Vidal vs.

Dojillo MTJ-05-1591 July 24, 2005

Facts: The Hon. Jaime L. Dojillo, Jr., Presiding Judge of Municipal Trial Court in
Pangasinan was charged with Misconduct which stemmed from the election protest of his
brother against the proclamation of the herein complainant (Vidal). Mr. Vidal alleged that
during the hearing, Judge Dojillo sat beside the counsel of his brother and actively
coached, aided, assisted, and guided said counsel by now and then saying something,
handing piece of writing, reminding, and or stopping the counsel from manifesting
something to the court, and other similar acts. In which complainant contends that the
judges actions promote partiality.
Judge Dojillo admitted that he was present during the hearings but explained that he did
not sit beside his brothers lawyer but in the area reserved for the public; and that the main
reason why he was there was to observe how election protests are conducted as he has never
conducted one. His other reason was to give moral support to his brother.
Issue: WON Judge Dojillos action constitute misconduct.
Ruling: Judge Dojillo was found guilty of misconduct and REPRIMANDED with a
WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely.
Respondent, being a judge, should bear in mind that he is also called upon to serve the
higher interest of preserving the integrity of the entire judiciary. Canon 2 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct requires a judge to avoid not only impropriety but also the mere
appearance of impropriety in all activities
Sy vs. Dinopol, January 18, 2011
Facts: Victoriano Sy filed a case against Judge Oscar E. Dinopol of the RTC in South
Cotabato for Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the Judiciary and for Gross Ignorance of
the Law. This is in regards to the Civil Case No. 1403-24 involving Mr. Sy wherein Judge
Dinopol inhibited himself from further acting on the caseon the ground that he received a
call, from a ranking officer of the Philippine Judicial Academy, interceding in behalf of the
defendant bank and an earlier call from a ranking personnel of the OCA, appealing in
behalf of the plaintiffs. He claimed he wanted to avoid being charged with partiality either
way he acted on the case. However, Sy found out that, Judge Dinopol still handled Misc.
Case No. 1440-24, a matter closely intertwined with Civil Case No. 1403-24.

Sy claimed in relation with his charge that while Civil Case No. 1403-24 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. Sy further claimed that aside
from the commodity loans, Judge Dinopol obtained cash loans from him on various
occasions including the judge borrowing his multi cab.
Judge Dinopol admitted the commodity loans of the construction materials for his house
however argued that it was before the case was on his sala. Further, he denies the cash
loans and the borrowing of the multicab.
Issue: WON Judge Oscar E. Dinopol is guilty for Conduct Unbecoming a Member of the
Judiciary and for Gross Ignorance of the Law.
Ruling: Judge Dinopol cannot be disciplined for ignorance of the law and of procedure in
his handling of Civil Case because he acted in accordance with the rules and jurisprudence
on the matter. However, there is substantial evidence showing that Judge Dinopol obtained
the commodity loans from Sy. By his own admissions, he failed to observe these ethical
standards. Wherefore, Judge Dinopol is declared GUILTY OF GROSS MISCONDUCT and
is hereby DISMISSED from the service.