Judicial Ethics

January 2017

duty to resolve the cases within the reglementary period as mandated by law and the rules.
These excuses only show his lack of diligence in discharging administrative responsibilities and
professional competence in court management. A judge is expected to keep his own listing of
cases and to note therein the status of each case so that they may be acted upon accordingly
and without delay. He must adopt a system of record management and organize his docket in
order to monitor the flow of cases for a prompt and effective dispatch of business. A.M. No.
MTJ-16-1887 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 15-2814-MTJ], January 09, 2017 TRINIDAD GAMBOA-
ROCES, Complainant, v. JUDGE RANHEL A. PEREZ, PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT
TRIAL COURT, ENRIQUE MAGALONA-MANAPLA, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL

Not every error or mistake committed by a judge in the exercise of his adjudicative functions
renders him liable, unless his act was tainted with bad faith or a deliberate intent to do an
injustice.9 To hold a judge administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law, the assailed
decision, order or act of the judge in the performance of his official duties must not only be
contrary to existing law or jurisprudence, but must also be motivated by bad faith, fraud,
dishonesty, or corruption on his part. A.M. No. RTJ-15-2423, January 11, 2017SANTIAGO D.
ORTEGA, JR., Complainant, v. JUDGE ROGELIO LL. DACARA, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 37, IRIGA CITY, CAMARINES SUR

A.C. No. 7-A-92 enumerated the circumstances when a judge may order the archiving of a
criminal case as follows:

(a) If after the issuance of the warrant of arrest, the accused remains at large for six (6)
months from the delivery of the warrant to the proper peace officer, and the latter has
explained the reason why the accused was not apprehended; or

(b) When proceedings are ordered suspended for an indefinite period because:

(1) the accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition which effectively
renders him unable to fully understand the charge against him and to plead intelligently, or to
undergo trial, and he has to be committed to a mental hospital;

(2) a valid prejudicial question in a civil action is invoked during the pendency of the criminal
case unless the civil and the criminal cases are consolidated; and

3) an interlocutory order or incident in the criminal case is elevated to, and is pending
resolution/ decision for an indefinite period before a higher court which has issued a temporary
restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction; and

4) when the accused has jumped bail before arraignment and cannot be arrested by his
bondsman.
the Court has earnestly reminded judges to be extra prudent and circumspect in the
performance of their duties. This exalted position entails a lot of responsibilities, foremost of
which is proficiency in the law.45 They are expected to exhibit more than just a cursory
acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules and to apply them properly in all good
faith. 46 When the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to simply apply it;
anything less than that would be constitutive of gross ignorance of the law.47

Moreover, judges are duty bound to render just, correct and impartial decisions at all times in a
manner free of any suspicion as to his fairness, impartiality or integrity. 48 The records must be
free from the slightest suspicion that the trial court seized upon an opportunity to either free
itself from the usual burdens of presiding over a full-blown court battle or worse, to give undue
advantage or favors to one of the litigants.49 Public confidence in the Judiciary is eroded by
irresponsible or improper conduct of judges. 50 The appearance of bias or prejudice can be as
damaging to public confidence and the administration of justice as actual bias or prejudice.
A.M. No. RTJ-16-2472 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4141-RTJ] JUDGE MARTONINO R. MARCOS
(Retired), Complainant, vs.HON. PERLA V. CABRERA-FALLER, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial
Court, Branch 90, Dasmarias City, Cavite

March 2017

Judge Chavez' unexplained and unreasonable delay in deciding cases and resolving incidents and
motions, and his failure to decide the remaining cases before his compulsory retirement constitute gross
inefficiency which cannot be tolerated. Inexcusable failure to decide cases within the reglementary period
constitutes gross inefficiency, warranting the imposition of an administrative sanction on the defaulting
judge. Judges should know which cases are submitted for decision and are expected to keep
their own record of cases so that they may act on them promptly.24 We thus find him guilty of
undue delay in rendering a decision. Gross neglect of duty refers to negligence that is
characterized by a glaring want of care; by acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is
a duty to act, not inadvertently, but willfully and intentionally; or by acting with a conscious
indifference to consequences with respect to other persons who may be affected. It is the
omission of that care that even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own
property. In cases involving public officials, there is gross negligence when a breach of duty is
flagrant and palpable. Office of the Court Administrator Vs. Retired Judge Pablo R. Chavez, et
al./Re:Undated anonymous letter-complaint against the Presiding Judge, Clerk of Court and Court
Stenographer of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 87, Rosario, Batangas A.M. No. RTJ-10-2219/A.M.
No. 12-7-130-RTC. March 7, 2017