of indirect contempt ordering her to pay a fine of P30,000 and stern warning.

Supreme Court; grounds therefor . —  A member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation of the oath which he is required to take before admission adm ission to practice, or for a willful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes malpractice. (Emphasis supplied.)

 Atty. Avance failed to pay the imposed fine despite due notice hence, the court finds the respondent unfit to continue as a member of the bar. ISSUE: Whether or not Atty. Vance should be disbarred.

In repeatedly disobeying this Court‘s orders, respondent proved herself unworthy of membership in the Philippine Bar. Worse, she remains indifferent to the need to reform herself. Clearly, she is unfit to discharge the duties of an officer of the court and deserves the ultimate penalty of disbarment.

RULING: Respondent Atty. Luna B. Avance is disbarred for gr  oss misconduct and wilful disobedience of lawful orders of a superior court. Her name is ordered stricken off from the Roll of Attorneys.  As an officer of the court, it is a lawyer‘s duty to uphold the dignity dignit y and authority of the court. T The he highest form of respect for judicial authority is shown by a lawyer‘s obedience to court orders and processes.We have held that failure to comply with Court directives constitutes gross misconduct,insubo

54

 

Legal Ethics 3B

(51) Judge Napoleon Inoturan vs. Judge Manuel Limsiaco

significance to the Court‘s directives and the importance of complying with them. The delay in deciding a case is a failure to perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with promptness.

A.M. OCA No. MTJ-01-1362February 22, 2011 FACTS:

The

This is a consolidated case filed against Judge Limsiaco. The first case is for failure to comply with the directives of the Court and the second for failure to decide a case within the 90-day reglamentary period.

Court

likewise

found

that

Judge

Limsiaco has already been held liable in several administrative cases undue delay in rendering decision, gross misconduct, gross ignorance of the law and procedure, delay in submission of monthly report of cases, and gross misconduct. Being a repeat offender exhibits his unworthiness to don the  judicial robes and merits a heavier sanction of dismissal from service, but having been retired, his retirement benefits shall be forfeited instead.

First Case: Judge Limsiaco ordered the release of an accused in a criminal case. The judge was found guilty of ignorance of the law and of violating Code of Judicial Conduct. He was directed to explain within 10 days from notice why he should not be administratively charged but failed to do so. The

*Canon 1 Section 7  –  –   Judge shall encourage and uphold safeguards for the discharge of judicial duties in order to maintain and enhance the institutional and operational independence of the Judiciary.

Court then granted several motions for extension to file his motion for reconsideration on account of his alleged physical ailment. Despite the grant of such motions, Judge Limsiaco still failed to respond to such directive nor offered any explanation.

Section 8  –  –   Judges shall exhibit and  promote high standards of judicial conduct in order to reinforce public confidence in the Judiciary, which is fundamental to the maintenance of judicial independence.

Second Case: The plaintiff in an ejectment case claimed that Judge Limsiaco failed to seasonably decide such even though the case has already been submitted for resolution as early as April 25, 2005. Judge Limsiaco admitted he only decided the case 2 years after – after –February February 4, 2008.

*Canon 6, Section 5   –  –Judges Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness. (52) ASSISTANT SPECIAL PROSECUTOR III ROHERMIA J. JAMSANI-RODRIGUEZ vs. JUSTICES GREGORY S. ONG, JOSE R. HERNANDEZ, and RODOLFO A. PONFERRADA, SANDIGANBAYAN

ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Limsiaco violated the ISSUE: Whether Code of Judicial Conduct? (Yes under Sections 7 & 8 of Canon 1 and Section 5 of Canon 6)

FACTS:

HELD:

Respondents Sandiganbayan Associate Justices sought reconsideration of SC Decision finding them guilty for simple misconduct. The charge was based on the complaint of Assistant Prosecutor Rodriguez who alleged that the respondents failed to hear cases as collegial during scheduled sessions by hearing the cases either alone or only two of the three of them, and for falsification of public documents grounded on their issuance of orders

The counduct of Judge Limsiaco constitutes clear acts of defiance of the Court‘s authority. It is a deliberate disrespect and indifference to the authority of the Court which further shows his inability to accept instructions of his superior. His conduct failed to provide a good example for other court personnel, and the public as well, in placing

55

 

Legal Ethics 3B

signed by the three of them making it appear that they acted as a collegial body. It was also alleged that they have conducted themselves in gross abuse of judicial authority and grave misconduct for intemperate and discriminatory utterances during hearings. Justice Ong and Hernandez admitted randomly asking the counsels appearing before them from which law schools they had graduated, and their engaging during the hearings in casual conversation about their respective law schools.

Judicial decorum demands that they behave with dignity and act with courtesy towards all who appear before their court. court. This is in violation of Section 6, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct which states that ―Judges shall maintain order and decorum in all proceedings before the court and be patient, dignified and courteous in relation to litigants, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity.‖ (53) A.M. No. RTJ-09-2197 April 13, 2011

ISSUE:  WON there is sufficient cause to establish ISSUE:  the Justices complete exoneration.

ANTONINO MONTICALBO CRESCENTE MARAYA

vs

JUDGE

HELD:The HELD: The motion for reconsideration was denied. FACTS: Fatima Credit Cooperative filed a civil case for collection of sum of money against Antonino Moncalbo and his wife before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Calubian-San Isidro, Leyte. The case was dismissed by the said court in its February 2008 Order on the ground that the representative of

―Section 2, Rule VII of the Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan expressly requires that rulings on oral motions made or objections raised in the course of the trial proceedings or hearings are be made by the Chairman of the Division.  Division.  Obviously, the rule cannot be complied with because Justice Ong, the Chairman, did not sit in the hearing of the cases heard by the other respondents.  respondents.  Neither could the other respondents properly and promptly contribute to the rulings of Justice Ong in the hearings before him  X X X   This necessitates the equal and full participation of each member in the trial and adjudication of their cases. It is simply not enough, therefore, that the three members of the Fourth Division were within hearing and communicating distance of one another at the hearings in question, as they explained in hindsight, because even in those circumstances not all of them

Fatima Credit Cooperative had no authority to prosecute the case but it did not rule on the counterclaim of Monticalbo for attorney‘s fees and litigation expenses. Aggrieved, after his motion for reconsideration is denied, complainant elevated the case to the Regional Trial Court, Calubian but Judge Crescente Maraya dismissed the appeal for having been filed out of time because under the rules on Summary Procedure which was applied to govern the proceedings of this case, a motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading and it will not suspend the period of appeal. As a result, Monticalbo filed an administrative case in the Supreme Court against Judge Maraya for gross ignorance of the law, gross incompetence and grave

sat together in session.‖  session.‖  

abuse of authority thru false representation.

 As applied to Justice Ong and Hernandez, SC maintained their initial ruling on discriminatory utterancces. ―They thereby publicized their professional qualifications and manifested a lack of the requisite humility demanded of public magistrates. Their doing so reflected a vice of selfconceit. We view their acts as bespeaking their lack of judicial temperament and decorum, which no  judge worthy of the judicial robes should avoid especially during their performance of judicial functions. They should not exchange banter or engage in playful teasing of each other during trial proceedings (no matter how good-natured or even if meant to ease tension, as they want us to believe).

ISSUE: Whether or not there is grave misconduct on ISSUE: Whether the part of Judge Maraya resulting to grave abuse of authority. Whether or not there is gross ignorance of the law on part of Judge Maraya in deciding the case. RULING: Petition RULING:  Petition DENIED. st

On the 1  issue, the Court rule in the negative. In order to merit disciplinary action, it must be established that respondent‘s actions were motivated by bad faith, dishonesty or hatred 15 or were attended by fraud, dishonesty or corruption. corruption .  In the

56

 

Legal Ethics 3B

absence of such proof, the decision or order in question is presumed to have been issued in good faith by respondent judge.

xxx (2) All other cases, except probate proceedings, where the total amount of the plaintiff‘s claim does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) in Metropolitan Manila, exclusive of interest and costs.‖  costs.‖ 

In cases where a judge is charged with bribery or grave misconduct, bias or partiality cannot be presumed. Neither can bad faith or malice be inferred just because the judgment or order rendered by respondent is adverse to complainant.

Evidently, the complainant has been consulting old books. The rule now, as amended by A.M. No. 0211-09-SC, effective November 25, 2002, has placed the ceiling at P100,000.00. As such, the complainant has no basis in charging that respondent‘s "knowledge of law fell so short" and that he was remiss in his obligation to be familiar with the law which "even law students these days know such x x x."

Before a judge can be held liable for deliberately rendering an unjust judgment or order, one must be able to show that such judgment or order is unjust and that it was issued with malicious intent to cause injustice to the aggrieved party. Well-established is the rule in administrative proceedings that the burden of proof rests on the complainant, who must be able to support and prove by substantial evidence his accusations against respondent. Substantial evidence, the t he quantum of proof required in administrative cases, is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Failure of the complainant to substantiate his claims will lead to the dismissal of the administrative complaint for lack of merit because, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that a judge has regularly performed his duties will prevail.

The complainant should have elevated his grievance to the higher courts. The filing of an administrative case against the judge is not an alternative to the other judicial remedies provided by complementary or supplementary to law, suchneither actions.is it (54)  FLORENDA TOBIAS vs. JUDGE MANUEL (54)  LIMSIACO, JR.  JR.   A.M. No. MTJ-09-1734, January 19, 2011 Peralta, J.

In this case, complainant has nothing but mere assertions and conjectures to buttress his allegations of grave misconduct and bribery on the part of respondent who, if complainant is to be believed, accepted bribes of food and engaged in drinking sprees with court employees during office hours. Contrary to complainant‘s statement, the Investigating Justice found that respondent was attending to his cases during the dates when he allegedly had those drinking sessions.

FACTS: Florenda Tobias requested her sister, Lorna Vollmer, to inquire from the Fourth MCTC of Valladolid-San Enrique-Palupandan, Negros Occidental about the requirements needed in filing an ejectment case. The Judge advised Volmer that since there was no lawyer in Valladolid, Negros Occidental, she had to choose the nearest town lawyer as it would lessen expenses in transportation and appearance fee, and mentioned the name of  Atty. Robert Juanillo. After the ejectment case was filed, Volmer went to Judge Limsiaco‘s Limsiaco ‘s court and told him that she was withdrawing the services of Atty. Juanillo. Because of such, the Judge prepared the motion for the withdrawal of appearance of the said lawyer.

nd

On the 2  issue, the Court rule in the negative.  A cursory reading of Section 1 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure clearly shows that complainant‘s claim is covered by the said rule which reads: ―Scope. –  –  This rule shall govern the summary procedure in the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in the following cases falling within their jurisdiction:

ISSUE: WON the Judge violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.

 A. Civil Cases

RULING:

57

 

Legal Ethics 3B

YES. The respondent judge committed acts of unbecoming of a judge, in particular, talking to a prospective litigant in his court, recommending a lawyer to the litigant, and preparing the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Atty. Juanillo, which pleading was filed in his court and was acted upon by him. The conduct of the judge should be beyond reproach and reflective of the integrity of his office. The acts of the respondent judge violated Section 1 of Canon 2, Section 2 of Canon 3, and Section 1 of Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, thus: CANON 2 INTEGRITY Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office but also to the personal demeanor of judges. Sec. 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is

a way that is consistent with the dignity of the  judicial office. The aforementioned acts of the respondent Judge constitute gross misconduct. ―Misconduct‖ means a transgression of some established and definite rull of action, wilful in character, improper and wrong behaviour. ―Gross‖ has been defined as ―out of all measure, beyond allowance; flagrant; shameful; such conduct as is not to be excused.‖ Respondent‘s act of preparing the Motion to Withdraw the Appearance of Atty. Juanillo as counsel of complainant is inexcusable. In so doing, respondent exhibited improper conduct that tarnished the integrity and impartiality of his court, considering that the said motion was filed in his own sala and was acted upon by him. Judge Limsiaco was found guilty of Gross Misconduct for which he was fined in the amount of P25,000.

perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.

(55)   SY VS. DINOPOL  (55) DINOPOL   CANON 3 IMPARTIALITY Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies not only to the decision itself but also to the process by which decision is made. Sec. 2. Judges shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court, maintains and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants in the impartiality of the

FACTS: This case arose to a land which was mortgage to the mortgagee, Metrobank. The latter foreclosed the mortgaged land and won as the highest bidder. Petitioner then filed an Annulment and/or Declaration of Nullity of the real estate mortgage. The respondent judge inhibited himself to the case before him on the ground that he received a call both the parties, andwith claimed that he wanted to avoidfrom being charged partiality. However, notwithstanding his inhibition on the said case, he nonetheless grants the petition of Metrobank for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession over the disputed land. Petitioner charged the respondent judge of gross ignorance of law and conduct of unbecoming a member of the judiciary. The latter charged has been founded on the ground that respondent judge received commodity loans in the form of construction materials to be used in the construction of judge‘s house. Hence, this case.

 judge of the judiciary. CANON 4 PROPRIETY Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all the activities of the judge. Sec. 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities. Sec. 2. As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must accept personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should so freely and willingly. In particular, judges shall conduct themselves in

ISSUE:   WON respondent judge is guilty of gross ISSUE: ignorance of law and conduct of unbecoming a member of the judiciary

58

 

Legal Ethics 3B

HELD:On the ground of gross ignorance of law, HELD:On  judge Dinopol cannot be held responsiibile for he acted within the ambit of law and his jurisdiction. However, with respect to the conduct of unbecoming a judge, he is found guilty by the OCA of such charge.   charge.

of occasional errors, which is precisely why courts

Judge Dinopol violated Sections 2 and 3 of Canon 3, Section 1 of Canon 1, Sections 1 and 2 of Canon 2, and section 1 of Canon 4 of New code of Judicial Conduct.

Rule embodiment

exist. Controversies cannot drag on indefinitely.  indefinitely.   Judge Pamintuan failed to conform to the high standards of competence required of judges under the Code of Judicial Conduct, which provides that: 1.01 - A judge of competence,

should be the integrity, and

independence Rule 3.01 - A judge shall x x x maintain professional competence.

(56) IMELDA R. MARCOS v. JUDGE FERNANDO VIL PAMINTUAN A.M. No. RTJ-07-2062, Januar January y 18, 2011 Facts:

Competence is a mark of a good judge. When a  judge exhibits an utter lack of know-how with the rules or with settled jurisprudence, he erodes the

Imelda Marcos filed an administrative case against

public‘s confidence in the competence of our courts.

Judge Pamintuan of Branch 3, RTC, Baguio City

It is highly crucial that judges be acquainted with the

with Gross Ignorance of the Law for reversing motu propio the final and executory order of then Judge

law and basic legal principles. Ignorance of the law, which everyone is bound to know, excuses no one  

Reyes dated May 30, 1996 (and modified in the

not even judges

September 2, 1996 order), The order of Judge

In this case, the Court finds Judge Pamintuan

Reyes in the said case did not rule on the

accountable for gross ignorance of the law. This is

authenticity of the Golden Buddha because it was

not   Judge Pamintuan‘s first and sole administrative not

not made as an issue while the questioned order of

case. Having been previously warned and punished

Judge Pamintuan,10 years after, has ruled that said

for various infractions.

Buddha, which is under the custody the court, was fake and a mere replica.

Judge Fernando Pamintuan of the Regional Trial

Issue:   Whether or not Judge Pamintuan was liable Issue:

Court of Baguio City, Branch 3, is DISMISSED DISMISSED from  from

for gross ignorance of the law.

the service.

Held: Yes. It is axiomatic that when a judgment is final and executory, it becomes immutable and

(57) OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE BENJAMIN P. ESTRADA AND JUDGE JOSEFINA GENTILES-BACALA.M. No. RTJ-092173, 18 JANUARY 2011, E N B A N C  (Brion,   (Brion, J .)

unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any respect either by the court which rendered it or even by this Court. The doctrine of immutability and

Facts:   Atty. Nicandro A. Cruz, officer-in-charge, Facts:

inalterability of a final judgment has a two-fold purpose,

to

wit:

(1 )    to

avoid

delay

in

Court Management Office, Office of the Court

the

 Administrator (OCA), addressed to then Deputy

administration of justice and thus, procedurally, to

Court Administrator (DCA) Reuben P. De la Cruz,

make orderly the discharge of judicial business; and (2 )    to to put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk

regarding anomalies in the disposition of cases in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC),

59

 

Legal Ethics 3B

Malaybalay

City,

Bukidno

n

and

reported

that

RTC shall have authority to designate a municipal

several orders, attached to the report, that were

 judge

issued by Executive Judge Josefina Gentiles-Bacal,

supervision to try cases of other courts of the first

RTC, Malaybalay City, and Judge Benjamin P.

level within said area of administrative supervision in

Estrada, RTC, Branch 9, same station, dismissing

case

the cases then pending in the MTCC. Atty. Cruz pointed out that the MTCC, Malaybalay City had no

disqualification, or preventive suspension of the municipal judge concerned, or of permanent or

regular presiding judge at the time the orders were

temporary vacancy in the position. Such designation

issued, as Judge Estrada, the former presiding

shall be effective immediately, unless revoked by the

 judge, had been appointed to preside over the RTC,

Supreme Court.

within

of

his/her

official

area

leave

of

of

administrative

absence,

inhibition,

Branch 9, Malaybalay City, on June 1, 2008. Atty. Cruz commented that Judge Estrada could no

The Executive Judge shall furnish the Office of the

longer take cognizance of cases pending in his

Court Administrator with copies of the orders of

former sala after he took his oath on July 17, 2008;

designation effected under this Section within five

neither could Judge Bacal do the same even if she

(5) days from the date of such designation."

had then been the executive judge of the RTC, Malaybalay City.

Instead of allowing Judge Estrada and herself to act on cases pending before the MTCC, Judge Bacal,

Issue: Are Issue:  Are Judge Estrada and Judge Bacal guilty of

as executive judge of the RTC, Malaybalay City,

gross ignorance of the law for taking cognizance of

should have designated a municipal judge within her

cases pending before another court?

area of supervision, to act on the pending cases. She took time (two months as she claimed) in

Held:   Yes. There is no question about the guilt of Held:

making the designation, which delayed action, by

the two judges. Their shared intention to uphold the

itself, is a negative reflection on her performance as

right of the accused to liberty cannot justify their

an executive judge. Judge Estrada, who was the

action in excess of their authority, in violation of

former presiding judge of the MTCC, Malaybalay

existing regulations. The vacuum in a first level

City, acted only on one case, but like Judge Bacal,

court, such as the MTCC in Malaybalay City,

he had no authority to take over the case as he had

Bukidnon, created by the absence of a presiding

already taken his oath as RTC judge on July 17,

 judge, is not remedied r emedied by a take tak e over of the d duties uties of

2008, almost a month before he issued the order in

the still-to-be appointed or designated judge for the

Criminal Case No. 878-08, People v. Bellman E.

court, which exactly was what Judge Estrada and

Durango, et al., for Attempted Homicide. Homicide . Either

Judge Bacal did. The remedy lies in Chapter V of

Judge

the Guidelines in the Selection and Appointment of Executive

Judges

and

Defining

their

Estrada

and

Judge

Bacal

forgot

the

guidelines or chose to ignore them, but whatever it

Powers,

was, they should suffer the consequences of their

Prerogatives and Duties,which provides:

actions in violation of the guidelines. "Section 1. Designation of Judges of the First Level Courts to Try Cases. (a) The Executive Judge of the

60

 

Legal Ethics 3B

What Judge Estrada and Judge Bacal did was

titles and declaration of presumptive death were

worse than overriding the action or decision of a

being falsified. The Affidavit was treated as a

lower court.They entirely took over the judicial

Complaint for falsification of court records against

function of the lower court. While they might have

Judge Eduardo Roden E. Kapunan and court

been

taking

stenographers Ma. Theresa Cortez and Leila O.

cognizance of the pending cases with the MTCC because they wanted to uphold the accused‘s right

Galo. Respondent Suzette Tiongco was not included in the charge of falsification of court records as

to liberty, they still cannot escape liability. However

complainant ha[d] no evidence linking her thereto

well-intentioned they might have been, they still did

but the Office of the Court Administrator included her

not have the authority to act on the cases as these

with the charge of conduct prejudicial to the best

were not pending before their respective salas. Their

interest of the service.

motivated

by

noble

intentions

in

lack of authority was so patent and so self-evident; to disregard it would itself be ignorance of the law. In

ISSUE:Whether ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Kapunan is guilty of

Mupas,, the Court recognized that "not every judicial Mupas

falsification and for violation against Canon 2,

error bespeaks ignorance of the law and that, if

Section 1 of Judicial Conduct For The Philippine

committed in good faith, does not warrant administrative sanction, but only in cases xxx of

Judiciary  Judiciary  HELD:Yes. HELD: Yes. A judge's conduct should be above

tolerable

the

reproach and in the discharge of his judicial duties

procedure is so simple and the facts so evident as to

he should be conscientious, studious, thorough,

be beyond permissible margins of error, to still err

courteous, patient, punctual, just, impartial, fearless

thereon amounts to ignorance of the law."

of public clamor, and regardless of private influence

misjudgment.

Where,

however,

should administer justice according to law and Clearly, Judge Estrada and Judge Bacal are guilty of

should deal with the patronage of the position as a

gross ignorance of the law.

public trust; and he should not allow outside matters or his private interests to interfere with the prompt

(58) VIVIAN T. DABU vs. EDUARDO RODEN E.

and proper performance of his office.  office. 

KAPUNAN, Presiding Judge, Branch 51 and Acting Judge, Branch 52, MA. THERESA CORTEZ, LEILA O. GALO, Both Court Stenographers, SUZETTE O. TIONGCO, Legal Researcher, All of Regional Trial Court, Branch 51, Guagua, Pampanga  A.M. No. RTJ-00-1600 February 1, 2011

Taking all these into consideration, it is undeniable that Judge Kapunan, Galo and Cortez acted together

August

24,

2000,

Complainant

issuing

questionable

orders

and

decisions through falsification of public documents. With regard to Tiongco, however, there is no evidence against her. The inclusion of Tiongco in this case was only upon the initiative of the Office of the Court Administrator. As the record is bereft of any evidence to hold her liable, her exoneration is in order.

FACTS: On

in

Assistant

Provincial Prosecutor Vivian T. Dabu executed an  Affidavit citing several incidents wherein the court records of cases for annulment of marriage, lost

61

 

Legal Ethics 3B

Court employees, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, being public servants in an office dispensing justice, should always act with a high degree of professionalism and responsibility. Their conduct must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum, but must also be in accordance with the law and court regulations. No position demands greater moral righteousness and uprightness from its holder than an office in the judiciary. Court employees should be models of uprightness, fairness and honesty to maintain the people's respect and faith in the judiciary. They should avoid any act or conduct that would diminish public trust and confidence in the courts. Indeed, those connected with dispensing justice bear a heavy burden of responsibility.

informed the release was pursuant to a 30,000php bail posted by Melgazo. Pantillo was even more puzzled when he found out that no Information was filed against Melgazo yet, but there was already approval of the bail. He learned that there was only a verbal order made by the Judge for the approval of a bail. The following day, 05 September 2008, Melgazo filed a Motion for the release of his vehicle that was object evidence to the case. He prayed that said motion be heard on September 5 or on the same day of the filing, which was in clear violation of the rules. Judge Canoy issued an Order directing the prosecutor to file a Comment within 3 days upon receipt, and this was complied with, but still the motion was granted. Pantillo filed a motion for inhibition of judge Canoy but the same was denied. Thus, the instant complaint was filed with the OCA.

Falsification of an official document such as court records is considered a grave offense. It also amounts to dishonesty. Under Section 23, Rule XIV of the Administrative Code of 1987, dishonesty (par. a) and falsification (par. f) are considered grave offenses warranting the penalty of dismissal from

In his Comment, Judge Canoy said that he considered the constitutional right to bail coupled with the insistence of Melgazo‘s counsel led him to allow such actions to proceed. He presents as a defense Sec. 17, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court which does not require a formal charge in court before a person may post bail. He concluded that a ―constructive bail‖ was proper, lacking only the formal papers to finalize the same. OCA recommended that the complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that Judge Canoy be fined 40,000php with a stern warning.

service upon commission of the first offense. Furthermore, falsification of an official document is punishable as a criminal offense under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code and dishonesty is an impious act that has no place in the judiciary. The penalty of dismissal, however, can no longer be imposed and carried out with respect to the late Judge Kapunan. The administrative complaints against him have become moot and academic and the case should be deemed closed and terminated following our ruling in Loyao, Jr. v. Caube and Apiag v. Cantero

ISSUE: WON Judge Canoy, in allowing the release of Melgazo via a ―constructive bail‖ is liable for violation of Supreme Court rules, circulars and decisions HOLD:

(59) GAUDENCIO B. PANTILLO III vs. JUDGE VICTOR A. CANOY  A.M. No. RTJ-11-2262 | February 9, 2011 | Velasco, Jr., J.  J. 

 Yes, Judge Canoy is liable for such. Though the right to bail is definitely allowed in the instant case, it is the matter of procedure that was violated herein. Rule 114 requires an application or petition for the release on bail of an accused. There was no such written application made to the court, yet Judge Canoy allowed the bail to be accepted. Also, another requirement is that the bail should be deposited with the nearest collector of internal revenue or any municipal, city or provincial treasurer. Instead, it was the clerk of court who received and acknowledged

FACTS:  A criminal case was pendin pending g before the sala of respondent Judge Canoy, wherein the victim was complainant‘s sibling. On 03 September 2008 at around 5:00pm, complainant along with a few police officers escorted the accused Leonardo Melgazo to the City Prosecutor‘s Prosecutor‘s Office, wherein after a few

the bond.

hours, was released from detention and this wasMelgazo relayed to Pantillo. Complainant was able to verify this from the precinct and he was also

62

 

Legal Ethics 3B

Further, SC held that there was no such specie of a ―constructive bond‖ under the Rules, and thus no validity should be given to the bail posted by the accused. Judge Canoy was fined 11,000php and was given a stern warning. (60) D a n i e l G. Sevi Sevi l l a v. Ju d g e Fra n ci sco S. Lin do , M. No. MTJ-08MTJ-08-1714 1714 Febru ary 9, 2011 , Be rsa m i n , ,J.

Facts:   Daniel G. Sevilla charged Hon. Francisco S. Facts: Lindo with delay in the disposition of a criminal case. Sevilla asserted that Judge Lindo thereby violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires that a judge should administer justice impartially and without delay; that Judge Lindo also violated Section 1, Rule 135 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that justice be impartially administered without unnecessary delay; that Judge Lindo‘s unreasonable resetting of the hearings 12 times rendered inconsequential his right to the speedy disposition of his case; and that such resettings were motion made of upon instance of Judge Lindo, not upon the the parties. In his comment dated July 26, 2007, Judge Lindo refuted the charge, claiming that the postponements were upon valid grounds. Issue: Whether or not retired Judge Lindo was Issue: Whether administratively liable for the numerous postponements in violation of the Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Held:  We agree with and adopt the report and Held:  recommendation of the OCA that Judge Lindo be held liable for delay in the disposition of his cases that was tantamount to inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of his official duties. Although the postponement of a hearing in a civil or criminal case may at times be unavoidable, the Court disallows undue or unnecessary postponements of court hearings, simply because they cause unreasonable delays in the administration of justice and, thus, undermine the people‘s people‘s faith in the Judiciary,  Judiciary,  aside from aggravating the financial and emotional burdens of the litigants. For this reason, the Court has enjoined that postponements and resettings should be allowed only upon meritorious grounds, and has consistently reminded all trial judges to adopt a firm policy against improvident postponements.

63