Gochan vs.

Gochan
Facts: Petitioners fled for a motion for inhibition on the grounds of partiality, pre-
judgment and gross ignorance of the law regarding the judges acts regarding !ivil
!ase "o. !#$-%&'(). *n the motion, the petitioners argued that the respondent
judge denied their +otion to ,ear -.rmative /efenses and instead proceeded to
the pretrial, the admission of the e0hibits without indicating the complaining partys
objections, declaring that there is an absence of possibility of a compromise despite
the partys raising its possibility, the denial for re1uests for postponement and the
forced cross-e0amination of witnesses and the denial of the motion for inhibition.
*ssue: 23" 4udge /icdican should be inhibited from hearing the !ivil !ase on the
ground of bias and prejudice.
5uling: 6ection & of 5ule &78 of the 5ules of !ourt 9paragraph 1 of which Rule 3.12
of the CJC was based and later adopted by Section 5 of Canon 3 of the New Code:
contemplated two ;inds of inhibition. <he compulsory inhibition 9paragraph &: and
voluntary inhibition 9paragraph %:.
"othing in those allegations that the respondent 4udge indeed acted with bias or
partiality against the parties. For as long as opinions formed in the course of judicial
proceedings are based on the evidence presented and the conduct observed by the
judge, such opinion = even if later found to be erroneous on appeal or made with
grave abuse of discretion on certiorari = will not necessarily prove personal bias or
prejudice on the part of the judge.
5e1uest of 4udge $atingana
Facts: 4udge $atingana had re1uested for an e0tension of time 9fourth and ffth: to
decide !ivil !ase %>)? but was denied by the 3!- for the frst three re1uests for the
e0tension of the decision of that case was not received by the o.ce. @ater, 3!-
found out that the same case was decided only on &A 3ctober %>>? or more than a
year later from the ( 6eptember %>>' date where the case was due for resolution
by the 5espondent 4udge.
*ssue: 23" the respondent 4udge violated the "ew !ode of 4udicial !onduct
5uling: Bes. Granting that the re1uest of &'> days was granted, the respondent
4udge would still be seven month delayed.
<he "ew !ode of 4udicial !onduct, particularly 6ection (, !anon A re1uires judges to
Cperform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, e.ciently,
fairly and with reasonable promptness. <he failure for the 4udge to do so was in
contravention with the !onstitution which mandates that cases are to be decided
within ?> days.
6y vs. /inopol
Facts: 4udge /inopol presided over a case against +etroban; for !ivil !ase &)>7-%)
between the 6ys and +etroban;. 3n &A -pril %>>), the respondent 4udge inhibited
himself from further acting on the case in order to avoid being charged with
partiality after ran;ing o.cials from the Philippine 4udicial -cademy and 3!-
interceded in behalf of the opposing parties.
- year later, a +isc. case related to the earlier case involving almost the same
parties was fled and raDed to the same respondent 4udge. <herein, he granted the
petition and issued the writ of possession in %>>A. ,owever, the writ was not
satisfed due to an earlier stay order of +arawi !ity 5<! $ranch '.
!onse1uently, the respondents in the +isc. case fled a motion to suspend
#thics /igests !ompilation & of &'
proceedings due to the issuance of the stay order, and a motion to inhibit on the
grounds of partiality and bias. 4udge /inopol denied the motions and re-
implemented the writ of e0ecution.
*t was also found out that the 4udge as;ed from petitioner Eictoriano 6y commodity
loans in the form of construction materials to be used for the construction of the
judges house as well as cash loans made on several occasions.
<hus, 6y fled the present administrative case for gross ignorance of the law in
relation to proceeding with the implementation of the writ despite the stay order
and conduct unbecoming of a judge for the loans ac1uired.
*ssue: 23" 4udge /inopol is guilty of gross ignorance of the law and conduct
unbecoming of the judiciary
5uling: 4udge /inopol is not guilty from gross ignorance of the law. ,owever, the
same cannot be said for the other charge. -lthough 4udge /inopol pleaded
innocence about the loans, he has still committed serious impropriety in
contravention with 6ections % and 7 of !anon 7 of the "ew !ode of 4udicial !onduct.
-ngeles vs. /iy
Facts: <his is an administrative complaint for disbarment and dismissal from
judiciary service fled by complainant 4udge -ngeles against respondent 4udge
6empio /iy, Presiding 4udge of the 5<! FueGon !ity, which stemmed from
consolidated !riminal !ases.
4udge -ngeles contends that the 4oint /ecision in the subject criminal cases was
rendered way beyond the ?>-day period prescribed by the !onstitution. *n addition,
complainant 4udge -ngeles raises another instance where respondent 4udge
6empio-/iy is supposed to have incurred unjustifable delay. $y failing to
decideHresolve the subject cases and the Irgent +otion for 5econsideration within
the period mandated by law and jurisprudence, given her seasonably-fled three
re1uests for e0tension of time, as well as in falsifying o.cial documents,
complainant 4udge -ngeles asserts that respondent 4udge 6empio /iy violated the
pertinent provisions of the !onstitution, "ew !ode of 4udicial !onduct, !ode of
4udicial #thics, !ode of Professional 5esponsibility, and the !ode of !onduct and
#thical 6tandards for Public 3.cials. !omplainant urges the 3.ce of the !ourt
-dministrator 93!-: to e0amine the numerous violations allegedly committed by the
respondent and to ma;e an assessment if, indeed, she is still worthy to wear the
judicial robe or, if her continued presence on the bench would unduly tarnish the
image of the judiciary.
*n her !omment, respondent 4udge 6empio /iy denies the material allegations in
the complaint. 6iempo /iy counters that she decided the subject cases in due time
and within the e0tended period granted by the 6upreme !ourt. 6he maintains that
the orders resetting the promulgation of judgment were issued in good faith and in
the interest of full transparency, pursuant to her re1uest to decide the subject cases
e0peditiously. 6he claims that complainants charges are harsh, rash and baseless,
calculated merely to harass and Cdestroy the reputation of a younger sister in the
profession.J
*ssue: 2hether or not 5espondent 4udge committed undue delay.
5uling: B#6. 5espondent indeed gave the defense &> days to submit its reply to the
prosecutionKs comment on the motion for reconsideration and thereafter, she would
#thics /igests !ompilation % of &'
resolve all pending incidents on said consolidated cases. <he reglementary period to
resolve the motion in 1uestion began to run from Feb ', %>>? or after the lapse of
&> days from 4an %?, %>>?. 5espondent, however, did not act on the matter and
allowed a hiatus in the consolidated criminal cases. - judge cannot choose to
prolong the period for resolving pending incidents and deciding cases beyond the
period authoriGed by law. @et it be underscored that it is the sworn duty of judges to
administer justice without undue delay. Inder the time-honored precept that justice
delayed is justice denied. 4udges should act with dispatch in resolving pending
incidents so as not to frustrate and delay the satisfaction of a judgment.
-lfonso vs. -lfonso - @egasto
Facts: 6everal employees of the city government were appointed and assigned at
the 3.ce of the !ler; of !ourt 9+<!-F!: to assist the organic staL of the judiciary.
,owever, the e0ecutive judge, in view of a reorganiGation plan, returned those
employees to diLerent o.ces of the government saying that the court is already
overstaLed. <hus, re1uested the mayor to re-employ the laid odd employees.
*ssue: 23" the judge can order the return of said employees.
5uling: "o.
-n e0ecutive 4udge has no authority to cause the transfer of court employees as the
jurisdiction is lodge solely upon the 6upreme !ourt through the o.ce of the court
administration. <his is so because of the need to maintain judicial independence.
+oreover, a judge shall be free from inappropriate connections with the and from
the e0ecutive branch. ,ere, the judge didnt act independently of the @ocal
Government Init when she as;ed the mayor to re-employ the laid oL employees
instead of informing the 6upreme !ourt through the 3!- of the need to streamline
her court of its personnel needs.
$agatsing vs. ,errera
Facts: Pulido was appointed by Eillegas as chief deputy sheriL and chief of division
of the sheriLKs o.ce in +anila. Eillegas later promoted Pulido to e0ecutive sheriL
and court liason o.cer. 2hen $agatsing succeeded Eillegas as mayor, admin
chargers were fled against Pulido which prompted the former to suspend the Pulido.
3n Pulidos application for reinstatementM the lower court as;s that Pulido be
reinstated and restrained the admin investigation. "ow, $agtasing 1uestions if
whether the judge acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac; of
jurisdiction in its resolution and whether Pulido is an employee of the court or of the
e0ecutive government.
*ssue: 23" the judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac; of
jurisdiction in granting the order
5uling: B#6.
4udicial independence is the reason for leaving e0clusively to the courts the
authority to deal with internal personnel issues, even if the court employee in
1uestion is funded by the local government. $ecause a reasonable person could
conclude that @ocal Government Init maintained some inNuenced over the +<!
4udge, under the new code of 4udicial !onduct, respondent judges actions created
an improper connection with an e0ecutive admin body = the @ocal Government Init.
<he reality in the Philippine political system is that judges can easily get an
appointment or promotion with some assistance or support from political leaders,
religious groups, military stalwarts, big companies and the aDuent. <he most
pervasive inNuence comes from leaders in the legislature and those closely allied
with the e0ecutive department. For instance, most members of the bench have
#thics /igests !ompilation 7 of &'
received appointments through the grace of past and present political leaders of
this country. *t is natural to suppose that considerations of fealty and utang-na-loob
would compel the judge to consider such factors when rendering his or her decision.
,owever, acting upon such considerations violate this code.
-rban vs. $orja
Facts: &. Ponciano -. -rban, the then /istrict #ngineer for !amarines 6ur, +inistry of
Public 2or;s O ,ighways, fled the instant admin. for grave misconduct against
4udge +elecio $. $orja, alleging that:
P 5espondent fred his gun in the balcony of the apartment he is lodging in, and
without any justifcation whatever, respondent pistol-whipped the -rban on the left
side of his head, sending him sprawling to the Noor and rendering him momentarily
unconscious and 5espondent also threatened with his said gun -rbans companions.
%. *n his -nswer, 4udge $orja denied the charge against him. $orja moved for the
resetting of the case wHc was granted. @ater, -rban fled a +otion to2ithdraw the
Petition, stating that the Cfling of the petition was caused by a misunderstanding by
the petitioner of the motives of the respondentJ O thatCafter the public apology by
the respondent, the petitioner believes that the scandal caused on the public by the
act of the respondent has been duly appeased.J
7. /espite the withdrawal of the complainant, the 6! undertoo; presentaction, even
before #ngr. -rban fled the present petition considering our responsibility to
discipline erring members of the bench and bar and topreserve the integrity of the
judiciary.
*ssue: 23" $orja should be penaliGed for his pistol whipping -rban
5uling: Bes.
4udge $orja violated 6ec. 7, !annon of 4udicial #thics: Q- judgeKs o.cial conduct
should be free from appearance of impropriety, O his personal behavior not only
upon the bench O in the performance of judicial duties, but also in his everyday life,
should be beyond reproach.Q
Q<he judge is the visible representation of the law and, more importantly, of
justiceR<hus, for the judge to return that regard, he must be the frst to abide by
the law and weave an e0ample for the others to follow. ,e should be studiously
careful to avoid even the slightest infraction of the law.Q
,olding:
$orja found guilty of grave misconduct, hereby ordered /*6+*66#/ from the service,
wH forfeiture of retirement benefts O with prejudice to reinstatement in any branch
of the govt or any of its agencies or instrumentalities. ,owever, he shall be paid
any bac; salaries or accrued leaves which are due to him as of this date
5ural $an; of $arota; "uevo vs. !artagena
Facts: 5ural $an; of $arotac "uevo, *nc. charged 4udge 6ergio !artagena of
/umangas, *loilo with dishonesty and irresponsibility for failure, despite repeated
demands, to ma;e good his promise to pay within the stipulated period, the
agricultural loan 9secured by a chattel mortgage for ?> piculs of sugar 1uedan:
granted in his favor by the $an;. -s a defense, the respondent judge forwarded to
the !ourt the 35 showing full payment of the loan and manifested that Qthe delay in
settling his obligation with the $an; was not intentional but rather predicated on the
resolution of the previous understanding between him and the previous manager of
the $an;.
*ssue: 2hether or not the 4udge violated the !4!
5uling: YES. /espite the -dmin !omplaint becoming moot and academic, the 4udge
must be admonished against a repetition of the same act for, being an incumbent
#thics /igests !ompilation ) of &'
member of the 4udiciary he is e0pected to be a model of uprightness, fairness and
honesty not only in all his o.cial conduct but also in his personal actuations,
including business and commercial transactions.
FernandeG vs. ,amoy
Facts: *n an administrative complaint, 4udge 4aime <. ,amoy was charged with -buse
of -uthority, /ereliction of /uty and Eiolation of 5ule 7.>( of the !ode of 4udicial
!onduct. <he complainant 4ose e. FernandeG is the counsel for the plaintiLs in civil
cases in Samboanga, which were both being presided by respondent 4udge. /espite
the lapse of more than ten years, respondent 4udge failed to render judgment in the
said cases. -fter respondent 4udge was transferred to the 5<! of !aloocan !ity,
complainant learned that he brought the records of the subject cases to his new
station. <hus complainant wrote a letter to the !ourt -dministrator see;ing help in
the speedy disposition of his clients cases. <he -dministrator referred the letter to
respondent 4udge for comment or appropriate action but nothing was heard from
the respondent despite repeated follow-ups. #ventually, the !ourt -dministrator
rendered a 5esolution re1uiring respondent 4udge to show cause why he should not
be held in contempt for his failure to fle commentM and to submit the said comment
within ten days from notice.
5espondent 4udge fnally fled an #0planationH!ompliance, alleging that he simply
forgot to submit his commentM that he misplaced the records the !ivil !asesM that
his Itility -ide in !aloocan !ity mi0ed up the records of the said cases with the
records of cases assigned to the !aloocan courtM that the missing case records were
found only when the old records were transferred to the newly-ac1uired
storageHfling cabinetsM that he was unable to act on the cases notwithstanding the
discovery of the records because he had to attend to the many family-related cases,
being then the only designated Family !ourtM that his doc;et became more
congested when the other courts forwarded to his sala cases falling under the
jurisdiction of the Family !ourtM and that he had no intention of disregarding the
directives of the !ourt -dministrator or of this !ourt
*ssue: 23" the judge is guilty of the charges fled against him.
5uling: YES. 5espondent 4udge cannot be absolved from liability for the ine.ciency
of his court personnel as he is ultimately responsible for ensuring that court
personnel perform their tas;s and that the parties are promptly notifed of his orders
and decisions.4udges are charged with the administrative responsibility of organiGing
and supervising his court personnel to secure the prompt and e.cient dispatch of
business, re1uiring at all times the observance of high standards of public service
and fdelity.
*n addition, he is also guilty of violating !anon &, 5ule &.>%: - judge should
administer justice impartially and without delay. +embers of the judiciary have the
sworn duty to administer justice without undue delay. - judge who failed to do so
has to suLer the conse1uences of his omission. -ny delay in the disposition of cases
undermines the peoples faith in the judiciary.
Further it was shown that despite failure to decide cases, he still collected his
salary upon a false certifcate is guilty of dishonesty amounting to gross misconduct
and deserves the condemnation of all right thin;ing men. *n view of the primordial
role of judges in the administration of justice, only those with irreproachable
integrity and probity must be entrusted with judicial powers.
<herefore due to a previous admonition of the court and the gravity of his oLenses,
4udge ,amoy was thus dismissed from service.
@achica vs. FlordeliGa
#thics /igests !ompilation ( of &'
Facts: 3ne day, /r. -mparo @achica, the +unicipal ,ealth 3.cer of 4ose -bad
6antos, /avao del 6ur, was approached by /ina +asaglang and "orma 5uton, who
were as;ing /r. @achica to sign a death certifcate. /r. @achica refused to sign
saying that the attending physician in Gen. 6antos should be the one to sign. @ater
in the day, /r. @achica met the two again and the two told her that 4udge 5olando
FlordeliGa, +<! judge, was ordering her to sign the death certifcate. /r. @achica
again refused.@ater in the evening, at the +unicipal #mployees "ight Party, 4udge
FlordeliGa, who was drun;, as;ed /r. @achica to sit beside him. 4udge FlordeliGa then
said to /r. @achica, in an angry manner, C$a;it hindi mo pinirmahan and death
certifcateTJ /r. @achica then tried to e0plain but to no avail, this is when 4udge
FlordeliGa threatened to bring an administrative complaint against /r. @achica.
*ssue: 23" 4udge FlordeliGa should be penaliGed
5uling: YES . 4udge FlordeliGa is fned &>,>>>. <he 6! was convinced that the charge
of misconduct against the respondent judge was established by substantial
evidence. /r. @achica presented the testimony of certain witnesses confrming that
4udge FlordeliGa was indeed drin;ing that night. <here was also testimony
debun;ing 4udge FlordeliGas e0cuse that he could not have acted in such a manner
because the mayor was sitting with them 9the testimony proved that the mayor was
not with them:. <he !ourt believed that 4udge FlordeliGa did threaten /r. @achica in
order to coerce the latter to sign the death certifcate. -lso, his inebriated demeanor
and incoherent behavior during the festivities, as attested to by a witness, is
reprehensible in a judge. -llowing himself to get into0icated is not the conduct
e0pected of a judge.
/imo 5ealty vs. /imaculangan
Facts: ,erein respondent fled with the courts a complaint for specifc performance
against petitioner 9/imo 5ealty O /evelopment, *nc:. !omplaint alleges that
petitioners engaged his services for geodetic survey to subdivide petitioners
subdivision, and as such, for services rendered, petitioner would pay respondent
Php?,%>> in installments and one9&: specifc subdivision lot 9@ot &?, $loc; &8 with
<!< <-%(?8(:. Petitioners paid respondent the Php ?,%>>.00, however the said
specifc subdivision lot title was not given by the former without any valid reasons
whatsoever, even if the latter has been ma;ing verbal demands every now and
then. -s the trial ensued, the judge who heard this case dismissed the said
complaint for improper venue. 5espondent immediately fled a motion for
reconsideration with a motion for *",*$*<*3".
<rial court granted respondents motion for *",*$*<*3", hence the case was re-
raDed to another branch 5<! of F!. *n this court, respondents motion for
reconsideration was also granted. <rial continued with petitioners fling for
complaints for unlawful detainer which prompted respondent to fle for a <53 and a
writ for preliminary injunction against the petitioner. Petitioner li;ewise fled a
motion to lift the <53 and the injunction and also fled a motion for *",*$*<*3". <rial
went up to the !ourt of appeals as well as to the 6upreme !ourt.
*ssue: 2hether the judges in these hearings committed grave abuse of discretion in
hearing the cases which prompted the parties to fle for several inhibitions
5uling: 6! ruled this way. 6u.ce it to state that whether judges should inhibit
themselves from a case rests on their own Qsound discretion.Q 3therwise stated,
inhibition parta;es of voluntariness on the part of the judges themselves. <his !ourt
has to be shown acts or conduct of the judge clearly indicative of arbitrariness or
#thics /igests !ompilation A of &'
prejudice before the latter can be branded the stigma of being biased or partial. *n a
catena of cases, we held that Cbias and prejudice, to be considered valid reasons for
the voluntary inhibition of judges, must be proved with clear and convincing
evidence.
$are allegations of partiality and prejudgment will not su.ce. <hese cannot be
presumed, especially if weighed against the sacred obligation of judges whose oaths
of o.ce re1uire them to administer justice without respect to person and to do
e1ual right to the poor and the rich.
,ere, petitioners merely alleged the arbitrary issuance of a temporary restraining
order without however showing bias or prejudice on the part of the trial judge. *n
fact, the !ourt of -ppeals held that Csuch error of the respondent judge does not
necessarily warrant his inhibition in the case.J
Pimentel vs. 6alonga
Facts: ,erein petitioner, a practicing attorney and a counsel of record for various
cases pending before this respondent judge. Petitioner argues that respondent
judge should inhibit himself from hearing the cases he is holding because
apparently, petitioners misgivings stem from the fact that he is a complainant in
various administrative case he himself lodged against the respondent judge. <hat
respondent judge has committed serious misconduct, ine.ciency in o.ce, ignorant
of the law as well as incompetent. Petitioner now wants that respondent judge
dis1ualify himself from sitting in the cases he is holding and prays that these cases
will be transferred to another sala.
*ssue: 2hether respondent judge should inhibit himself from said cases
5uling: "o. #ven under 6ec &, 5ule &78 of the rules of court, a judge cannot be
dis1ualifed by a litigant or his lawyer for grounds other than those specifed in the
frst paragraph of this rule. $etter stated yet, when a judge does not inhibit himself,
and he is not legally dis1ualifed by the frst paragraph of 6ection &, 5ule &78, the
rule remains as it has been U he has to continue with the case.
<his is not to say that all avenues of relief are closed to a party properly aggrieved.
*f a litigant is denied a fair and impartial trial, induced by the judgeKs bias or
prejudice, we will not hesitate to order a new trial, if necessary, in the interest of
justice
Prejudice is not to be presumed. #specially if weighed against a judgeKs legal
obligation under his oath to administer justice Qwithout respect to person and do
e1ual right to the poor and the rich. <o dis1ualify or not to dis1ualify himself then, as
far as respondent judge is concerned, is a matter of conscience.
<herefore, the !ourt is persuaded to say that since respondent judge is not legally
under obligation to dis1ualify himself, we may not, on certiorari or prohibition,
prevent him from sitting, trying and rendering judgment in the cases herein
mentioned.
<y vs. $anco Filipino
Facts: <his was already given in the previous batch of cases
*ssue:
5uling:
Vaw vs. 3sorio
Facts: Vaw fled a complaint for violation of 5ule (.>), !anon ( of the !ode of
4udicial !onduct against 4udge 3sorio. Vaw, during one of the trials for estafa, was
approached by one of the prosecutors, who served as a messenger for the
5espondent. <he judges emissary told George Vaw that a favorable decision in all
cases would cost P&>>,>>>.>>, P)>,>>>.>> of which was to be paid immediately and
#thics /igests !ompilation 8 of &'
the balance of PA>,>>>.>> to be handed over upon promulgation of the judgment in
all cases.
*ssue:
5uling: 5espondent judges conduct fell short of the standard e0pected of a
magistrate of the law. ,is act of inviting complainant and his wife to his birthday
party corroded public confdence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,
considering that complainant had a pending case in his sala. - judge is not only
re1uired to be impartialM he must also appear to be impartial. FraterniGing with
litigants tarnishes this image.
5espondent judge li;ewise openly transgressed 5ule (.>), !anon ( of the !ode of
4udicial !onduct: a judge or any immediate member of the family shall not accept a
gift, be1uest, favor or loan from anyone e0cept as may be allowed by law. @i;ewise,
the !anons of 4udicial #thics e0pressly provides that a judge should not accept any
present or favors from litigants or from lawyers practicing before him.
Parayno vs. +eneses
Facts: F: <his petition for certiorari see;s to set aside the orders, dated %% 3ctober
&??7 & and &A "ovember &??7, % of respondent 4udge *luminado +eneses of $ranch
)?, 5egional <rial !ourt, of Irdaneta, Pangasinan, voluntarily inhibiting himself from
hearing the election cases and denying petitionersK motion for the reconsideration
thereof.
<he mayoralty protest involving Parayno, was originally raDed and assigned by
4udge +anuel Eillanueva. <he councilorsK protest involving the other petitioners, was
assigned respondent 4udge *luminado +eneses.
3n %% 3ctober &??%, a motion for the inhibition of 4udge Eillanueva was fled by
petitioner Parayno, which the court promptly granted. <he case was thereupon re-
raDed to $ranch )?, where the councilorsK protests were then pending. <he
!ommittee on 5evision in !ase "o. I-(7)A 9the mayoralty protest: terminated its
wor; on >8 3ctober &??7 but prior to the submission of its report, a Q+otion to Ise
5evision !ommittee 5eport $lan; FormQ was fled by protestant @orenGo +ateo
9herein private respondent:. *n the afternoon of %& 3ctober &??7, while the revision
of ballots in !ase "o. I-(7)8 9councilorsK protest: was in progress, private
respondent +ateo, the 5evisor for the protestants-councilors in the 5evision
!ommittee, manifested: 7
. . . * would li;e also to ma;e of record that the <rial Presiding 4udge of $ranch )? is
the same <rial 4udge of this #lectoral Protest !ase I-(7)A, Parayno versus +ateo
9sic: and therefore the Protestant loo; at it that there seems to be a certain degree
of greater sympathy of the <rial Presiding 4udge to the Protestee. . . . 9Eerceles
<ranscript of 6tenographic "otes, !ivil !ase "o. I-(7)8, revision of $allots on
3ctober %&, &??7, &:)( p.m., pp. A-8:
<he following day, respondent judge issued the assailed order inhibiting himself
from further hearing the two cases. <he motion for a reconsideration of the order
was denied by the judge.
*ssue:
5uling: ,: Petition granted. +otion for inhibition to set aside. 2e ta;e note that the
electoral protests here involved have remained unresolved for 1uite some time now.
-ny further delay in the disposition of the cases, particularly election protests where
public interest is heavily involved, cannot be countenanced.
+artineG vs. Giorenella
Facts: F: *n !riminal !ase "o. %& of the !ourt of First *nstance of -bra, $ranch **,
!resencio +artineG, as principal, and Eiernes /uclan and -rnold $ayongan, as
#thics /igests !ompilation ' of &'
accessories after the fact, were charged with the murder of one -lfredo $atoon. -s
the frst two were not apprehended, trial proceeded with respect to the third, -rnold
$ayongan. <hereafter, decision was rendered, the pertinent and dispositive portions
of which are as follows U
000 000 000
*t is worthy to state, however, that the oLense of murder was clearly
established and was committed by !resencio +artineG, from the evidence on
record, there is no showing that -rnold $ayongan is an accessory after the fact.
<he evidence as a whole, however, tends to allude Gregorio $anawa, the then
incumbent +ayor of 6allapadan to have ;nowledge of the perpetrator and
commission of the crime but did not ta;e any action. *t is further informed that
Gregorio $anawa to date is hiding the principal accused !resencio +artineG.
*n view of the foregoing consideration, the !ourt hereby dismisses the charge
against -rnold $ayongan and is therefore ordered -!FI*<<#/.
<he Provincial Fiscal is hereby directed to investigate this case further to avoid
miscarriage of justice and the possibility of including Gregorio $anawa and for
the prompt apprehension of the principal accused !resencio +artineG. 9pp. &>-
&&, rollo:.
000 000 000
6ubse1uent to the ac1uittal of -rnold $ayongan, !resencio +artineG surrendered to
the Philippine !onstabulary and later was arraigned before $ranch ** of the same
!ourt of First instance. -fter having pleaded Qnot guiltyQ to the charge, and before
the prosecution started to present its evidence, counsel for accused !resencio
+artineG moved that the trial 4udge inhibit himself from hearing the case on its
merits on the grounds Q9&: that the respondent had the chance to pass upon the
issue and has formed an opinion as to who committed the crime of murderM 9%: that
it would not be fair that he would sit, hear and pass judgmentM and 97: that the
respondent is no longer impartial,Q and prayed that the case be transferred to
$ranch * of the same !ourt.
5espondent denied the oral motion. Petitioner did not move for a reconsideration of
the denial of the motion so the trial proceeded. 2hen the trial was already in the
rebuttal stage for the government, this Petition for Prohibition was fled. *n his
petition, !resencio +artineG as;s for a writ of prohibition commanding respondent
4udge to desist from hearing and deciding !riminal !ase "o. %& of the !ourt of First
*nstance of -braM declaring the hearing heretofore had as a mistrialM and ordering
that said criminal case be heard anew by the presiding 4udge of $ranch * of the said
!ourt or any other !ourt within the 4udicial /istrict.
3n being re1uired to comment, the 6olicitor General did so, and, citing the cases of
/ais vs. <orres, et al., (8 Phil. '?8, ?>7M @u1ue vs. Vayanan, %? 6!5- &A(M and
Geotina vs. GonGales, )& 6!5- AA, opined Qthat it would be in the best interest of
justice and in ;eeping with the clear intendment and pronouncements of the
,onorable !ourt that the case should be tried anew by another judge and that the
respondent 4udge should desist from further ta;ing cogniGance of the case.Q
3n the other hand, respondent 4udge maintains that the trial was fair, impartial and
liberal to the herein accused-petitioner as can be gleaned from the records of
!riminal !ase "o. %&. 5espondent e0plains that the statement that the Qcrime was
committed by !resencio +artineGQ appearing in the decision ac1uitting -rnold
$ayongan after a separate trial Qwas based merely on the prosecution evidence
where petitioner was not on trial, therefore did not confront witnesses, did not
submit his defense evidence and surely will not in any way aLect or apply to him.
#thics /igests !ompilation ? of &'
<he decision to be rendered shall be based upon the evidence adduced and
submitted by both parties.Q
*ssue: <wo issues are presented before us U frst, whether or not to order a new trial
for petitionerM and second, whether or not respondent judge should be allowed to
decide petitionerKs case.
5uling: *t cannot be denied that elementary due process re1uires that a case be
heard by a tribunal that is impartial and disinterested. -nd if an accused has been
the victim of an unfair and partial trial, this court will certainly not hesitate to order
a new trial in the interest of justice. & *n as;ing that the case be tried by another
4udge, petitioner alleges in general that respondent should not be impartial as
contemplated in the "ew !onstitution. "o specifc resolution, order, or ruling of
respondent is cited in particular as one of partiality. *t should be noted that after
petitioner was arraigned and pleaded not guilty, and after respondent had denied
petitionerKs motion for the former to inhibit himself from trying the case, petitioner
did not move for a reconsideration of the denial of the motion. *nstead the trial
proceeded. Petitioner too; no further action towards the dis1ualifcation of
respondent until the trial was already in the rebuttal stage for the government at
which time the present Petition for Prohibition was fled. <he only conclusion we can
draw from these circumstances is that the trial was fair and impartial. 2e are,
therefore, not inclined to order a new trial for petitioner.
-s to the second issue: - 4udge has the duty not only to render a just and impartial
decision, but also render it in such a manner as to be free from any suspicion as to
its fairness and impartiality, and also as to the judgeKs integrity. % 2hile we grant
respondentKs capacity to render a just and impartial decision, his statement in the
decision ac1uitting -rnold $ayongan to the eLect that the Qcrime was committed by
!resencio +artineGQ renders it impossible for respondent to be free from the
suspicion that in deciding petitionerKs case, respondent will be biased and
prejudiced. 2e therefore hold that under these circumstances petitioner has the
right to have his case decided by another 4udge.
-paricio vs. -ndal
Facts: Pictured by -lman. 6ira raw ang laptop.
*ssue:
5uling:
6andoval vs. !-
Facts: Pictured by -lman. 6ira raw ang laptop.
*ssue:
5uling:
!arual vs. $rusola
Facts: Pictured by -lman. 6ira raw ang laptop.
*ssue:
5uling:
/ulay vs. @elina
Facts: <he case stems from the letter-complaint fled by 3nofre G. /ulay with the
3!- dated 4uly &&, &??'. 3nofres charges against respondent judge can be
summed up as follows:
&: 5espondent judge arbitrarily cited him, his mother Eictoria Gacote /ulay, and
his aunt, +arita G. 5osal, for indirect contempt in a civil case no longer
pending in respondent judges salaM
#thics /igests !ompilation &> of &'
%: !orollary to the frst charge, 3nofres mother and aunt were each meted fnes
of P&(,>>>.>> and imprisonment of 7 months while 3nofre was meted a fne
of P7>,>>>.>> and imprisonment of A monthsM
7: *n !riminal !ase "o. &7?( fled against 3nofre for Grave <hreats, respondent
judge arbitrarily increased his bail from P(>,>>>.>> to P%>>,>>>.>> and
immediately issued a warrant for his arrestM
): 5espondent judge showed bias in resolving the matters submitted to him in
!ivil !ase "o. ))(M
(: 5espondent judge ordered 3nofre to give him &A> s1uare meters of a home
lot in !abarroguis, Fuirino which respondent directed to be registered in the
name of one -gnes +arianoM and
A: 5espondent judge prepared the pleadings fled in court by 3nofres
opponents in behalf of the latters counsel, -tty. $eltejar.
*ssue: 2hether or not the respondent judge committed acts of impropriety.
5uling: <he !ourt ruled that although the investigation revealed that most of the
allegations were based on misrepresentation of facts by 3nofre, su.cient evidence
however e0ists which shows that respondent judge was guilty of gross misconduct.
5espondent judge failed to live up to these standards. /espite ;nowledge of 3nofre
and +arianos intentions in oLering the business to his daughters, respondent judge
allowed his daughters to accept the oLer of business partnership with persons who
have pending cases in his court. 5espondent judge is guilty of gross misconduct
constituting violations of the !ode of 4udicial !onduct for which he is
administratively liable. 5espondent 4udge #lias 3. @elina, 4r., Presiding 4udge,
5egional <rial !ourt of !abarroguis, Fuirino, $ranch 7&, is found GI*@<B of gross
misconduct and is hereby 6I6P#"/#/ from o.ce for si0 9A: months without salary
and other benefts. ,e is 2-5"#/ that the commission of the same or similar
infractions in the future will merit a more severe penalty.
People vs. 3rtilles
Facts: +arlon 3rtillas was convicted of the crime of murder by 4udge Florentino
-lumbres of $ranch %(( of @as Pinas. <he accused was then only &A years old. 2hen
accused appealed before the 6upreme !ourt, he points out that his counsel, -tty.
4ose de @eon, raised the minority of appellant and invo;ed the provisions of P./. "o.
A>7 during the initial hearing conducted but 4udge -lumbres outrightly denied his
re1uest. -tty. <he records further disclose that he li;ewise ignored the letter of
/irector +ilda 6. -lvior of the /epartment of 6ocial 2elfare and /evelopment
9/62/: fled with his court informing him that appellant at that time was only &A
years old and alleging that his prolonged stay in the @as PiWas 4ail for one year and
one month at the time, mi0ed with hundred criminals aLected him physically,
intellectually, emotionally and socially.
*ssue: 2hether or not the 4udge was remiss of his duty to ascertain the minority of
the accused.
5uling: <he !ourt ruled that indeed there is merit to the complaint of appellant
+arlon 3rtillas. 4udge -lumbres was remiss of his duty to ascertain the minority of
appellant at the onset of the proceedings. <he Presiding 4udge should be sanctioned
for his negligence in the performance of his duties with respect to accused minor -
but these particular omissions are not su.cient grounds to merit the reversal of the
assailed decision.
@acurom vs. +agbanwa
Facts: <he instant case stemmed from a complaint fled by complainant 4udge
Ibaldino @acurom, Presiding 4udge of $ranch %? of the 5<! in !abanatuan !ity,
#thics /igests !ompilation && of &'
against respondent +anuel 4. +agbanua, !ourt -ide of the said branch. !omplainant
4udge @acurom charged respondent with dishonesty on the grounds that on A, 8 and
' of 4anuary &???, respondent was absentM yet he later registered his name in the
attendance boo; as present on those datesM and although respondent would leave
the o.ce at 7:>> p.m. on Fridays, he would write in the logboo; and daily time
record 9/<5: (:>> p.m. as the time of his departure. 4udge @acurom further alleged
that respondent had been laGy for a very long time and had reformed only
recently. Finally, 4udge @acurom asserted that he had totally lost confdence in the
respondent.
*ssue: 2hether or not respondent committed acts of dishonesty.
5uling: <he !ourt ruled that respondent is guilty of gross dishonesty and falsifcation
of public documents and hence, *t is clear to us that respondent made it appear in
his /<5s that on Fridays he was present at his wor;station up to (:>> p.m., when
the truth was otherwise. !omplainant 4udge, upon notice and ;nowledge of the
transgressions of respondent, should have called the attention of the respondent
and ta;en appropriate disciplinary action. *nstead of doing so, he, as well as the
!ler; of !ourt, tolerated respondents dishonesty and improper conduct despite
their ;nowledge thereof. !omplainant 4udge has an e0plicit duty, provided in !anon
7, 5ule 7.&> of the !ode of 4udicial !onduct. - judge should ta;e or initiate
appropriate disciplinary measures against lawyers or court personnel for
unprofessional conduct of which the judge may have become aware. <he
respondent, !ourt -ide, 5egional <rial !ourt in !abanatuan !ity, is hereby
/*6+*66#/ from the service for gross dishonesty and falsifcation of o.cial
documents, with forfeiture of all benefts e0cept accrued leave credits, and with
prejudice to re-employment in the Government service, including government-
owned and controlled corporations.
3!- vs. GineG
Facts: Facts: -n administrative case against 4udge Gines with other o.cers of the
5egional <rial !ourt of 6an Fernando, @a Inion. 5espondent judge is the assigned
judge for $ranch %A of the said court. *t was alleged that, in conspiracy with his co-
accused, the respondent judge machinated the raDing of cases to the multiple
branches of the said trial court. <he respondents did not submit some of the cases
under the 5<!s jurisdiction for mandatory raDing and instead, assigned the same
to $ranch %A for the respondent judge. - picture of impropriety was also shown in
some of the cases decided by the respondent judge, such as 6pecial Proceeding "o.
&?A( which includes an issue for guardianship, and 6pecial Proceeding "o. &?A8
which involves a suit for confrmation of a de facto adoption. *n the former case,
irregularities in the evidence used as basis of the respondents decision shows that
the notices of proceedings have not been sent to the proper partiesM hence,
jurisdiction has never been ac1uired by the court and formulating a decision is
grave error. *n the latter case, the respondent judge made a grave error when he
decided for adoption without sending the proper notice to the adoptee nor calling
her to give testimony before the court given that she is already of age. -lso, this
;ind of case is beyong the procedures of legal adoption. <he same procedures
cannot be applied in such uni1ue cases. $ecause of these fndings, the 3!-
recommended dismissal of the respondent judge.
*ssue: 23" the 4udge should be punished
5uling: <he 6upreme !ourt ruled for the dismissal of 4udge Gines. - judge is a visual
representation of justice. ,e is called to remain independent, impartial and with
propriety in his every deed, in or out of the courtroom, in order to maintain the good
#thics /igests !ompilation &% of &'
name of the judiciary. <he acts of respondent in conspiring with other court o.cials
to contravene the rules of mandatory raDing of cases for his personal interest mar;
serious lac; of the necessary judicial integrity. -lso, the fact of not giving notice to
grave irregularities in court proceedings and evidential support in the deciding the
aforementioned cases are signs of partiality in violation of the !ode of 4udicial
!onductM hence, the dismissal of respondent judge.
#spiritu vs. 4avellanos
Facts: Facts: #spiritu charged an administrative case against respondent 4udge
4ovellanos for ignorance of law, grave abuse of authority and gross partiality in the
preliminary investigation of his case against the /umlaos. #spiritu alleges that
4udge 4ovellanos gravely erred in setting a bail for the /umlaos even if they are not
under custody in an amount grossly inade1uate for the case, even reducing the
same in violation of the 5ules of !ourt. <he granting of bail and the fulfllment of the
same are also done irregularly in the absence of hearing and notice to both parties.
#spiritu also alleges partiality to the judge in having /umlao in his chambers
without the presence of the other party.
*ssue: 23" the 5espondent 4udge should be disciplined
5uling: #spiritu charged an administrative case against respondent 4udge 4ovellanos
for ignorance of law, grave abuse of authority and gross partiality in the preliminary
investigation of his case against the /umlaos. #spiritu alleges that 4udge 4ovellanos
gravely erred in setting a bail for the /umlaos even if they are not under custody in
an amount grossly inade1uate for the case, even reducing the same in violation of
the 5ules of !ourt. <he granting of bail and the fulfllment of the same are also done
irregularly in the absence of hearing and notice to both parties. #spiritu also alleges
partiality to the judge in having /umlao in his chambers without the presence of the
other party,
-lmonte vs. $ien
Facts: yung bien case, andun na sa &?. meron digest ;ay che so di ;o na ginawa hihi
salamat = Ear.
*ssue:
5uling:
<an vs. #stoconong
Facts: /r. <an fled 7 complaints, a complainant on ) diLerent !riminal !ase for
estafa, against respondent judge. <he criminal cases were lodged before the sala of
the respondent judge. *n sum, respondent is being charged by complainant with the
following: 9&: undue delay in rendering judgments in !rim. !ases "os. @-&7((, ,-
&%&, ,-&%) and ,-%&&M 9%: misdeclaration of monthly reportsM 97: gross ignorance of
the law and rendering an unjust judgmentM and 9): manifest partiality and bad faith
under 5.-. "o. 7>&?, 6ec. 79e:.
5espondent fled his !omment, to both complaints e0plaining that: complainant
fled the present cases only to harass him and to stop him from further hearing
complainants other criminal cases pending before his courtM there is no delay in the
rendition of his decisions since he just wanted the three criminal cases involving the
same private complainant to be promulgated simultaneouslyM there are also no
misdeclarations as the audit team came on 3ctober %>>% and found nothing wrong
in his salaM and there was no bias or partiality in the orders that he issued.
*ssue: 2hether or not 5espondent 4udge is guilty of the allegations declared by
Petitioner.
#thics /igests !ompilation &7 of &'
5uling: !ndue delay. <he !ode of 4udicial !onduct also directs judges to dispose of
the courts business promptly and decide cases within the re1uired periods. <his is
in view of the right of all persons to the speedy disposition of their cases. *t was
found that 5espondent judge failed to render decisions within the ?>-day
reglementary period.
<he !ourt usually allows reasonable e0tensions of time provided that the judge as;s
for an e0tension and such re1uest is generally granted. $ut respondent did not as;
for any e0tension in these cases. ,aving failed to decide a case within the re1uired
period, without any order of e0tension granted by this !ourt, respondent is liable for
gross ine.ciency that merits administrative sanction.
"isdeclaration of monthly reports. -s found by the 3!-, the cases subject of the
present administrative complaints were not reNected in the re1uired monthly
reports particularly under the list of cases submitted for decision. #rroneous
statistical accomplishment of the monthly report is e1uivalent to the submission of
inaccurate report ma;ing the same a ground for disciplinary action. Proper and
e.cient court management is the responsibility of the judge.
#ross ignorance of the law and rendering un$ust $udgments. !omplainant claims
that respondent is guilty of ignorance of the law when he denied the manifestation
of the prosecution that it be allowed to present rebuttal evidence. 5espondents
reason for the denial is that there were no issues and no new matters that were
raised by the defense. <here e0ists no competent evidence that respondent in
disposing of the four criminal cases has been moved by bad faith, dishonesty,
hatred or some other motive.
%iolation of Sec. 3&e' of R.(. 3)1*. <he complainant failed to demonstrate partiality
on the part of respondent in the subject criminal cases. <he fact that accused are
ac1uitted does not necessarily indicate partiality. <he !ourt cannot presume
partiality based on the circumstances alleged in the complaints.
/uduaco vs. @a1uindanum
Facts: !omplainant +ercedes G. /uduaco charged respondent 4udge @ily @ydia -.
@a1uindanum with grave misconduct, abuse of judicial o.ce andHor gross ignorance
of the law.
!omplainant alleged that respondent brought her vehicle to the <oyota 6ervice
!enter for repairs and replacement of parts that were damaged due to a vehicular
mishap. *n the course of the repairs, 5espondent allegedly refused to pay insisting
that the same will be paid by the insurance company. 6he then as;ed to spea; with
the manager, herein complainant, but the latter was in a meeting. Ipon being told
that complainant was in a meeting, respondent furiously replied that she should be
given preferential treatment over said meeting.
-t this point, respondent as;ed for a demand letter and upon presentation thereof,
she paid the amount stated therein under protest. 6aragoGa, the -dministrator,
re1uired respondent to sign the 5elease of !laim with 6ubrogation but she again
refused. 6he allegedly became enraged and said that as a judge, she ;new better
than to sign a blan; form. *n her !omment, respondent denied that she threw her
weight around and abused her judicial authority.
#thics /igests !ompilation &) of &'
*ssue: 2hether or not the allegations proved that the 4udge is guilty of the
complaints fled against her.
5uling: <he *nvestigating 4ustice of the !ourt of -ppeals recommended the dismissal
of the complaint for lac; of merit, insu.ciency of evidence and reasonable doubt.
,e observed that respondents refusal to pay the deductible franchise was not
intended to violate the law. "o fault can be attributed on respondent for refusing to
sign a blan; form.
<o constitute gross ignorance of the law, the acts complained of must not only be
contrary to e0isting law and jurisprudence but were motivated by bad faith, fraud,
dishonesty and corruption. 3n the other hand, misconduct is any unlawful conduct
that *t generally means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a
premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose.
5espondents refusal to pay the deductible franchise was justifed. 6he was only
e0ercising her legal right. ,ad respondent signed the blan; form, she would be
deemed to have waived her earlier protest and would have lost the right to claim for
refund.
2e agree with 3!-s recommendation that complainant be sanctioned for fling this
unfounded complaint. *ndeed, no person should be penaliGed for the e0ercise of the
right to litigate. <his right, however, must be e0ercised in good faith. <his !ourt
could not be the instrument that would destroy the reputation of any member of the
bench, by pronouncing guilt on mere speculation.
$riones vs. -nte, 4r.
Facts: !omplainant, 4ocelyn <. $riones, alleged that she was instructed by cler; of
!ourt to doc;et the order archiving a particular case. "ot fnding the doc;et boo; in
its place, complainant and saw it in the possession of !ourt *nterpreter who was in
the courtroom. !omplainant as;ed for and got the doc;et boo; and went bac; to
the staL room and placed the doc;et boo; on top of a fling cabinet but it fell on the
Noor, causing a loud sound. 5espondent judge appeared and shouted at her C2hy
did you throw the doc;et boo;TJ 5espondent also added, CBou get out of
here, punyeta+ we dont need you.J 2orse, respondent got a monobloc chair and
threw it at complainant, hitting her on the forehead and right arm.
-nother complainant was fled against respondent judge, this time for se0ual
harassment.
5espondent judge denied the allegations and asserted that these two complaints
against him were purely for harassment purposes as complainant ;new that he was
about to fle a complaint against her for falsifying her /aily <ime 5ecord.
!omplaints were consolidated and assigned to #0ecutive 4udge -lipio E. Flores of the
5egional <rial !ourt for investigation, report, and recommendation. #0ecutive 4udge
Floress 5eport absolved respondent from the charge of se0ual harassment, fnding
that the remar;s allegedly uttered by respondent - the basis of the complaint - was
actually made as a jo;e. ,owever, with regard to the charges of grave misconduct,
acts unbecoming of a judge, and abuse of authority.
*ssue: 2hether or not respondent judge be suspended for the complaints alleged
against him.
#thics /igests !ompilation &( of &'
5uling: <he !ourt has evaluated the record of this case and come to the conclusion
that respondent is indeed guilty of grave misconduct, acts unbecoming of a judge
and abuse of authority. <he *nvestigating 4udge himself stated that the testimony of
complainant and her witnesses were categorical, straightforward, spontaneous, and
fran;, thereby, the evidence positively shows that respondent judge shouted
invectives and threw a chair at the complainant, as a result of which, complainant,
as proven by a medical certifcate, sustained wrist and other injuries. !learly, this
behavior of respondent judge cannot be sanctioned.
5espondents act, coupled with his being a public o.cial, holding a position in the
judiciary and specifcally entrusted with the sacred duty of administering justice,
violates !anon % of the !ode of 4udicial !onduct and !anon 7 of the !anons of
4udicial #thics which mandate, respectively, that Ca judge should avoid impropriety
and the appearance of impropriety in all activities,J and that Ca judges o.cial
conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety, and his personal
behavior, not only upon the bench and in the performance of o.cial duties, but also
in his everyday life, should be beyond reproach.J <hese most e0acting standards of
decorum are e0pected of magistrates if only to promote public confdence in the
judiciary.
4udge Francisco -nte, 4r. is hereby found guilty of grave misconduct.
Pantaleon vs. GudeG
Facts: *n this case, respondent 4udge is charged with Gross *ne.ciency, "eglect and
/elay in #levating the 5ecords of !ivil !ase "o. ''-%&'8, to which the complainant
was the plaintiLs counsel. -fter receiving an adverse decision, complainant fled a
"otice of -ppeal within the reglementary period and conse1uently, respondent
4udge issued an order for the transmittal of the records of the case to the appellate
court. ,owever, despite constant follow-up by counsel, three years have passed and
the records of the case have not been transmitted.
*n his -nswer, judge contends that the court stenographer misplaced the
transcript of the testimony of one of the witnesses, hence the record could not be
transmitted to the !ourt of -ppeals. ,e further averred that complainant should
have invited his attention by fling the proper motion or by writing a personal letter
informing him of the non-transmittal of the records within three months from the
date of his order of transmittal.
*ssue: 2hether or not the respondent judge is liable or guilty for gross ine.ciency.
5uling: B#6. - judge cannot hide behind the incompetence of his subordinates. ,e
should be the master of his own domain and ta;e responsibility for the mista;es of
his subjects.
<he non-transmission of the records by reason of ine.ciency of the staL
cannot e0onerate respondent judge from administrative liability. -s administrative
o.cer of the court, a judge is e0pected to ;eep a watchful eye on the level of
performance and conduct of the court personnel under his immediate supervision
who are primarily employed to aid in the administration of justice as re1uired by
!anon 7, 5ule 7.>? of the !ode of 4udicial !onduct.
!iting another case: Chis responsibilities include being an eLective manager
of the court and its personnel. ,e is presumed to be cogniGant of his responsibilities
as a worthy minister of the law. -t the very least, he is e0pected to ;eep abreast
with his doc;et.J
!ertainly, a delay of three years in the transmission of court records to the appellate
#thics /igests !ompilation &A of &'
court, where only a period of 7> days is re1uired, is ine0cusable.
$eso vs. /agunan
Facts: 5espondent 4uan /aguman, +!<! 4udge of 6ta. +argarita-
<aranganXPagsanjan, 6amar, solemniGed the marriage of complainant Senaida $eso
to $ernardito Bman, on -ugust %', &?'8, at the 4udges residence in !albayog !ity,
6amar, or outside his jurisdiction, because complainant was to leave for abroad the
same day as she was an 3F2, among other reasons. -fter the wedding, Bman
abandoned $eso for no clear reason. 6he then went to chec; the marriage contract
with the @ocal !ivil 5egistrar of !albayog, from which she learned that said marriage
was not registered. 5esponding to $esos letter about the matter, /aguman told
her that all copies of the marriage contract were ta;en by Bman, and none was
retained by the judge.
*ssue: 9&: 2hether or not respondent 4udge is liable for solemniGing the marriage
outside of his courts jurisdictionM
9%: 2hether or not respondent 4udge is liable for negligently not retaining a copy
and not registering the marriage before the o.ce of the @ocal !ivil 5egistry.
5uling: 9&:B#6. <he authority of a judge to solemniGe marriage is only limited to
those municipalities under his jurisdiction. !learly, !albayog !ity is no longer within
his area of jurisdiction. +oreover, a marriage can be held outside the judges
chambers or courtroom only:
9&: at the point of deathM
9%: in remote places in accordance with -rticle %?M or
97: upon the re1uest of both parties in writing in a sworn statement to this eLect.
"one of these instances was present in this case.
9%: B#6. -s solemniGing o.cer, respondent 4udge neglected his duty when he failed
to register the marriage of complainant to $ernardito Bman. 6uch duty is entrusted
upon him pursuant to -rticle %7 of the Family !ode which provides:
C*t shall be the duty of the person solemniGing the marriage to furnish either of
the contracting parties the original of the marriage certifcate referred to in -rticle A
and to send the duplicate and triplicate copies of the certifcates not later than
ffteen days after the marriage, to the local civil registrar of the place where the
marriage was solemniGed. 000J
@astly, a judge is charged with e0ercising e0tra care in ensuring that the records
of the cases and o.cial documents in his custody are intact. <here is no justifcation
for missing records save fortuitous events. <he records show that the loss was
occasioned by carelessness on respondent 4udges part. *t is, incumbent upon him to
devise an e.cient recording and fling system in his court because he is after all the
one directly responsible for the proper discharge of his o.cial functions.
#thics /igests !ompilation &8 of &'
#thics /igests !ompilation &' of &'