De Castro-Legal Ethics.docx

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Legal 2015) Ethics LEGAL ETHICS UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW Respondent Court Stenographer Monilla prepared an extra judicial settlement of estate for the complainant Arienda and her siblings. In ruling that the respondent is guilty of simple misconduct, the Supreme Court held that the preparation of an extrajudicial settlement of estate constitutes practice of law as defined in Cayetano v. Monsod, 201 SCRA 210 (1991) to wit: Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. - Leticia A. Arienda vs. Evelyn A. Monilla, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Legazpi City, A.M. No. P112980, June 10, 2013 SUSPENSION, DISBARMENT AND DISCIPLINE OF LAWYERS The right to institute a disbarment proceeding is not confined to clients nor is it necessary that the person complaining suffered injury from the alleged wrongdoing. A lawyer who paid another with a personal check from a bank account which he knew has already been closed exhibited an extremely low regard to his commitment to the oath he took when he joined his peers, thereby seriously tarnishing the image of the profession which he should hold in high esteem. - Cecilia A. Agno vs. Atty. Marciano J. Cagatan, A.C. No. 4515, July 14, 2008 Clearly, therefore, the act of a lawyer in issuing a check without sufficient funds to cover the same constitutes such wilful dishonesty and immoral conduct as to undermine the public confidence in the legal profession. He cannot justify his act of issuing worthless checks by his dire financial condition. Moya II should have contracted debts which are beyond his financial capacity to pay. If he suffered a reversal of fortune, he should have explained with particularity the circumstances which cause his failure to meet his obligations. His generalized and unsubstantiated allegations as to why he reneged in the payment of his debts promptly despite repeated demands and sufficient time afforded him cannot withstand scrutiny. - Jerry T. Wong vs. Atty. Salvador N. Moya II, A.C. No. 6972, October 17, 2008 The Court have held that the issuance of checks which were later dishonored for having been drawn against a closed account indicates a lawyer’s unfitness for the trust and confidence reposed on her. It shows a lack of personal honesty and good moral character as to render her unworthy of public confidence. The issuance of a series of worthless checks also shows the remorseless attitude of respondent, unmindful to the deleterious effects of such act to the public interest and public order. It also manifests a lawyer’s low regard to her commitment to the oath she has taken when she joined her peers, seriously and irreparably tarnishing the image of the profession she should hold in high esteem. - Walter Wilkie vs. Atty. Sinamar E. Limos, A.C. No. 7505, October 24, 2008

Page 1 of 14

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Legal 2015) Ethics

A lawyer has the responsibility to diligently prosecute the case of his clients to the best of his ability within the bounds of law. A lawyer, when he undertakes his client’s cause, makes a covenant that he will exert all efforts for its prosecution until its final conclusion. - Cesar Talento and Modesta Herrera Talento vs. Atty. Agustin F. Paneda, A.C. No. 7433, December 23 2009 Once he agrees to take up the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He must serve the client with competence and diligence, and champion the latter’s cause with wholehearted fidelity, care, and devotion. This simply means that his client is entitled to the benefit of any and every remedy and defense that is authorized by the law of the land and he may expect his lawyer to assert every such remedy or defense. - Spouses Virgilio and Angelina Aranda vs. Atty. Emmanuel F. Elayda, A.C. No. 7907, December 15, 2010 RE-ADMISSION TO THE BAR It is well settled that the objective of a disciplinary case is not so much to punish the individual attorney as to protect the dispensation of justice by sheltering the judiciary and the public from the misconduct or inefficiency of officers of the court. Restorative justice, not retribution, is our goal in disciplinary proceedings. Constancia L. Valencia vs. Atty. Dionisio C. Antiniw, A.C. No. 1302, June 30, 2008 NOTARIAL PRACTICE By failing to comply with the conditions set for SC Circular No. 190 and violating the provision of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004, respondent judge failed to conduct himself in a manner that is beyond reproach and suspicion. Judges are enjoined by the Code of Judicial Conduct to regulate their extrajudicial activities in order to minimize the risk of conflict with their judicial duties. - Geronimo C. Fuentes vs. Judge Romualdo G. Buno, A.M. No. MTJ991204, July 28, 2008 JUDICIAL ETHICS DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY The Court has always impressed upon all members of the judiciary the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously under the timehonored precept that justice delayed is justice denied. The Constitution itself, under Section 15, Article VIII, mandates that lower courts have three (3) months from the date of submission within which to decide the cases or matters pending before them. Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct directs judges to “dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.” Finally, Canons 6 and 7 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics exhort judges to be prompt and punctual in the disposition and resolution of cases and matters pending before their court. - Re: Judicial Audit Conducted In The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 14, Page 2 of 14

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Legal 2015) Ethics Davao City, Presided over by Judge William M. Layague, A.M. RTJ072039, April 18, 2008 The image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women therein, from the judge to the least and lowest of its personnel; hence, it becomes imperative and sacred duty of each and everyone in the court to maintain its good name and good standing as a true temple of justice. The conduct of court personnel must be, and also perceived to be, free from any whiff of impropriety, with respect not only to their duties in the judiciary but also in their behavior outside the court. Ronnie C. Dela Cruz vs. Redentor A. Zapico, Quirino Y. Itliong II, and Odon C. Balani, A.M. No. 2007-25-SC, September 18, 2008 It must be stressed that all judicial employees must devote their official time to govern-ment service. They must exercise at all times a high degree of professionalism and responsibility, as service in the judiciary is not only a duty; it is a mission. To inspire public respect for the justice system, court officials and employees are at all times behoved to strictly observe official time. Strict observance of official time is mandatory lest the dignity of the justice system be compromised. Thus, Section 1, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel mandates that the same shall commit themselves exclusively to the business and responsibilities of their office during working hours. In the case at bar, we find that [Pacariem] has failed to live up to the standard of efficiency and professionalism that the judiciary demands from its court personnel. Furthermore, by writing false and inaccurate entries in her former offices’ Logbook of Permission Slips and Logbook of Daily Attendance of Court Personnel, [Pacariem] likewise failed to meet the standard of honesty. - Judge Placido C. Marquez and Atty. Lyn L. Llamasares vs. Lucila C. Pacariem, A.M. No. P-06-2249, October 8, 2008 The unreasonable delay of the respondent judge in resolving the motion submitted for his resolution clearly constituted a violation of complainant’s constitutional right to a speedy disposition of his case. Having failed to resolve the Motion for Reconsideration within the prescribed period of time, respondent judge is liable for undue delay in resolving a decision or order which is considered a less serious offense. - Atty. Raul H. Sesbreo vs. Judge Ireneo L. Gako, Jr. and Manuel G. Nollora, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2144, November 3, 2008 Raffling of cases: Respondent judge cannot excuse himself from his duty as Executive Judge by dispensing with the raffle of the case and dismissing it outright on the pretext that it would be just a waste of time on his part to raffle and entertain the case. As Executive Judge, he ought to know that raffling of cases is his personal duty and responsibility. He is expected to keep abreast and be conversant with Supreme Court rules and circulars that affect the conduct of cases before him and strictly comply therewith at all times. Failure to abide by these rules undermines the wisdom behind them and diminishes respect for the rule of law. Judges should therefore administer their office with due regard to the integrity

Page 3 of 14

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Legal 2015) Ethics of the system of law itself, remembering that they are not depositories of arbitrary power, but judges under the sanction of law. Contempt of court: The salutary rule is that the power to punish for contempt must be exercised on the preservative, not vindictive principle, and on the corrective and not retaliatory idea of punishment. The courts must exercise the power to punish for contempt for purposes that are impersonal, because that power is intended as a safeguard not for the judges as persons but for the functions that they exercise. Sergio & Gracelda N. Andres vs. Judge Jose S. Majaducon, A.M. No. RTJ-031762, December 17, 2008 Complainant contends that she does not know how to sign her name and only affixes her thumbmark to documents to signify her consent, while the signature of her husband appearing on the document is very different from his customary signature. Respondent failed to sufficiently rebut the complainant’s assertion that her signature in the deed of sale is forged, as complainant does not know how to read and write and instead of signing documents, she merely affixes her thumbmark. - Dominga C. Menor vs. Teodora P. Guillermo, A.M. No. P-082587, December 18, 2008 The Court has incessantly admonished members of the bench to administer justice without undue delay, for justice delayed is justice denied. The present clogged dockets in all levels of our judicial system cannot be cleared unless every magistrate earnestly, painstakingly and faithfully complies with the mandate of the law. Undue delay in the disposition of cases amounts to a denial of justice which, in turn, brings the courts into disrepute and ultimately erodes the faith and confidence of the public in the judiciary. The Court wishes to remind that as an official of the Judiciary, a Judge is expected to follow the rules laid down by this Court for the prompt and speedy disposition of cases. Failure to decide cases and other matters within the reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative sanction. If a judge can not comply with this Courts directives on the matter of disposition of cases, he may seek extensions from this Court to avoid administrative liability. - Letter of Judge Josefina D. Farrales, Acting Presiding Judge, RTC, Br.72, Olongapo City Re: 30 Cases and 84 Motions Submitted For Decision/ Resolution in the said Court, A.M. No. 06-3-196-RTC, December 24, 2008 As a trial judge, respondent is the visible representation of law and justice. Under Canon 1.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, she is expected to be the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence. Judges are expected to keep abreast of developments in law and jurisprudence. He should strive for excellence exceeded only by his passion for truth, to the end that he be the personification of justice and the Rule of Law. When the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to simply apply it; anything less than that would be gross ignorance of the law. - Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Norma C. Perello, former Clerk of Court Luis C. Bucayon II, Court Stenographers Thelma A. Mangilit, Cecilio

Page 4 of 14

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Legal 2015) Ethics B. Argame, Maricar N. Eugenio, and Radigunda R. Laman and Interpreter Paul M. Resurreccion, all of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 276, Muntinlupa City, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1952, December 24, 2008 The withdrawal of complaints cannot divest the Court of its jurisdiction nor strip it of its power to determine the veracity of the charges made and to discipline, such as the results of its investigation may warrant, an erring respondent. - Aureo Bayaca vs. Judge Tranquilino Ramos, A.M. No. MTJ-07-1676, January 29, 2009 The sheriff, as an officer of the court upon whom the execution of a final judgment depends, must necessarily be circumspect and proper in his behavior. - Emilia Marias vs. Terencio G. Florendo, A.M. No. P-07-2304, February 12, 2009 At the core of a judge’s esteemed position is obedience to the dictates of the law and justice and so a judge must be the first to exhibit respect for authority. - Ma. Theresa G. Winterniitz and Raquel Gonzales vs. Judge Lizabeth GutierrezTorres, A.M. No. MTJ-09-1733, February 24, 2009 Any delay in the administration of justice, no matter how brief, deprives the litigant of his right to a speedy disposition of his case, for, not only does it magnify the cost of seeking justice, it undermines the people’s faith and confidence in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it to disrepute. Marietta Duque vs. Judge Crisostomo L. Garrido, A.M. NO. RTJ-06-2027, February 27, 2009 The failure to implement a writ of execution maybe classified as a less grave offense of simple neglect of duty punishable by suspension from office for one month and one day to six months for the first offense. - Estelito R. Marabe vs. Tyrone V. Tan, Sheriff IV, OCC, Regional Trial Court, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, A.M. No. P-05-1996, April 21, 2009 Dishonesty or grave misconduct carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits but the court may nevertheless impose fines to be deducted from the accrued leave credits for judgment based on another set of facts. - Peter B. Mallonga vs. Marites R. Manio, Court Interpreter III, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4, Tuguegarao City, A.M. No. P-07-2298, April 24, 2009 A person cannot, for disobedience, be punished for contempt unless the act which is forbidden or required to be done is clearly and exactly defined, so that there can be no reasonable doubt or uncertainty as to what specific act or thing is forbidden or required. - Venancio Inonog vs. Judge Francisco B. Ibay, A.M. No. RTJ092175, July 28, 2009 The act of a married man cohabiting with a woman not his spouse constitutes an immoral conduct and the employment of the defense of denial cannot overthrow the positive testimonies of the witnesses. - Lolita S. Regir vs. Joel T. Regir, A.M. No. P-06-2282, August 4, 2009

Page 5 of 14

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Legal 2015) Ethics

Judges must avoid not only impropriety but also the appearance of impropriety. They are mandated not to allow family, social or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. Heirs of the Late Rev. Fr. Jose O. Aspiras vs. Judge Clifton U. Ganay, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, Agoo, La Union, A.M. No. RTJ-07-2055, December 17, 2009 The Rules of Court expressly prohibits the grant of preliminary injunction without hearing and prior notice to the party or person sought to be enjoined. In this case, the judge has issued an order which was in effect a TRO ex parte in violation of the rules, and thus, is found guilty of ignorance of law. - Mayor Hadji Amer R. Sampiano, Somer Abdullah, Salic Tampugao, Anthony Abi, Saga Pole Inog, Tororac Domato, King Maronsing, Margarita Solaiman, Hadji Acmad Mamenting and Billie Jai Laine T. Ogka vs. Judge Cader P. Indar, Acting Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 12, Malabang, Lanao del Sur, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1953, December 21, 2009 Sheriffs play an important role in the administration of justice, and as agents of the law, high standards are expected of them. They are duty-bound to know and to comply with the very basic rules relative to the implementation of writs of execution. - Emma B. Ramos vs. Apollo R. Ragot, Sheriff III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Gingoog City, A.M. No. P-09-2600, December 23 2009 Absent any evidence showing outright bad faith, a judge should not be held liable for gross misconduct and gross ignorance of the law. Thus, for committing acts that manifested poor judgment and negligence, he is only guilty of simple misconduct and a penalty of suspension for a period of three months shall be imposed upon him. - Walter J. Aragones vs. Hon. Hector B. Barillo, Municipal Trial Court, Guihulngan, Negros Oriental, A.M. No. MTJ-10-1752, March 10, 2010 A judge must not sacrifice the orderly administration of justice in favor of a speedy but reckless disposition of a case. A prudent judge should have ascertained the facts before reaching conclusions and issuing orders. Thus, a judge is liable for simple negligence in dismissing a case due to the non-appearance of the plaintiff on the scheduled date for mediation, the latter being declared a regular holiday and despite the request for the resetting of the same. - Cecilia Gadrinab Senarlo vs. Judge Maximo G.W. Paderanga, RTC, Branch 38, Cagayan De Oro City, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2025, April 5, 2010 Every judge should decide cases with dispatch and should be careful, punctual, and observant in the performance of his functions for delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it into disrepute. However, in imposing the penalty of fine, other circumstances may be considered such as the judge’s continuous service in the judiciary, his avowed dire need of funds, and his expressed willingness to abide by whatever penalty the Court may impose upon him. - Re: Cases Submitted for

Page 6 of 14

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Legal 2015) Ethics Decision Before Hon. Teresito A. Andoy, former Judge, Municipal Trial Court, Cainta, Rizal, A.M. No. 09-9-163-MTC, May 6, 2010 Judge Francisco filed contempt against his two employees which thereby is baseless. It is well-settled that 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 for contempt must be exercised on the preservative, not vindictive principle, and on the corrective and not retaliatory idea of punishment. - Olivia Laurel vs. Judge Pablo B. Francisco, A.M. No. RTJ-06-1992, July 6, 2010, J. Leonardo-De Castro Judge was charged of being manifest bias, partiality and grave abuse of authority. The court ruled Established is the norm that judges should not only be impartial but should also appear impartial. Judges must not only render just, correct and impartial decisions, but must do so in a manner free from any suspicion as to their fairness, impartiality and integrity. - Atty. Jose A. Bernas vs. Judge Julia A. Reyes, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 69, Pasig City, A.M. No. MTJ-091728, July 21, 2010 Canons 2, 6 and 31 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, provide, respectively, that the “administration of justice should be speedy and careful”; that judges “should be prompt in disposing of all matters submitted to them, remembering that justice delayed is often justice denied;” and that in the discharge of his judicial duties, a judge “should be conscientious thorough.” Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct expressly directs that a judge should dispose of the court’s business “promptly and decide cases within the required periods.” - Narciso Bernardo, Jr. vs. Judge Peter M. Montojo, Municipal Trial Court, Romblon, A.M. No. MTJ-10-1754, October 20, 2010 A judge’s submission of false certificates of service seriously undermines and reflects on the honesty and integrity expected of an officer of the court. This is so because a certificate of service is not merely a means to one's paycheck but is an instrument by which the Court can fulfill the constitutional mandate of the people ' s right to a speedy disposition of cases. - Atty. Norlinda R. Amante-Descallar vs. Hon. Reinerio (Abraham) B. Ramas, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2015, December 15, 2010 The accomplishment of the PDS is a requirement under the Civil Service Rules and Regulations for employment in the government. Since truthful completion of PDS is a requirement for employment in the Judiciary, the importance of answering the same with candor need not be gainsaid. Furthermore, in the determination of the penalties to be imposed, extenuating, mitigating, aggravating or alternative circumstances attendant to the commission of the offense shall be considered. Among the circumstances that may be allowed to modify the penalty are (1) length

Page 7 of 14

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Legal 2015) Ethics of service in the government, (2) good faith, and (3) other analogous circumstances. - Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Ma. Ellen M. Aguilar, Regional Trial Court, Branch 70, Burgos, Pangasinan, A.M. No. RTJ-07-2087, June 7, 2011 Where the law involved is simple and elementary, lack of conversance therewith constitutes gross ignorance of the law. Judges are expected to exhibit more than just cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural laws. They must know the laws and apply them properly in all good faith. Judicial competence requires no less. The mistake committed by respondent Judge is not a mere error of judgment that can be brushed aside for being minor. The disregard of established rule of law which amounts to gross ignorance of the law makes a judge subject to disciplinary action. - Atty. Facundo T. Bautista vs. Judge Blas O. Causapin, Jr., Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, Guimba, Nueva Ecija, A.M. No. RTJ-072044, June 22, 2011 The Ombudsman rendered a decision adjudging both LTO officers, Reyes, guilty of grave misconduct and Pealoza guilty of simple misconduct. In administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings, only substantial evidence is necessary to establish the case for or against a party, however, under well-established doctrine of due process in administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity for the person so charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the minimum requirements of due process. - Office of the Ombudsman vs. Antonio T. Reyes, G.R. No. 170512, October 5, 2011 The Court deems Benedictos’ falsification of her bundy cards tantamount to dishonesty. Benedictos’ silence on a principal charge against her is admission, especially considering that she was given ample opportunity to deny the same. In several administrative cases, the Court refrained from imposing the actual penalties in the presence of mitigating factors. - Falsification of Daily Time Records of Ma. Emcisa A. Benedictos, Administrative Officer I, Regional Trial Court, Malolos City, Bulacan, A.M. No. P-10-2784, October 19, 2011 "A resolution of the Supreme Court should not be construed as a mere request, [and] should be complied with promptly and completely." Such "failure to comply betrays not only a recalcitrant streak in character, but also a disrespect for the Court’s lawful order and directive." Furthermore, this contumacious conduct of refusing to abide by the lawful directives issued by the Court has likewise been considered as an utter lack of interest to remain with, if not contempt of, the system. The conduct or behavior of all court personnel is circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. Time and again, the High Court affirms the practical reality that the image of the court as a true temple of justice is mirrored by the conduct of everyone who works therein, from the judge to the lowest clerk. It is therefore imperative that those involved in the administration of justice must live up to the highest standard of honesty and integrity in the public service. - Re: Report on Page 8 of 14

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Legal 2015) Ethics Financial Audit Conducted at MCTC, Santiago-San Esteban, Ilocos Sur, A.M. No. P-11-2950, January 17, 2012 It is well to remind Gutierrez that dishonesty is a malevolent act that has no place in the judiciary. Public service requires utmost integrity and discipline. A public servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity, for no less than the Constitution declares that a public office is a public trust, and all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, and serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency. These are not mere rhetorical words to be taken lightly as idealistic sentiments, but as working standards and attainable goals that should be matched with actual deeds. - Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator vs. Leoncio K. Gutierrez III, Clerk III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 116, Pasay City, A.M. No. P-11-2951, February 15, 2012 Competence is a mark of a good judge. When a judge displays an utter lack of familiarity with the rules, he erodes the publics confidence in the competence of our courts. It is highly imperative that judges be conversant with the law and basic legal principles. Basic legal procedures must be at the palm of a judges hands. - Dr. Ramie G. Hipe vs. Judge Rolando T. Literato, Municpal Trial Court, Mainit, Surigao Norte, A.M. No. MTJ-11-1781, April 25, 2012 Section 15(1), Article VIII of the Constitution, mandates that cases or matters filed with the lower courts must be decided or resolved within three months from the date they are submitted for decision or resolution. With respect to cases falling under the Rule on Summary Procedure, first level courts are only allowed 30 days following the receipt of the last affidavit and position paper, or the expiration of the period for filing the same, within which to render judgment. Unfortunately, Judge Torres failed to live up to the exacting standards of duty and responsibility that her position requires. Civil Case No. 20191 was submitted for resolution on July 19, 2006, yet it was still pending when Valdez filed the present administrative complaint on June 4, 2010, and remained unresolved per complainants manifestation filed on September 8, 2010. More than four years after being submitted for resolution, Civil Case No. 20191 was still awaiting decision by respondent. Records also do not show that Judge Torres made any previous attempt to report and request for extension of time to resolve Civil Case No. 20191. - Fe D. Valdez vs. Judge Lizabeth G. Torres, MeTC, Branch 60, Mandaluyong City, A.M. No. MTJ-11-1796, June 13, 2012 Not every judicial error is tantamount to ignorance of the law and if it was committed in good faith, the judge need not be subjected to administrative sanction. While Judge Bayona admitted that he erred in insisting on the production of the Jarder Resolution despite the provisions of the DOJ-NPS Manual, such error cannot be categorized as gross ignorance of the law as he did not appear to be motivated by bad faith. Indeed, the rules of procedure in the prosecution office were not clear as to whether or not an investigating prosecutor’s resolution of dismissal

Page 9 of 14

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Legal 2015) Ethics that had been reversed by the city prosecutor should still form part of the records. City Prosecutor Armando P. Abanado vs. Judge Abraham A. Bayona, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 7, Bacolod City, A.M. No. MTJ-12-1804, July 30, 2012

The rule is that those involved in the administration of justice from the highest official to the lowest clerk must live up to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity in the public service. As an officer of the court, Valente was duty-bound to use reasonable skill and diligence in the performance of her officially-designated duties as clerk of court. If indeed Panaligan was at the MCTC office and was personally furnished a copy of the notice of hearing by Valente herself, then Valente should have required Panaligan to sign the original copy of said notice as proof of receipt. Valente’s failure to secure Panaligan’s signature as proof of receipt of a copy of the notice of hearing exhibited lack of due diligence required by her position as Clerk of Court. - Anecita Panaligan vs. Ethelda B. Valente, Clerk of Court II, 3rd Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Patnoñgon, Antique, A.M. No. P-11-2952, July 30, 2012

The Court holds that the mistakes or errors in the contents of the orders, subpoena, and Minutes of the Hearing committed by respondents Lagman (Legal Researcher) and Bassig (Stenographer) could be attributed to their lack of attention or focus on the task at hand. These could have easily been avoided had they exercised greater care and diligence in the performance of their duties. We find respondents Lagman and Bassig liable for simple neglect of duty. - Memoranda of Judge Eliza B. Yu issued to Legal Researcher Mariejoy P. Lagman and to Court Stenographer Soledad J. Bassig, all of Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 47, Pasay City, A.M. No. P-12-3033, August 15, 2012

Neither the Rules nor jurisprudence recognizes any exception from the periodic filing of reports by sheriffs as pursuant to Rule 39, Section 14 of the Rules of Court. If only Sheriff Roxas submitted such periodic reports, he could have brought his predicament to the attention of the RTC and FGU and he could have given the RTC and FGU the opportunity to act and/or move to address the same. - Astorga and Repol Law Offices, represented Atty. Arnold B. Lugares vs. Leodel N. Roxas, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 66, Makati City, A.M. No. P12-3029, August 15, 2012

Page 10 of 14

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Legal 2015) Ethics

Judges should remember that they must not only avoid impropriety, but the "appearance of impropriety" as well. Also, the previous Code of Judicial Conduct specifically warned the judges against seeking publicity for personal vainglory. Vainglory, in its ordinary meaning, refers to an individual’s excessive or ostentatious pride especially in one’s own achievements. - Gerlie M. Uy and Ma. Consolacion T. Bascug vs. Judge Erwin B. Javellana, Municipal Trial Court, La Castellana, Negros Occidental, A.M. No. MTJ-07-1666, September 5, 2012 When a motion to quash a writ of execution was filed by the petitioner and such motion was already set for a hearing, the Court ruled that the prudent course of action of the Sheriff was to defer implementation of the writ of execution until a determination of the motion to quash. However, when a motion to quash the Writ was just filed and was not yet even set for hearing, in the absence of a court order, Sheriff has to proceed without haste and to employ such means as necessary to implement the subject Writ of Execution and to put complainant in possession of the disputed properties. Also, it is worthy to note that once the RTC has rendered a decision in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, such decision shall, under Rule 70, Section 2120 of the Rules of Court, be immediately executory, without prejudice to an appeal via petition for review before the Court of Appeals and/or Supreme Court. The decision of the regional trial court in civil cases governed by this Rule, including forcible entry and unlawful detainer, shall be immediately executory, without prejudice to a further appeal that may be taken therefrom. - Lucia Nazar Vda. De Feliciano vs. Romeo L. Rivera, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Valenzuela City, A.M. No. P-11-2920 September 19, 2012 In this case, there is absolutely no showing that Judge Sario was motivated by bad faith or ill motive in rendering the decision in Civil Case No. CEB27778. Thus, any error Judge Sario may have committed in dismissing Civil Case No. CEB-27778 may be corrected by filing an appeal of respondent’s decision before the Court of Appeals, not by instituting an administrative case against the respondent before this Court. Moreover, records show that Magdadaro did file an appeal before the Court of Appeals. Said appeal, is still pending before the appellate court. An administrative complaint against a judge cannot be pursued simultaneously with the judicial remedies accorded to parties aggrieved by his erroneous order or judgment. Administrative remedies are neither alternative nor cumulative to judicial review where such review is available to aggrieved parties and the same has not yet been resolved with finality. For until there is a final declaration by the appellate court that the challenged order or judgment is manifestly erroneous, there will be no basis to conclude whether respondent judge is administratively liable. Marcelino Magdadaro vs. Judge Bienvenido Saniel, Jr., A.M. NO. RTJ-122331, December 10, 2012

Page 11 of 14

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Legal 2015) Ethics Failure to decide a case within the reglementary period is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency warranting the imposition of administrative sanctions on the defaulting judge. - Re: Cases Submitted for Decision Before Hon. Teofilo D. Baluma, Former Judge, Branch 1, Regional Trial Court, Tagbilaran City, Bohol, A.M. No. RTJ132355, August 28, 2013 Sheriffs and their deputies are the frontline representatives of the justice system, and if, through their lack of care and diligence in the implementation of judicial writs, they lose the trust reposed on them, they inevitably diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary; As such, the Court will not tolerate or condone any conduct of judicial agents or employees which would tend to or actually diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary. - Office of the Court Administrator vs. Desiderio W. Macusi, Jr., Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Tabuk City, Kalinga, A.M. No. P-13-3105, September 11, 2013 When a sheriff takes advantage of an erroneous increase of his parcel of land which was unknown to the true owners by keeping silent on the error, securing a new title reflecting such increase and afterwards destroying the boundary and improvements of the rightful owners, he is guilty of dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the service, even if the act is not related to his official functions. As long as the questioned conduct tarnishes the image and integrity of his public office, the corresponding penalty may be meted on the erring public officer or employee. Heirs of Celestino Teves represented by Paul John Teves Abad Elsa C. Aquino and Felimon E. Fernan vs. Augusto J. Felicidario, Sheriff IV, Office of the Clerk Of Court, Regional Trial Court of Manila, A.M. No. P-12-3089, November 13, 2013

As clerk of Court and administrative assistant of the judge, one is tasked is tasked to keep a calendar of cases for pre-trial, trial, and those with motions to set for hearing and to give preference to habeas corpus cases, election cases, special civil actions, and those required by law. Here, the clerk of court showed carelessness and indifference in the performance of his duties. He cannot simply reason that “he had nothing to do with the resetting and the setting of the hearings.” That is an unacceptable excuse, especially in light of Section 1, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel which requires that “court personnel shall at all times perform official duties properly and diligently.” Furthermore, it is incumbent upon the clerk of court to regularly check not only the status of the cases but also the functions of the other court personnel and employees under his supervision. - Raul K. San Buenaventura vs. Timoteo A. Migrino, Clerk of Court III, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 69, Pasig City, A.M. No. P-08-2574, January 22, 2014

Page 12 of 14

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Legal 2015) Ethics OCA Circular No. 7-2003 clearly states that court personnel should indicate in their bundy cards the “truthful and accurate times” of their arrival at, and departure from, the office. Process Server’s entries in his DTRs for dates that had not yet come to pass were a clear violation of OCA Circular No. 7-2003. Furthermore, Section 4, Rule XVII (on Government Office Hours) of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws also provides that falsification or irregularities in the keeping of time records will render the guilty officer or employee administratively liable.

A judge who deliberately and continuously fails and refuses to comply with the resolution of the Supreme Court is guilty of gross misconduct and insubordination. Thus, when it took three directives and three years for a judge to submit his Comment on an administrative matter against him and another, and failure to offer any apology and/or explanation for his long delay in complying with the directives/orders of the OCA and this Court, said conduct constitutes no less than a clear act of defiance, revealing the judge’s deliberate disrespect and indifference to the authority of the Court. It is completely unacceptable especially for a judge. Office of the Court Administrator vs. Hon. Cader P. Indar, Al Haj, Presiding Judge and Abdulrahman D. Piang, Process Server, Branch 14, Both of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Cotabato City, A.M. No. RTJ-11-2287, January 22, 2014

This Court has always emphasized the need for judges to decide cases within the constitutionally prescribed 90-day period. Any delay in the administration of justice, no matter how brief, deprives the litigant of his right to a speedy disposition of his case. Not only does it magnify the cost of seeking justice, it undermines the people’s faith and confidence in the judiciary, lowers its standards, and brings it to disrepute. A member of the bench cannot pay mere lip service to the 90-day requirement; he/she should instead persevere in its implementation. Heavy caseload and demanding workload are not valid reasons to fall behind the mandatory period for disposition of cases. The Court usually allows reasonable extensions of time to decide cases in view of the heavy caseload of the trial courts. If a judge is unable to comply with the 90day reglementary period for deciding cases or matters, he/she can, for good reasons, ask for an extension and such request is generally granted. But Judge Bustamante did not ask for an extension in any of these cases. Having failed to decide a case within the required period, without any order of extension granted by the Court, Judge Bustamante is liable for undue delay that merits administrative sanction. In Office of the Court Administrator v. Garcia-Blanco, the Court held that the 90-day reglementary period is mandatory. Failure to decide cases within the reglementary period constitutes a ground for administrative liability except when there are valid reasons for the delay. - Office of Page 13 of 14

Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro Cases (2008- Legal 2015) Ethics the Court Administrator vs. Judge Borromeo Bustamante, A.M. NO. MTJ-121806, April 7, 2014 While it is true that respondent Sahi is merely human and may commit mistakes, there is simply no excuse for making the same mistakes repeatedly despite her superior constantly calling her attention to correct them. Granting that respondent Sahi was not good at using computers in the beginning, she should have taken steps to learn and hone her computer skills which were essential to her work. The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must always be beyond reproach and must be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. - Presiding Judge Juan Gabriel Hizon Alano, Mary Annabelle A. Katipunan, Suzee Wong Jamotillo, Analie Del Rio Balitung, Edwino Jayson Oliveros and Roberto Babaodono vs. Padma Latip Sahi, A.M. No. P-11-302, June 25, 2014, J. Leonardo-De Castro

Page 14 of 14