FLORENDA TOBIAS vs. JUDGE MANUEL LIMSIACO, JR.

, Presiding Judge,
MCTC, Valladolid-San Enriques-Palupandan, Negros Occidental
A.M. No. MTJ-09-1734, 19 January 2011

FACTS: Complainant Tobias alleged that Judge Limsiaco, Jr. offers "package deals" for
cases filed in the court where he presides. She stated that she requested her sister,
Vollmer, to inquire from the court about the requirements needed in filing an ejectment
case. Court Stenographer Fegidero allegedly proposed to Vollmer that for the sum of
P30,000.00, Judge Limsiaco, Jr. would provide the lawyer, prepare the necessary
pleadings, and ensure a favorable decision in the ejectment case which they
contemplated to file. Fegidero allegedly required them to pay the initial amount of
P10,000.00 and the remaining balance would be paid in the course of the proceedings.
It was made clear that they would not get any judicial relief from their squatter problem
unless they accepted the package deal. Further, Tobias alleged that Vollmer,
accompanied by Fegidero, delivered the amount of P10,000.00 to Judge Limsiaco, Jr. at
his residence. Subsequently, an ejectment case was filed. However, Judge Limsiaco, Jr.
immediately demanded for an additional payment of P10,000.00. She allegedly refused
to give the additional amount and earned the ire of the judge. He also prepared the
Motion to Withdraw of Tobias counsel.
ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Limsiaco, Jr. committed conduct unbecoming of a judge.
HELD: Yes, the Court found that respondent committed acts unbecoming of a judge, in
particular, talking to a prospective litigant in his court, recommending a lawyer to the
litigant, and preparing the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Atty. Robert Juanillo,
which pleading was filed in his court and was acted upon by him. The said acts of
respondent violate, among others, Section 2 of Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary which provides:
SEC. 2. Judges shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court, maintains
and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants in the
impartiality of the judge and of the judiciary.

Respondent Judge Manuel Q. Limsiaco, Jr., is found guilty of gross misconduct

for which he is fined in the amount of Twenty-five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00).

VICTORIANO SY vs. JUDGE OSCAR DINOPOL, Regional Trial Court, Branch

24, Koronadal City,
A.M. No. RTJ-09-2189, 18 January 2011
FACTS: Victoriano Sy filed the above-entitled administrative complaint against
respondent Judge Dinopol wherein he alleged that while a civil case in which he and his
wife sought the declaration of nullity of the foreclosure proceedings against Metrobank
was pending before Judge Dinopols sala, the judge inhibited himself from acting on the
case. This notwithstanding, and to Sys surprise, Judge Dinopol still handled
Miscellaneous Case for a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession filed by
Metrobank, a matter closely intertwined with said Civil Case. Judge Dinopol then issued
an order granting Metrobank the right to possess the foreclosed properties. Sy further
alleged that despite the issuance by the RTC, Branch 8, Marawi City, of a stay order,
Judge Dinopol ordered that the writ of possession be implemented. Hence, Sy filed the
present administrative complaint charging Judge Dinopol of conduct unbecoming a
member of the judiciary. Sy claimed in relation with his charge that while Civil Case was
pending in Judge Dinopols sala, the judge asked him for commodity loans in the form
of construction materials to be used in the construction of the judges house evidenced
by receipts indicating delivery of construction materials to Judge Dinopols residence.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent judge is guilty of gross misconduct.
HELD: Yes, respondent judge committed conduct unbecoming of a judge. Canon 3 of
the New Code of Judicial Conduct in relation to a judges impartiality provides as
follows:
Sec. 2. Judges shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court, maintains
and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants in the
impartiality of the judge and the judiciary.
Sec. 3. Judges shall, so far as is reasonable, so conduct themselves as to minimize the
occasions on which it will be necessary for them to be disqualified from hearing or
deciding cases.

Judge Dinopol violated the above provisions when he received accommodations

from Sy for the building materials he needed for the construction of his house. He
compromised his position as a judge. Although at the time he and his family had
business dealings with Sy there was no pending case involving the businessman, he
should have been more circumspect in securing the construction materials. As the OCA
aptly noted, it is neither impossible nor remote that a case might be filed in his court
with complainant as a party. In such a case, the respondents business and financial
dealings with complainant would create a doubt about his fairness and impartiality in
deciding the case and would tend to corrode the respect and dignity of the court. His
actions no doubt diminished public confidence and public trust in him as a judge.
Judge Dinopol was dismissed from the service, with forfeiture of all benefits,
except accrued leave credits, if any, with prejudice to his re-employment in any branch
or service of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.

EMILIE SISON-BARIAS vs. JUDGE MARINO E. RUBIA, REGIONAL TRIAL

COURT [RTC], BRANCH 24, BIAN, LAGUNA AND EILEEN A. PECAA, DATA
ENCODER II, RTC, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, BIAN, LAGUNA
A.M. No. RTJ-14-2388, 10 June 2014

FACTS: Complainant Emilie Sison-Barias is involved in three cases pending before the
sala of respondent Judge Marino Rubia. Complainant alleged that there was delay in the
publication of the notice in the petition for issuance of letters of administration filed.
She was then informed by her brother that respondent Pecaa, the daughter of his
good friend, was a data encoder in the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial
Court of Bian, Laguna. Complainant met with Pecaa several times including the
meeting held at Caf Juanita in The Fort, Bonifacio Global City with respondent Judge
Rubia. In said meeting, respondents allegedly asked complainant inappropriate
questions. Complainant alleged that respondent Judge Rubia acted in a manner that
showed manifest partiality in favor of the opposing parties, in particular, (a) the refusal
to issue orders that would have allowed her to comply with her duties as the special
administrator of her late husbands estate, (b) the refusal to grant her request for
subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum that she had prayed for to compel Evelyn
Tanael to produce the documents showing the accrued rentals of the parcel of land
belonging to her late husband, (c) failure to require a timely filing of the pre-trial brief
on the part of the opposing parties and, (d) that despite the non-compliance on four (4)
separate pre-trials that were postponed, opposing parties were not declared in default.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Judge committed manifest partiality.
HELD: Yes, Judge Marino Rubia committed manifest partiality. His actions failed to
assure complainant and other litigants before his court of the required cold neutrality
of an impartial judge. Respondent Judge Rubia violated Canon 3 of the New Code of
the New Code Of Judicial Conduct on Impartiality:
CANON 3
Impartiality is essential to the proper discharge of the judicial office. It applies not only to
the decision itself but also to the process by which the decision is made.
Section 1. Judges shall perform their judicial duties without favor, bias, or prejudice.
Section 2. Judges shall ensure that his or her conduct, both in and out of court, maintains
and enhances the confidence of the public, the legal profession and litigants in the
impartiality
of
the
judge
and
of
the
judiciary.
Section 3. Judges shall, so far as is reasonable, so conduct themselves as to minimize the
occasions on which it will be necessary for them to be disqualified from hearing or deciding
cases.
Section 4. Judges shall not knowingly, while a proceeding is before, or could come before
them, make any comment that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome of
such proceeding or impair the manifest fairness of the process. Nor shall judges make any
comment in public or otherwise that might affect the fair trial of any person or issue.

It is improper and highly unethical for a judge to suggest to a litigant what to do

to resolve his case for such would generate the suspicion that the judge is in collusion

with one party. A litigant in a case is entitled to no less than the cold neutrality of an
impartial judge. Judges are not only required to be impartial, but also to appear to be
so, for appearance is an essential manifestation of reality. Hence, not only must a judge
render a just decision, he is also duty bound to render it in a manner completely free
from suspicion as to its fairness and its integrity.
Respondent Judge Marino Rubia was dismissed from the service, with
corresponding forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and
disqualified from reinstatement or appointment in any public office, including
government-owned or -controlled corporations.