In Re Demetria AM No 00-7-09-CA 27 March 2001

Page

THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Administrative Powers – Supervision of Lower Courts Art 8 Sec 6 In Re: Demetria AM No 00-7-09-CA 27 March 2001

1 of 1 Facts: Court En Banc ordered an investigation of allegations that Court of Appeals Associate Justice Demetrio G. Demetria tried to intercede on behalf of suspected Chinese drug queen Yu Yuk Lai, alias Sze Yuk Lai, who went in and out of prison to play in a Manila casino. Respondent Justice Demetria, for his part, vehemently denied having interceded for Yu Yuk Lai. Justice Demetria acknowledged visiting DOJ and interacting with State Prosecutor regarding the case but claimed that was not a form of intervention. Respondent claimed that the “help” he was requesting could well be “within legal bounds or line of duty.”

Issue: Whether or not the respondent violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Decision: Respondent violated the Rule 2.04 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Men and women of the courts must conduct themselves with honor, probity, fairness, prudence and discretion. Magistrates of justice must always be fair and impartial. They should avoid not only acts of impropriety, but all appearances of impropriety. Their influence in society must be consciously and conscientiously exercised with utmost prudence and discretion. For, theirs is the assigned role of preserving the independence, impartiality and integrity of the Judiciary. The Code of Judicial Conduct mandates a judge to “refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another court or administrative agency.” The slightest form of interference cannot be countenanced. Once a judge uses his influence to derail or interfere in the regular course of a legal or judicial proceeding for the benefit of one or any of the parties therein, public confidence in the judicial system is diminished, if not totally eroded.

https://chanrac08.wordpress.com/2015/03/11/in-re-demetria-27-march-2001/

Fast facts Justice Demetrio G. Demetria was found guilty on March 27, 2001 of interceding in behalf of suspected drug queen Yu Yuk Lai, Demetria being in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Demetria, then an Associate Justice of the CA, was dismissed from service with prejudice to his appointment or reappointment to any government office, agency, or instrumentality, including GOCCs or institutions. All his benefits were ordered forfeited. Among other events, Demetria accompanied a certain Go Teng Kok and Atty. Reinerio Paas to the office of SP Formaran, the public prosecutor handling the Yu Yuk Lai case. Upon meeting Formaran, Go Teng Kok readily asked the prosecutor to withdraw his motion for inhibition, i.e. the unsigned letter of “concerned court employees,” was “not strong”. Formaran declined the request and simply said that he would bring the matter to CSP Jovencito Zuño, with Demetria commenting, “Iyon pala.” Demetria then called Zuño and requested the CSP to order Formaran to withdraw the MFI. Resolution The evidence is clear, if not overwhelming and damning” that respondent did intercede for suspected Chinese drug queen Yu Yuk Lai. The decision to dismiss Demetria, as promulgated by the retired SC Justice Griño-Aquino. Absent any showing of bias, partiality, flaw or grave abuse of discretion, we shall not disturb the findings of the respected Justice. Personal Note

IN RE DEMETRIA AM NO 00-7-09-CA MARCH 27, 2001

THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Administrative Powers – Supervision of Lower Courts Art 8 Sec 6 Did not find a discussion within the case of the exact Constitutional provision that relates to the “Supervision of lower Page courts” which this case is supposed to be illustrative of. I would suppose, though, that it is about Article 8, Section 11, where it is mentioned that the SC has the power to dismiss the judges of the lower courts. 2 of 1

IN RE DEMETRIA AM NO 00-7-09-CA MARCH 27, 2001