Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
(1) PANES VS. DINOPOL 1.
FACTS:
1. Gomba submitted a complaint to the Respondent Judge. The case arose when Gomba refused
to acknowledge the new Board of Directors in Kornadal Water District (KWD)prompting the Local
water Utilities Administration to replace her by Vargas as the general manager of the KWD.
2. Respondent Judge issued the assailed twin orders in favour of GombaThe first one directing the
city mayor to desist and refrain from taking over the operation and management of the KWD
Arellano office; otherwise his arrest would be effected. The second Order meanwhile directed
the LWUA personnel to return properties to the KWD Arellano office, also under pain of arrest.
3. Petitioners argued that the Orders were violent, and caused undue disturbance. were patently
illegal and void and were issued with abuse of authority and gross ignorance of law,
jurisprudence and the Rules of Court, for the following reasons:
1. These Orders were issued past working hours, on a Saturday, a nonworking day, and without
the benefit of a hearing or a notice to concerned parties.
2. Resistance to a lawful court order, while a ground for indirect contempt, still requires the
filing of a charge and the opportunity to be heard.
3. Complainants were not parties to the cases filed before respondent judge on the legitimacy
of either faction.
4. The proceedings in Civil Case No. 1799-24 are null and void because the lawyers representing
KWD, a government-owned and controlled corporation, were not authorized by the Office of
the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) and the Commission on Audit (COA
4. Respondent argued that it was a necessary order for a speedy disposition of the case.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the issuance by respondent Judge Dinopol of the 24 March 2007 twin Orders
constitutes gross ignorance of the law?
2. Whether respondent judge should have inhibited himself from a case to which one of the
HELD:
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
YES, the orders assailed constitute gross ignorance that would warrant his dismissal from
service.
2. Yes.
RATIONALE:
1. At the outset, respondent failed to provide any legitimate reason for the issuance of the Orders
on a Saturday evening when the courts were already closed. As pointed out by the CA, if indeed
there was robbery or looting happening in the premises, arrests could be effected by the police
officers who were already in the vicinity of the KWD office.
2.
comply with due process requirements nor do they demonstrate good faith on his part that
would exculpate him from administrative liability. Respondent violated the most basic
requirements for the proper observance of due process, resulting in the unwarranted arrest
and incarceration of powerless individuals
3. We find that the issuance of these Orders was in total disregard of the Rules of Court and with
grave abuse of authority. Undoubtedly, respondent is guilty of gross ignorance of the law.
4. To be held administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law, the acts complained of must
not only be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence, but must have also been motivated by
bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, and corruption.26 Gross ignorance of the law is considered as a
serious offense under Rule 140, Section 8,
5. Cabel, one of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 1839-24, is the nephew of the wife of respondent.
Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, provides for the following instances of mandatory
inhibition:
Section 1.Disqualification of judges. No judge or judicial officers shall sit in any
case in which he, or his wife or child, is pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee,
creditor or otherwise, or in which he is related to either party within the sixth
degree of consanguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree,
computed according to the rules of the civil law, or in which he has been executor,
administrator, guardian, trustee or counsel, or in which he has presided in any
inferior court when his ruling or decision is the subject of review, without the
written consent of all parties in interest, signed by them and entered upon the
record.
2 VICTORIANO G. MANLAPAZ vs. JUDGE MANUEL T. SABILLO,
1
Legal Ethics (Case Digests) Compiled by: Ann Tomarong

A.M. No. MTJ-10-1771; February 13, 2013; Brion, J.: living examples of uprightness not only in the performance of official duties but also in their
(formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-2160-MTJ) personal and private dealings with other people so as preserve at all times the good name and
standing of the courts in the community.
FACTS:
Complainant Victoriano Manlapaz charged respondent Manuel Sabillo, then a
practicing lawyer, with serious and gross misconduct for failure to return an amount arising paying is shown by his continuous failure to settle despite demand letters sent to him. Thus,
.
from a transaction before the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City the court imposed the penalty of fine.

(3) ANONYMOUS, complainant vs.JUDGE RIO ACHAS, respondent

The RTC and the CA, on appeal, ruled in favor of Manlapaz.
A.M. No. MTJ-11-1801
ISSUE: 27 February 2013
Whether or not willful failure to pay a just debt is a ground for disciplinary action
FACTS:
against judges.
HELD: 1. A letter-complaint was filed before the court alleging the immorality and conduct
Yes. The Court has repeatedly stressed that it is not a collection agency for the unpaid debts of unbecoming of a judge against Judge Rio Achas (Judge Achas) which alleges the following:
its officials and employees,but has nevertheless provided for Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of
Court that holds its officials and employees administratively liable in unpaid debt situations. a. it is of public knowledge in the city that Judge Achas is living scandalously with a
This Section provides that willful failure to pay a just debt is a ground for disciplinary action woman who is not his wife;
against judges and justices. b. he lives beyond his means;
c. he is involved with illegal activities through his connection with bad elements, the
Just debts, as defined in Section 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing kuratongs;
Book V of E.O. No. 292, refer to (1) claims adjudicated by a court of law; or (2) claims, the d. he comes to court very untidy and dirty;
existence and justness of which are admitted by the debtor. Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of e. he decides his cases unfairly in exchange for material and monetary consideration;
Court classifies willful failure to pay a just debt as a serious charge. f. he is involved with cockfighting/gambling.
While reference to a debt necessarily implies a transaction that is private and
2. In his comment, Judge Achas denied all allegations and claimed that these were hatched to
lives; they simply look at their actions from the prism of public service and consider these acts
unbecoming of a public official. These rules take into account that these are actions of officials per Canons of Judicial Ethics to be perceived as going out with a woman not his wife, and
who are entrusted with public duties and who, even in their private capacities, should for him to be involved in rearing game cocks.
continually act to reflect their status as public servants. Employees of the judiciary should be

2
 Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
3. OCA recommended that Judge Achas be reprimanded as to the charge of immorality. It was
further recommended that he be ordered to refrain from going to cockpits or avoid such places
altogether, with a warning that the same or similar complaint in the future shall be dealt with
more severely. The other charges were recommended to be dismissed for lack of merit.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not anonymous complaints may be filed against judges.
2. Whether or not the alleged acts committed by Judge Achas constitute immorality thus
violating New Code of Judicial Ethics specifically Canon 2 and Canon 4.
RULING:
1. Yes anonymous complaints may be filed against judges under Section 1 of Rule 140 of the
Rules of Court, but they must be supported by public records of indubitable integrity.
Thus, for anonymous complaints, the burden of proof in administrative proceedings
must be buttressed by indubitable public records and by what is sufficiently proven
during the investigation. If the burden of proof is not overcome, the respondent is under
no obligation to prove his defense. In the present case, no evidence was attached to the
letter-complaint. The complainant never appeared, and no public records were brought
forth during the investigation. The charges that he (1) lives beyond his means, (2) is
involved with illegal activities through his connection with the kuratongs, (3) comes to
court very untidy and dirty, and (4) decides his cases unfairly in exchange for material
and monetary consideration were, therefore, properly recommended dismissed by the
OCA for lack of evidence.
2. The charges that (1) it is of public knowledge that he is living scandalously with a woman
not his wife and that (2) he is involved with cockfighting/gambling are, however,
violative of the New Code of Judicial Ethics. Judge Achas clearly violated Canon 2 and
Canon 4 by going out in public with a woman who is not his wife. There is no evidence to
3
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
prove that Judge Achas is engaged in gambling, but he admitted that he is rearing cocks
for leisure. Although it is not illegal, Judge Achas should avoid mingling with a crowd of
cockfighting enthusiast and bettors as it is undoubtedly impair the respect due him. The
restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do
righteousness and uprightness from its occupant than does the judicial office. Judges in
particular must be individuals of competence, honesty and probity, charged as they are
with safeguarding the integrity of the court and its proceedings. He should behave at all
times so as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the
judiciary, and avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all his activities.
His personal behaviour outside the court, and not only while in the performance of his
official duties, must be beyond reproach, for he is perceived to be the personification of
law and justice. Thus, any demeaning act of a judge degrades the institution he
(4) RE: Complaint of Leonardo A. Velasco
Against Associate Justices Francisco H. Villaruz,Alex Quiroz and Samuel Martirez of the
SANDIGANBAYAN
A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-25-SB-J January 15, 2013
FACTS:
Mayor Pacifico C. Velasco (Pacifico) was convicted by the Sandiganbayan guilty for
the violation of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act). Pacifico sought several
reconsiderations before the Supreme Court but the latter denied all of it. These motions and
pleadings delayed the execution of his sentence despite the finality of his conviction. In a
several manifestations stating that Pacifico was confined in a hospital and was due for
surgery. Nonetheless, the Sandiganbayan issued a warrant of arrest but allowed Pacifico to
 Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
on the ground of humanitarian considerations.
Complainant Leonardo Velasco (Leonardo) filed an administrative case against the
Justices claiming that upon the finality of the decision it was the ministerial duty of the latter
to execute such decision. In not doing so and in granting the wishes of Pacifico, they have
shown evident partiality.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent Sandiganbayan Justices may be held administratively
liable for their actions which unduly delayed the execution of the final sentence of conviction of
Pacifico? (NO)
HELD:
Respondents did not commit grave misconduct or any violation of a specific
provision of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Such Justices merely afforded Pacifico and his camp
the legal remedies given to them by law.
However, by extending too much modesty, the Justices deserve admonition. They
should have executed the decision immediately unless TRO or preliminary injunction has been
issued.
(5) HEINZ R. HECK, complainant, vs. JUDGE ANTHONY E. SANTOS, Regional Trial Court, Branch 19.
Cagayan De Oro City, respondent
(A.M. No. RTJ-01-1657; En Banc; J. Callejo Sr.; February 23, 2004)
FACTS:
1. The instant case arose when in a verified Letter-Complaint Heinz Heck prayed for the
disbarment of Judge Anthony Santos alleging that pr
as RTC judge he violated the notarial law by subscribing and forwarding on a non-regular
basis notarized documents to the Clerk of Court despite his non-commission as notary
public.
4
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
2. In his Answer, the respondent judge categorically denied the charges against him
contending that there was no proper recording of the commissioned lawyers in the City of
Cagayan de Oro as well as the submitted notarized documents/ notarial register.
3. Pursuant to the report of the Office of the Court Administrator recommending a full-blown
investigation, the case was referred to Associate Justice Edgardo Cruz of the Court of
Appeals.
4. In a Sealed Report, Judge Cruz recommended that respondent (who retired May 22, 2002)
be found guilty of the violation of Notarial Law by notarizing documents without
commission, tardiness in submission of notarial reports and non-forwarding of notarial
register to Clerk of Court upon expiration of his commission and that for these infractions
he be suspended from practice of law and barred from being commissioned as notary
public for one year.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a retired judge charged with notarizing documents without the
requisite notary commission more than twenty years ago be disciplined therefore
HELD:
The fact that a judge has retired or has otherwise been separated from the service
does not necessarily divest the Court of its jurisdiction to determine the veracity of the
allegations of the complaint, pursuant to its disciplinary authority over members of the
bench. Jurisdiction was not lost by the mere fact that respondent, had ceased in office
during the pendency of his case. The Court retains jurisdiction either to pronounce the
respondent innocent of the charges or declare him guilty thereof. A contrary rue would be
fraught with injustice and pregnant with dreadful and dangerous implications. If innocent,
it taints his name and integrity as he leaves the institution which he has served well; if
guilty, he deserves to receive the corresponding censure and penalty.
It must be remembered that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary
act. On the contrary it is invested with substantive public interest such that only those
qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization converts a private
Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
document into a public one, making it admissible in evidence without the necessity of
preliminary proof of authenticity and due execution. In the case, the respondent did not
tigating Justice
to decide the case on the basis of the pleadings filed. Furthermore, he did not present any
evidence of his commission as well as proof of submission of notarial reports and notarial
register. Then, too, by making it appear that he is duly commissioned when he is not, he
Responsibility.
Finally, an administrative Complaint against a member of the Bar does not
prescribe. The qualification of good moral character is a requirement which is not dispensed
with upon admission to membership of the Bar. It is not only a condition precedent to admission
standing in the profession.
(6) OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs.
JUDGE FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.
A.M. No. RTJ-99-1460
March 31, 2006
Facts:
Judge Florentino V. Floro of Branch 73, Malabon City faced a total of 13 charges
calling for his disbarment and removal from his office as a judge. Some of the charges against
him were the act of circulating calling cards containing self-laudatory statements regarding
qualifications in violation of Canon 2, Rule 2.02, Canons of Judicial Conduct; for rendering
resolutions without written orders in violation of Rule 36, Section 1, 1997 Rules of Procedures;
his alleged partiality in criminal cases where he declares that he is pro-accused which is
contrary to Canon 2, Rule 2.01, Canons of Judicial Conduct; for appearing in personal cases
without prior authority from the Supreme Court and without filing the corresponding
applications for leaves of absence on the scheduled dates of hearing; for violation of Canon 1,
5
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
Rule 1.01 Code of Judicial Conduct when he openly criticized the Rules of Court and the Philippine
justice system; for the use of highly improper and intemperate language during court
proceedings; for violation of Circular No. 135 dated 1 July 1987.
Judge Floro also claimed that he has certain psychic powers such as the power to
see the future, the power of bilocation, the power to type letters while he is in a trance and the
Issue/s:Whether or not Judge Floro is unfit to serve as a judge
Held:
Judge Floro must be relieved of his position as Judge of RTC Malabon Branch due to
a medically disabling condition of the mind that renders him unfit to discharge the functions of
his office
Ratio:
With the foregoing, we find the act of Judge Floro in circulating calling cards
containing self-laudatory statements constitutive of simple misconduct in violation of Canon 2,
Rule 2.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Judge Floro also violated the Code of Judicial Ethics
when he declared that he was pro-accused.
Canon 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states: "A judge should so behave at all times as to
promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary." This means that a
judge whose duty is to apply the law and dispense justice "should not only be impartial,
independent and honest but should be believed and perceived to be impartial, independent and
honest" as well.
He is guilty of unbecoming conduct for signing a pleading wherein he indicated that he is the
presiding judge of RTC, Branch 73, Malabon City and for appending to the pleading a copy of his
oath with a picture of his oath-taking. The only logical explanation we can reach for such acts
is that Judge Floro was obviously trying to influence or put pressure on a fellow judge by
emphasizing that he himself is a judge and is thus in the right. Verily, Canon 2, Rule 2.04 of the
Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a "judge shall refrain from influencing in any manner
the outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another court or administrative agency." By
doing what he did, Judge Floro, to say the least, put a fellow judge in a very awkward position.
A judge should avoid being queer in his behavior, appearance and movements. He
claims that he is endowed with psychic powers, that he can inflict pain and sickness to people,
that he is the angel of death and that he has unseen "little friends" are manifestations of his
psychological instability and therefore casts doubt on his capacity to carry out the functions
and responsibilities of a judge.
The findings of mental and psychological incapacity are thus substantially
supported by evidence. Based on the three[3] psychological tests and evaluation of the two[2]
psychiatrists, the undersigned has no other recourse but to recommend that Judge Florentino
Floro be declared unfit to discharge his duties as a Judge, effective immediately.
(7) ALEN ROSS RODRIGUEZ and REGIDOR TULALI vs. The Hon. BIENVENIDO BLANCAFLOR, in his capacity
as the Acting Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Palawan, Branch 52, and PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 190171
March 14, 2011
FACTS:
Previously pending before Judge Blancaflor was Criminal Case No. 22240 for arson (arson
case), entitled People of the Philippines v. Teksan Ami, in which Tulali was the trial prosecutor.
During the pendency of the case, Tulali was implicated in a controversy involving an alleged
bribery initiated by Randy Awayan (Awayan), the driver assigned to Judge Blancaflor under the
payroll of the Office of the Governor of Palawan, and one Ernesto Fernandez (Fernandez), to
assure the acquittal of the accused, Rolly Ami (Ami), and the dismissal of the arson case on the
other hand before the day of the scheduled promulgation of the decision in the arson case,
6
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
Tulali filed an Ex-Parte Manifestation withdrawing his appearance in the said case to prevent
any suspicion of misdemeanor and collusion, then Judge Blancaflor rendered his decision
acquitting Ami of the crime of arson. Purportedly on the basis of the administrative complaint
filed against Awayan and Rodriguez, Judge Blancaflor summoned several witnesses including
Tulali and heard their testimonies, then he issued an order summoning Rodriguez to appear
before him for the purpose of holding an inquiry on matters pertaining to his possible
ex-parte manifestation and the administrative complaint
against Awayan, among others. During the pendency of the case Rodriguez filed his Motion for
decision in the arson case had already been promulgated however in an order, Judge
Blancaflor informed the petitioners that he was proceeding against them for direct contempt
Ex-Parte Manifestation.
ISSUE:Whether or not Judge Bla
discretion which was further aggravated by the unlawful manner of simultaneously conducting
suspension and contempt proceedings against them.
HELD:
The power to punish a person in contempt of court is inherent in all courts to preserve order in
judicial proceedings and to uphold the orderly administration of justice. However, judges are
enjoined to exercise the power judiciously and sparingly, with utmost restraint, and with the
end in view of utilizing the same for correction and preservation of the dignity of the court, and
not for retaliation or vindictiveness. It bears stressing that the power to declare a person in
contempt of court must be exercised on the preservative, not the vindictive principle; and on
the corrective, not the retaliatory, idea of punishment. Such power, being drastic and
extraordinary in its nature, should not be resorted to unless necessary in the interest of
justice.
In this case, the Court cannot sustain Judge Blancaf
Ex-Parte Manifestation.
Direct contempt is any misbehavior in the presence of or so near a court as to obstruct or
interrupt the proceedings before the same, including disrespect toward the court, offensive
personalities toward others, or refusal to be sworn or to answer as a witness, or to subscribe
an affidavit or deposition when lawfully required to do so.
Based on the foregoing definition, the act of Tulali in filing the Ex-Parte Manifestation cannot be
construed as contumacious within the purview of direct contempt. It must be recalled that the
Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
suspicion of collusion between him and the accused. Its filing on the day before the
promulgation of the decision in the pending criminal case, did not in any way disrupt the
proceedings before the court. Accordingly, he should not be held accountable for his act which
was done in good faith and without malice.
Neither should Rodriguez be liable for direct contempt as he had no knowledge of, or
participation in, the preparation and filing of the subject manifestation. It was signed and filed
by Tulali alone in his capacity as the trial prosecutor in the arson case. The attached complaint
against Awayan was filed with the Office of the Palawan Governor, and not with the RTC.
derogatory matters was purposely filed to discredit the administration of justice in court, is
unfounded and without basis. There being no factual or legal basis for the charge of direct
contempt, it is clear that Judge Blancaflor gravely abused his discretion in finding petitioners
guilty as charged.
In the present case, Judge Blancaflor failed to observe the elementary procedure which
requires written charge and due hearing. There was no order issued to petitioners. Neither was
there any written or formal charge filed against them. In fact, Rodriguez only learned of the
contempt proceedings upon his receipt of the July 30, 2009 Order, requiring him to appear
before the Court in order to clarify certain matters contained in the said order. Tulali, on the
other hand, only learned of the proceedings when he was ordered to submit his compliance to
explain how he came in possession of the administrative complaint against Awayan.
The fact that petitioners were afforded the opportunity to file their appropriate pleadings is not
sufficient as the proceedings ex-parte
completed.
Indeed, Judge Blancaflor failed to conform to the standard of honesty and impartiality required
of judges as mandated under Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
As a public servant, a judge should perform his duties in accordance with the dictates of his
conscience and the light that God has given him. A judge should never allow himself to be
moved by pride, prejudice, passion, or pettiness in the performance of his duties. He should
always bear in mind that the power of the court to punish for contempt should be exercised for
purposes that are impersonal, because that power is intended as a safeguard not for the
judges as persons but for the functions that they exercise.
7
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
Contempt and suspension proceedings are supposed to be separate and distinct. They have
different objects and purposes for which different procedures have been established. Judge
Blancaflor should have conducted separate proceedings
Granting that the simultaneous conduct of contempt and suspension proceedings is permitted,
the suspension of petitioners must still fail.
In the case at bench, there was no prior and separate notice issued to petitioners setting forth
the facts constituting the misconduct and requiring them, within a specified period from
receipt thereof, to show cause why they should not be suspended from the practice of their
profession. Neither were they given full opportunity to defend themselves, to produce evidence
on their behalf and to be heard by themselves and counsel. Undoubtedly, the suspension
proceedings against petitioners are null and void, having violated their right to due process.
(8) INSTANCE SHOWING SIMPLE MISCONDUCT OF A JUDGE (Judicial Ethics)
Aida R.Campos,Alistair R.Campos, andCharmaine R.Camposv. Judge Eliseo M.Campos
A.M. No. MTJ-10-1761, February 8, 2012
Carpio, J.
FACTS:
This is a complaint for serious misconduct, immorality and dishonesty filed by complainants
against respondent, former Presiding Judge of the MTC of Bayugan,Agusan del Sur.
Complainant Aida and respondent were married in 1981 and had two children, complainants
Alistair and Charmaine.
In 2008, respondent filed a petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, alleging that he and
Aida were both psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations;
for his part, respondent is a homosexual who could not be intimate with his wife unless he
imagined he was with another man, while his wife had affairs with other men as a result of his
homosexuality.
To her defense, Aida denied the allegations and filed for legal separation. According to her,
respondent wanted their marriage annulled so that he could marry another woman with whom
he was having a relationship. In the meantime, a separate case was pending against the
respondent, to which a certain parcel of registered land might be taken from their property in
the event of loss. Facts show that the title to such land was kept by respondent in his drawer.
When respondent could not find the title in his usual place for safekeeping, he sought the
Legal Ethics (Case Digests) Compiled by: Ann Tomarong

advice of the Register of Deeds who told him to execute the affidavit of loss, to which he did. ISSUE: WON Judge Canoy is guilty of gross ignorance of law and procedure, undue interference
Respondent then registered the title but in the name of Alistair, a minor at that time.
and gross inefficiency in violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics.
ISSUE: Is respondent guilty of immorality, dishonesty, and serious misconduct? HELD: In Civil Case No. 707,
possession or control of a property to another when the legal title is in dispute between the
HELD: NO, respondent is not guilty of immorality, dishonesty and serious misconduct but only
parties and the legal title has not been clearly established. X X X When the law involved is
relationship with another woman, so as to justify a charge for immorality. There was no
evidence presented that respondent engaged in scandalous conduct that would warrant the
In Spec. Proc. No. 7101 On the charge of violation of Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, we
imposition of disciplinary action against him. However, the Court reminded respondent of the
judge's duty to conduct himself in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial find the same bereft of merit. A judge may properly intervene in the presentation of evidence
office. As such, he must comport himself at all times in such a manner that his conduct, official
to expedite and prevent unnecessary waste of time and clarify obscure and incomplete details
or otherwise, can bear the most searching scrutiny of the public that looks up to him as the
epitome of integrity and justice. Second, respondent was not guilty of dishonesty as regards X X X On the charge of gross ignorance of
the declaration of loss of title.
procedure and undue interference in the administrative functions of the Bureau of Immigration,
complainants failed to prove the charge with substantial evidence. In the absence of contrary
(9) ATTY. RENE O. MEDINA and ATTY. CLARITO SERVILLAS vs. JUDGE VICTOR A. CANOY (February 22,
evidence, what will prevail is the presumption that the respondent judge has regularly
2012)
On the charge of tardiness, the same likewise without merit, without
evidence as to their truthfulness or veraci
FACTS:
In Civil Case No. 7065,
Relative to cases filed before Judge Canoy, an administrative complaint was filed against him
for gross ignorance of law and procedure, undue interference and gross inefficiency. In Civil only after the filing of the instant complaint. Failure to decide cases and other matters within
the reglementaryperiod of ninety (90) days constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the
Case No. 7077, the complainants alleged that the Judge acts of issuing TRO and preliminary
injunction are improper remedies for to transfer possession of one property to another whose imposition of administrative sanction against the erring magistrate. This is not only a blatant
transgression of the Constitution but also of the Code of Judicial Conduct (CANON 6 SECTION 5),
title has not been clearly established, and also for failure to decide Motion for Recommendation
l duties including the delivery of reserved decisions efficiently,
within the 30 days as required by rules and jurisprudence. In In Spec. Proc. No. 7101, for
allegedly interfering with administrative functions of the Bureau on Immigration by ordering
the release of the expired passport to a party, preparing the said Order outside of the court
(10) A.M. No. 12-2-6-SC March 6, 2012
premises, and violating Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct due to his friendly greeting to a
party and for acting as counsel for the latter by raising questions on the respondents during RE: PETITION FOR JUDICIAL CLEMENCY OF JUDGE IRMA ZITA V. MASAMAYOR,

their testimonies. Finally, in In Civil Case No. 7065, for allegedly acting with undue delay in FACTS: Judge Irma Zita Masamayor, Executive and Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court at

resolving a simple Motion to Dismiss, and in his alleged tardiness in trying cases before his Talibon, Bohol applied for a lateral transfer to the Regional Trial Courts of Tagbilaran City.

bench. However, she received a letter from the Judicial and Bar Council dated January 24, 2012
informing her that she was not included in the list of nominees for RTCs in Tagbilaran City. She

8
Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
attributes her disqualification to her previous administrative record of gross inefficiency in
1999 and 2000 for belatedly filing her motions for extension of time to resolve the cases then
pending before her sala. Thus, she was ordered to pay a fine of P5,000.00 in A.M. No. 99-1-16-
RTC; P10,000.00 in A.M. No. 98-12-381-RTC; and P12,000.00 in A.M. No. 99-2-79-RTC. She was
likewise earlier fined P5,000.00 for a similar violation of Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct in A.M. No. 98-10-338-RTC. To reverse she disqualification, she filed a petition
for judicial clemency in the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Masamayor is qualified for judicial clemency.
RULING: Petition GRANTED.
- The following are
disqualified from being nominated for appointment to any judicial post or as Ombudsman or
Deputy Ombudsman:
1. Those with pending criminal or regular administrative cases;
2. Those with pending criminal cases in foreign courts or tribunals; and
3. Those who have been convicted in any criminal case; or in an administrative case,
where the penalty imposed is at least a fine of more than P10,000, unless he has
been granted judicial clemency."
nominated for appointment to any judicial post, unless she be accorded judicial clemency.
In A.M. No. 07-7-17-SC (Re: Letter of Judge Augustus C. Diaz, Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon
7
City, appealing for Clemency), the Court laid down the following guidelines in resolving
requests for judicial clemency, thus:
1st.There must be proof of remorse and reformation. (These shall include but should not be
limited to certifications or testimonials of the officer(s) or chapter(s) of the Integrated Bar of
the Philippines, judges or judges associations and prominent members of the community with
proven integrity and probity. A subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case for the
same or similar misconduct will give rise to a strong presumption of non-reformation.)
nd
2 . Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of
reform.
9
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
3rd. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has productive years
ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself.
4th. There must be a showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning or legal acumen
or contribution to legal scholarship and the development of the legal system or administrative
and other relevant skills), as well as potential for public service.
5th. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify clemency."
Applying the foregoing standards to this case, the Court finds merit in petitioner's request.
Under the 1st guideline, notwithstanding her disqualification, the IBP Bohol Chapter has shown
its high regard for her per the letter of support signed by a number of its members addressed
to the IBP during the pendency of her administrative cases and the IBP Resolution No. 11, Series
of 2009 endorsing her application for lateral transfer to the RTC of Tagbilaran City.
In addition, in the Memorandum of the Office of the Court Administrator, it was stated that her
prompt compliance with the judicial audit requirements of pending cases was acknowledged
and she was even commended for her good performance in the effective management of her
court and in the handling of court records.
Under the 2nd guideline, a review of the records reveals that petitioner has exhibited
remorse for her past misdeeds, which occurred more than ten (10) years ago.
Under the 3rd guideline, while she was found to have belatedly filed her motions for additional
time to resolve the aforecited cases, the Court noted that she had disposed of the same within
the extended period sought, except in A.M. No. 99-2-79-RTC where she submitted her compliance
beyond the approved 45-day extended period. Nevertheless, petitioner has subsequently shown
diligence in the performance of her duties and has not committed any similar act or omission.
Under the 5th guideline, petitioner's dedicated service of 23 years to the judiciary, having been
first appointed as Municipal Circuit Trial Court judge in 1989, merits compassion from the
Court. It bears to note that petitioner does not seek for promotion to a higher position but only
a lateral transfer to a place of work near her residence.
Note : 2 cases
(11) RE: PETITION FOR JUDICIAL CLEMENCY OF THEN JUDGE HERMIN E. ARCEO
A.M. No. RTJ-96-1336
 Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
Perlas-Bernabe,J.
FACTS:
For resolution is the Petition for Judicial Clemency filed by Hermin Arceo, former
Presiding Judge of RTC San Fernando Pampanga, seeking to lift the ban against his employment
in any branch of the government. According to him, he had immensely suffered from and
endured the stigma caused by his dismissal from the service and claims to have been humbled
by his experience and has become remorseful of his previous acts causing him to reform his
ways and treat each person with dignity and respect.
ISSUE: WON the petition for Judicial Clemency should be granted.
RULING:
YES. In Re: Letter of Judge Augustus Diaz, MTC of Quezon City, Appealing for
Clemency, the Court laid down the following guidelines in resolving requests for judicial
clemency, to wit:
1. There must be proof of remorse and reformation. These shall include but should not be
limited to certifications or testimonials of officers or chapters of the IBP, judges or judges
associations and prominent members of the community with proven integrity and probity.
A subsequent finding of guilt in an administrative case for the same or similar misconduct
will give rise to a strong presumption of non-reformation.
2. Sufficient time must have lapsed from the imposition of the penalty to ensure a period of
reform.
3. The age of the person asking for clemency must show that he still has productive years
ahead of him that can be put to good use by giving him a chance to redeem himself.
4. There must be showing of promise (such as intellectual aptitude, learning or legal acumen
or contribution to the legal scholarship and the development of the legal system or
administrative or other relevant skills), as well as potential for public service.
5. There must be other relevant factors and circumstances that may justify clemency.
10
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
Applying the foregoing standards to this case,
prayer for the lifting of the ban against his re-employment in the government service.
Records show that after his dismissal from the service, respondent engaged in
private practice and most of his cases involve poor litigants, neighbors and close friends. He
also submitted a Certificate of Good Moral Character from the Acting Executive Judge of RTC
Malolos and Certificate of Favorable Endorsement from the President of the IBP attesting to his
reformation and recognizing his valuable contributions to the bar and the bench. The court also
notes the many years that had elapsed from the time of the dismissal and recognizes the
prior to his dismissal from the service.
Respondent has sufficiently shown his remorse and reformation after his dismissal
years old had already reached retirement age and can no longer be eligible for regular
employment in the public service, yet, considering his achievements and mental aptitude, it
cannot be doubted that he could still be of service to the government in some other capacity.
(12) JOCELYN TALENS-DABON vs. JUDGE HERMIN ARCEO
A.M. No. RTJ-96-1336, July 25, 1996
FACTS:
A complaint was filed by Atty. Jocelyn Talens-Dabon, Clerk of Court of RTC
Pampanga, charging Judge Hermin Arceo, Executive Judge of said court, with gross
misconduct and immorality. The complaint stemmed from the acts of Judge Arceo towards his
personnel wherein said Judge constantly made bodily contact with the complainant and other
female personnel whenever he had the chance and that he even kissed one of them on several
occasions. According to the complainant, the Judge wrote poems manifesting his sexual
intentions towards her and the latter likewise kissed her violently against her will.
ISSUE: WON the Judge is guilty of Gross Misconduct and Immorality.
RULING:
Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
YES. The integrity of the Judiciary rests not only upon the fact that it is able to
administer justice but also upon the perception and confidence of the community that the
people who run the system have done justice. At times, the strict manner by which we apply
the law may, in fact, do justice but may not necessarily create confidence among the people
that justice, indeed, is served. Hence, in order to create such confidence, the people who run
the judiciary, particularly judges and justices, must not only be proficient in both the
substantive and procedural aspects of the law, but more importantly, they must possess the
highest integrity, probity, and unquestionable moral uprightness, both in their public and
private lives. Only then can the people be reassured that the wheels of justice in this country
run with fairness and equity, thus creating confidence in the judicial system.
With the avowed objective of promoting confidence in the Judiciary, we have the
following provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct:
Canon I
Rule 1.01: A Judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity and
independence.
Canon II
Rule 2.00: A Judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety
in all activities.
Rule 2.01: A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the
integrity and impartially of the judiciary.
Respondent has failed to measure up these exacting standards. He has behaved in a
manner unbecoming of a judge and as model of moral uprightness. He has betrayed the
people's high expectations and diminished the esteem in which they hold the judiciary in
general.
The audacity under which the lewd and lustful acts were committed and the
seeming impunity with which they were perpetrated shock our sense of morality. All roads lead
us to the conclusion that respondent judge has failed to behave in a manner that will promote
confidence in the judiciary. His actuations, if condoned, would damage the integrity of the
11
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
judiciary, fomenting distrust in the system. Hence, his acts deserve no less than the severest
form of disciplinary sanction of dismissal from the service.
The actuations of respondent are aggravated by the fact that complainant is one of
his subordinates over whom he exercises control and supervision, he being the executive
judge. He took advantage of his position and power in order to carry out his lustful and
lascivious desires. Instead of he being in loco parentis over his subordinate employees,
respondent was the one who preyed on them, taking advantage of his superior position.
Judge Hermin Arceo was dismissed from the service.
(12) Re: Subpoena Duces Tecum
FACTS:
Atty. Lozano and Atty. Evangeline Lozano- Endriano were indefinitely suspended from the
practice of law when they were found guilty of professional misconduct when they misquoted
or misused constitutional provisions in their pleadings to impute unjust acts to the members of
the Court. However, Atty. Endraino was reinstated because of lesser culpability on her part.
ISSUE: WON the misuse of constitutional provisions is a breach of standards of being a member
in good standing
HELD: Yes. However, the indefinite suspension was lifted because for a period of 2 years, Atty.
Lozano did not do any act that would indicate that he acted in any unscrupulous practices
unsuitable for him to be a member of the bar.
(13) Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Cader P. Indar
A.M. No. RTJ-10-223, April 10 2012
Per Curiam
Facts:
Local Civil Registrars of Manila and Quezon City reported to the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) that they have received an alarming numbers of decisions, resolutions and
orders on annulment of marriage cases allegedly issued by Judge Indar. Judge Indar issued
Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
decisions on numerous annulment of marriage cases which do not exist in the records of RTC-
Shariff Aguak, Branch 15 or the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Cotabato
City. There is nothing to show that (1) proceedings were had on the questioned cases; (2) docket
fees had been paid; (3) the parties were notified of a scheduled hearing as calendared; (4)
hearings had been conducted; or (5) the cases were submitted for decision. In other words,
Judge Indar, who had sworn to faithfully uphold the law, issued decisions on the questioned
annulment of marriage cases, without any showing that such cases underwent trial and
complied with the statutory and jurisprudential requisites for voiding marriages.
Issue: Whether or not Judge Indar is guilty of gross misconduct and dishonest.
Held: Yes. Judge Indar is guilty of gross misconduct and dishonesty . Judge Indar violated the
following Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility:
CANON 1 - A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE
RESPECT FOR LAW AND FOR LEGAL PROCESSES.
Rule 1.01 - A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful act.
CANON 7 - A LAWYER SHALL AT ALL TIMES UPHOLD THE INTEGRITY AND DIGNITY OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION.
annulment cases underwent trial and complied with the Rules of Court, laws, and established
court.
ct the image of the judiciary,
it also put his moral character in serious doubt and rendered him unfit to continue in the
practice of law. Possession of good moral character is not only a prerequisite to admission to
the bar but also a continuing requirement to the practice of law. If the practice of law is to
remain an honorable profession and attain its basic ideals, those counted within its ranks
should not only master its tenets and principles but should also accord continuing fidelity to
12
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
them. The requirement of good moral character is of much greater import, as far as the
general public is concerned, than the possession of legal learning.
Judge Indar is DISBARRED for violation of Canons 1 and 7 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility and his name ORDERED STRICKEN from the Roll of Attorneys.
(14) ROMANCITO AND JULIANA LUARCA v. JUDGE IRENEO MOLATO
A.M. No. MTJ-08-1711 and A.M. No. MTJ-08-1716, 23 APRIL 2012,THIRD DIVISION (Abad, J.)
Facts: Spouses Ramoncito and Juliana Luarca (the Luarcas) and Jenny Agbay charged Judge
Ireneo B. Molato of the Municipal Trial Court of Bongabong, Oriental Mindoro, with conduct
unbecoming a member of the judiciary, alleging that Judge Molato and his wife, Nilalina,
enticed them to invest money in Lucky Socorro Investor and Credit Corporation of which Nilalina
was president. The Luarcas and Agbay invested in that company to earn interest of 2.5% per
month. The Luarcas and Agbay claim that they got the monthly interest promised them but only
up to 2003 when Lucky Corporation started missing on its obligations Luarcas asked Lucky
Corporation to return their investments with the corresponding interests. But Judge Molato
and his wife failed to comply.
Issues:
1. Is Judge Molato , apart from being the husband
involve in its affairs; and
2. In the affirmative, what shall the nature of his administrative liability be?
Held: Section 4 of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees
lays down the norms of conduct which every public official and employee shall observe in the
discharge and execution of their official duties, specifically providing that they shall at all
times respect the rights of others, and refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals,
good customs, public policy, public order, and public interest. Thus, any conduct contrary to
these standards would qualify as conduct unbecoming of a government employee.
Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
Absent any showing that Judge Molato defrauded complainants of their money or committed
acts that detract from the dignity of his position, the mere fact that the corporation of which
his wife was the president had difficulties meeting its obligations does not per se make him
lacking in moral integrity and of questionable character as would make him liable for conduct
issued Resolution 1-2000 that authorized Judge Molato and three other persons to serve as the
natories, with their signatures appearing on the document. But
complainants presented no evidence that Judge Molato in fact performed such function for
Lucky Corporation. The complainants presented no company withdrawal slips or checks where
his signature appears. No evidence has been adduced that he was a stockholder of that
or served as one of its corporate or line officers.
Still, Judge Molato is to be reprimande
alternate bank signatories even if he may not have performed such service for the corporation.
He has no business agreeing to the performance of such service. His offense constitutes a
violation of Administrative Circular 5 which in essence prohibits public officials from performing
or agreeing to perform functions or services outside of their official functions for the reason
that the entire time of the officials and employees of the judiciary shall be devoted to their
official work to ensure the efficient and speedy administration of justice.
(15) RE: REQUEST FOR COPY OF 2008 STATEMENT OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES AND NETWORTH
[SALN] AND PERSONAL DATA SHEET ORCURRICULUM VITAE OF THE JUSTICES OF THE
SUPREME COURT AND OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE JUDICIARY
A. M. No. 09-8-6-SC
June 13, 2012.
FACTS:
Rowena Paraan, Research Director of the PCIJ, sought copies of the SALN of the Justices of the
Supreme Court for the year 2008. She also requested for copies of the Personal Data Sheet of
the Justices of this Court for the purpose of updating their database of information on
government officials.
13
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
ISSUE:
Whether or not the justices are obliged to disclose their SALNs and be accessed via the right to
information without violation against any Constitutional rights?
RULING: Yes. Canon 2, Sec. 1 of The New Code Of Judicial Conduct For The Philippine Judiciary
provides that:
"Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is
perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable person"
The right to information goes hand-in-hand with the constitutional policies of full public
disclosure and honesty in the public service. In essence, it is the consensus of the Justices of
the above-mentioned courts and the various judges associations that while the Constitution
holds dear the right of the people to have access to matters of concern, the Constitution also
holds sacred the independence of the Judiciary. Thus, although no direct opposition to the
disclosure of SALN and other personal documents is being expressed, it is the uniform position
in accord with the guidelines set by the Court and under such circumstances that would not
undermine the independence of the Judiciary.
Like all constitutional guarantees, however, the right to information, with its companion right
of access to official records, is not absolute. While providing guaranty for that right, the
Considering the foregoing legal precepts vis-à-vis the various requests made, the Court finds no
cogent reason to deny the public access to the SALN, PDS and CV of the Justices of the Court
and other magistrates of the Judiciary subject, of course, to the limitations and prohibitions
provided in R.A. No. 6713, its implementing rules and regulations, and in the guidelines set forth
in the decrial portion.
Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
The Court notes the valid concerns of the other magistrates regarding the possible illicit
motives of some individuals in their requests for access to such personal information and their
publication. However, custodians of public documents must not concern themselves with the
motives, reasons and objects of the persons seeking access to the records. The moral or
material injury which their misuse might inflict on others is the requestor
lookout. Any publication is made subject to the consequences of the law. While public officers in
the custody or control of public records have the discretion to regulate the manner in which
records may be inspected, examined or copied by interested persons, such discretion does not
carry with it the authority to prohibit access, inspection, examination, or copying of the
records. After all, public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all
times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty,
and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.
(16) JUVY P. CIOCON-REER, ET AL. vs. JUDGE ANTONIO C. LUBAO
A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3210-RTJ | June 20, 2012 | Carpio, J.
FACTS:
The complainants were the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 7819 that was appealed from
MTC General Santos City to RTC, Branch 22, which was the post of the respondent Judge. Judge
Lubao then issued an Order on 12 September 2008 directing the parties to file their memoranda
within 30 days from receipt. Complainants averred that defendants should have received the
Order by 07 October 2008, giving them until 06 November 2008 to file the memoranda, but they
failed to do so. That notwithstanding
November 6. On 20 May 2009, he even gave the defendants a last chance to file their
memoranda but the same was received by defendants only on 17 June 2009. Thus, the
complainants filed the instant complaint with the OCA against the Judge for gross ignorance of
the law, rules or procedures, gross incompetency, violation of RA 3019, violation of Arts. 171
and 172 of the RPC and pertinent provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
14
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
Judge Lubao, in his Comment, informed the Court that one of the complainants,
Remberto C. Karaan, Sr., is engaging in the practice of law even though he is not a lawyer.
Karaan replied by saying that Judge Lubao was only evading the topic at hand and thus
violating again basic rules of procedure and the law. The OCA dismissed the complaint saying
that there was no evidence of fraud, bad faith or dishonesty of Judge Lubao in giving the said
Orders. OCA said that the remedy of complainants is a judicial remedy and not an
administrative case. The Supreme Court, in a Resolution dated 24 November 2010, dismissed the
complainant against Judge Lubao and ordered Karaan to show cause why he should not be
cited in contempt. Thus, Karaan moved for a reconsideration of the dismissal before the
Supreme Court.
ISSUE:
WON Judge Lubao is guilty of gross ignorance of the law, rules or procedures, gross
incompetency, violation of RA 3019, violation of Arts. 171 and 172 of the RPC and pertinent
provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct
HOLD:
No. The SC held that not all administrative complainants against judges should merit
sanctions to judges especially if no bad faith, dishonesty or corruption is present. Judge Lubao
could not be faulted for acting carefully before proceeding with the civil case and in giving all
the parties an opportunity to be heard.
Further, the SC held that Karaan was indeed engaged in unauthorized practice of
law and he was held in indirect contempt by the SC. His act of requiring the parties to execute a
Special Power of Attorney in his favor to allow him to be a party litigant constituted such illegal
practice. He was imposed a penalty of 10,000.00 for his actions.
(17) . Eladio D. Perfecto v. Judge Alma Consuelo Desales-Esidera, A.M. No. RTJ-11-2258
June 20, 2012, Brion, J.
Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
Facts: Eladio D. Perfecto filed an administrative complaint against Presiding Judge Alma
Consuelo Desales-Esidera for violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and ignorance of the law
when firstly, he filed a Petition to Cite for Contempt against one Dalmacio Grafil and a Ven S.
Labro which was raffled to the court presided over by the respondent, lamenting that the case
has since been gathering dust in the court of the respondent and maintains that the
respondent should be made administratively liable for her failure to act on the case within a
reasonable period of time. And secondly, the complainant claims that he is the publisher and
Editor-in-Chief of the Catarman Weekly Tribune (CWT), the only accredited newspaper inNorthern
Samar, that in Special Proceedings Nos. C-346 (for adoption and change of name and C-352 (for
adoption), the respondent directed the petitioners to have her orders published in a
newspaper of national circulation and through these directives, the complainant posits that the
respondent betrayed her ignorance of the law, considering that all judicial notices and orders
emanating from the courts of Catarman, Northern Samar should be published only in the CWT,
pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1079.
The respondent, with respect to her alleged inaction on the petition for contempt
maintains that the summons were served on the respondents and that eventually, the
respondents filed their Answer with Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaim, but no other
pleadings followed. Relative to the issue on the publication of court orders/notices, the
respondent submits that the CWT is not generally circulated in the province and that according
announcements and legal notices.
Issue: Whether or not the respondent is guilty of ignorance of the law and usurpation of
authority under the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Held: Anent the allegations of ignorance of the law and usurpation of authority against
respondent Judge Esidera, for issuing a directive to the petitioner in a special proceedings case
to cause the publication of her order in a newspaper of general publication, this Office finds the
15
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
same devoid of merit.That Catarman Weekly Tribune is the only accredited newspaper of
general publication in Catarman does not bar the publication of judicial orders and notices in a
newspaper of national circulation.A judicial notice/order may be published in a newspaper of
national circulation and said newspaper does not even have to be accredited.
However, the Court found the respondent judge guilty of Gross Ignorance of the
Law. With her inaction on the petition for contempt, she betrayed her unbecoming lack of
familiarity with basic procedural rules such as what was involved in the contempt proceedings
before her court. Respondent Judge fell short of these standards when he failed in his duties
to follow elementary law and to keep abreast with prevailing jurisprudence.
(18)STATE PROSECUTORS II JOSEF ALBERT T. COMILANG and MA. VICTORIA SUNEGA-LAGMAN,
Complainants, versus JUDGE MEDEL ARNALDO B. BELEN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 36, CALAMBA
CITY
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2216
June 6, 2012
FACTS: State Prosecutor Comilang filed a complaint-affidavit before the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) charging Judge Belen with manifest partiality and malice, evident bad
faith, inexcusable abuse of authority, and gross ignorance of the law in issuing show cause
orders, subpoenas and contempt citations, in grave defiance to the injunctive writ issued by
the Court of Appeals. State Prosecutor Comilang further alleged that Judge Belen's acts were
intended to harass, oppress, persecute, intimidate, annoy, vex and coerce him, and to place
him in a disadvantageous and compromising position, as he was prosecuting the libel case
instituted by herein complainant State Prosecutor Lagman against Judge Belen when he was
still a practicing lawyer.
ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Belen's actuations showed manifest partiality and bias,
evident bad faith, grave abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law warranting his
dismissal from service as RTC Judge of Branch 36, Calamba City.
Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
HELD: Yes. Judges are expected to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes
and procedural laws. They must know the laws and apply them properly in good faith as
judicial competence requires no less.
Judge Belen blatantly violated the injunctive writ issued by the CA. In complete disobedience,
Judge Belen proceeded to issue (1) the Order requiring State Prosecutor Comilang to explain his
refusal to file the supersedeas bond and to require his presence in court, as well as to explain
why he should not be cited for indirect contempt; (2) the Order seeking State Prosecutor
Comilang's explanation for his defiance of the subpoena requiring his presence at the hearing
of even date, and directing, once again, his attendance at the next hearing and to explain once
more why he should not be cited for indirect contempt; and (3) the Order finding State
Prosecutor Comilang guilty of indirect contempt and sentencing him to pay a fine of P30,000.00
and to suffer two days' imprisonment.
Judge Belen's actuations, therefore, cannot be considered as mere errors of judgment that
can be easily brushed aside. Obstinate disregard of basic and established rule of law or
procedure amounts to inexcusable abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law. Likewise,
citing State Prosecutor Comilang for indirect contempt notwithstanding the effectivity of the
CA-issued writ of injunction demonstrated his vexatious attitude and bad faith towards the
former, for which he must be held accountable and subjected to disciplinary action.
(19) PROSEC. JORGE D. BACULI v. JUDGE MEDEL ARNALDO B. BELEN, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2179, THIRD
DIVISION, September 24, 2012, VELASCO, J.
FACTS:
December 18, 2006 Decision, in which Baculi was found guilty of direct contempt, and the June
16
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
7, 2007 Decision, wherein Judge Belen declared Baculi guilty of indirect contempt of court, for
the contemptuous nature of pleadings that Baculi filed in his sala.
ISSUE:
Whether
grave abuse of authority, and gross ignorance of the law warranting his dismissal from
service as RTC Judge.
HELD:
Respondent is guilty of grave abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law
In the case of Pesayco v. Layague,[21] the Court succinctly explained:
No less than the Code of Judicial conduct mandates that a judge shall be faithful to
the laws and maintain professional competence. Indeed, competence is a mark of a good
judge. A judge must be acquainted with legal norms and precepts as well as with procedural
rules. When a judge displays an ut
confidence in the competence of our courts. Such is gross ignorance of the law. One who
accepts the exalted position of a judge owes the public and the court the duty to be proficient
in the law. Unfamiliarity with the Rules of Court is a sign of incompetence. Basic rules of
Thus, this Court has consistently held that a judge is presumed to know the law and
when the law is so elementary, not to be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.
Verily, failure to follow basic legal commands embodied in the law and the Rules constitutes
gross ignorance of the law, from which no one is excused, and surely not a judge. [22]
This is because judges are expected to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with
statutes and procedural laws. They must know the laws and apply them properly in good faith
as judicial competence requires no less.
Legal Ethics (Case Digests) Compiled by: Ann Tomarong

Judge Belen's actuations, therefore, cannot be considered as mere errors of judgment that
can be easily brushed aside. Obstinate disregard of basic and established rule of law or
HELD:
procedure amounts to inexcusable abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law.
Respondent is guilty of grave abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law
Accordingly, in imposing
administrative cases where he was penalized in the following manner: In the case of Pesayco v. Layague,[21] the Court succinctly explained:

Our conception of good judges has been, and is, of men who have a mastery of the principles No less than the Code of Judicial conduct mandates that a judge shall be faithful to

of law, who discharge their duties in accordance with law. Hence, with the foregoing the laws and maintain professional competence. Indeed, competence is a mark of a good
judge. A judge must be acquainted with legal norms and precepts as well as with procedural

which he had been severely warned, the Court therefore adopts the recommendation of the
OCA to mete the ultimate penalty of dismissal against Judge Belen for grave abuse of authority confidence in the competence of our courts. Such is gross ignorance of the law. One who

and gross ignorance of the law. The Court can no longer afford to be lenient in this case, lest it accepts the exalted position of a judge owes the public and the court the duty to be proficient

give the public the impression that incompetence and repeated offenders are tolerated in the in the law. Unfamiliarity with the Rules of Court is a sign of incompetence. Basic rules of

judiciary.

(20). PROSEC. JORGE D. BACULI v. JUDGE MEDEL ARNALDO B. BELEN, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2179, THIRD Thus, this Court has consistently held that a judge is presumed to know the law and
DIVISION, September 24, 2012, VELASCO, J. when the law is so elementary, not to be aware of it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.

FACTS: Verily, failure to follow basic legal commands embodied in the law and the Rules constitutes

malicious, gross ignorance of the law, from which no one is excused, and surely not a judge. [22]

December 18, 2006 Decision, in which Baculi was found guilty of direct contempt, and the June This is because judges are expected to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with

7, 2007 Decision, wherein Judge Belen declared Baculi guilty of indirect contempt of court, for statutes and procedural laws. They must know the laws and apply them properly in good faith

the contemptuous nature of pleadings that Baculi filed in his sala. as judicial competence requires no less.

ISSUE: Judge Belen's actuations, therefore, cannot be considered as mere errors of judgment that
can be easily brushed aside. Obstinate disregard of basic and established rule of law or
procedure amounts to inexcusable abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law.
grave abuse of authority, and gross ignorance of the law warranting his dismissal from
service as RTC Judge.
17
Legal Ethics (Case Digests) Compiled by: Ann Tomarong

Accordingly, in imposing the proper penalty, the Court takes note of J grave abuse of authority and gross ignorance of the law. The Court can no longer afford to be
administrative cases where he was penalized in the following manner: lenient in this case, lest it give the public the impression that incompetence and repeated
offenders are tolerated in the judiciary.

Docket No. Case Title Charge Penalty (21) ATTY. RAUL L. CORREA vs JUDGE MEDEL ARNALDO B. BELEN
A.M. No. RTJ- Mane v. Conduct Reprimand, with Our conception of
08-2119 Judge Unbecoming of warning that a good judges has
Belen[26] a Judge repetition of the Facts:
same or similar been, and is, of men
acts shall merit a who have a mastery
more serious A complaint has been filed by Atty. Raul L. Correa charging respondent Judge MedelArnaldo B.
penalty of the principles of
Belen of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Calamba City, Laguna of Misconduct
law, who discharge
A.M. No. RTJ- Baculi v. Gross Ignorance Suspended for 6
09-2176 Judge of the Law months without their duties in
Complainant claimed that, in the course of the proceedings, he was asked by respondent
Belen[27] salary and other accordance with
benefits, with
stern warning law. Hence, with the
that a repetition foregoing
of the same or Respondent Judge Belen even rebuked him for some mistakes in managing the affairs of the
similar acts shall disquisitions and
estate, adding that it is regrettable "because Atty. Raul Correa is a U.P. Law Graduate and a Bar
merit a more
serious penalty
A.M. No. RTJ- Correa v. Conduct Fined for previous infractions,
10-2242 Judge Unbecoming of PhP10,000.00 which are all of
Belen[28] a Judge with stern Issue: Whether or not Judge Belen is guilty of conduct unbecoming of a judge.
warning that a serious nature and
repetition of the for which he had
same or similar Held: Yes.
acts shall merit a been severely
Indeed, the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary exhorts members
more serious warned, the Court
penalty of the judiciary, in the discharge of their duties, to be models of propriety at all times. Canon 4
A.M.No. RTJ- Belen v. Violation of Fined for therefore adopts the
mandates
08-2139 Judge Section 4 of PhP11,000 with recommendation of
Belen[29] Canon 1 and stern warning
Section 1 of that a repetition the OCA to mete the
Canon 4 of the of the same or ultimate penalty of
New Code of similar acts shall
Judicial Conduct merit a more dismissal against
CANON 4
serious penalty Judge Belen for
PROPRIETY

18
Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all the
activities of a judge.
SECTION 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of
their activities.
x xx
SEC. 6. Judges, like any other citizen, are entitled to freedom of expression, belief,
association and assembly, but in exercising such rights, they shall always conduct themselves
in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and
independence of the judiciary.
A judge must consistently be temperate in words and in actions.
coming from his inconsiderate belief that the latter mishandled the cause of his client is
obviously and clearly insensitive, distasteful, and inexcusable. Such abuse of power and
authority could only invite disrespect from counsels and from the public. Patience is one virtue
that members of the bench should practice at all times, and courtesy to everyone is always
called for.
(22) ASSISTANT SPECIAL PROSECUTOR III ROHERMIAJ. JAMSANI-RODRIGUEZ,VS.JUSTICES GREGORY S.
ONG, JOSE R. HERNANDEZ, and RODOLFO A. PONFERRADA, SANDIGANBAYAN.
A.M. No. 08-19-SB-J August 24, 2010
19
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
FACTS:
The complainant initiated this administrative matter by filing an affidavit-complaint
dated October 23, 2008 to charge Sandiganbayan Justices Gregory S. Ong (Justice Ong); Jose R.
Hernandez (Justice Hernandez); and Rodolfo A. Ponferrada (Justice Ponferrada), who composed
the Fourth Division of the Sandiganbayan (Fourth Division), with Justice Ong as Chairman, at the
time material to the complaint, with Improprieties During Hearings Amounting to Gross Abuse of
Judicial Authority and Grave Misconduct.
Allegedly, Justice Ong and Justice Hernandez made the following intemperate and
discriminatory utterances during hearings. Firstly, the complainant alleged that Justice Ong
uttered towards the complainant during the hearing held in Cebu City in September 2006 the
following:
already out, we fined you eighteen thousand pesos, even if you will appeal, by that time I will
Secondly, Justice Ong often asked lawyers from which law schools they had graduated,
and frequently inquired whether the law school in which Justice Hernandez had studied and
complainant opined that the query was manifestly intended to emphasize that the San Beda
College of Law, the alma mater of Justice Ong, and the UP College of Law, that of Justice
Hernandez, were the best law schools.
Thirdly, on another occasion in that hearing in Cebu City in September 2006, Justice
Hernandez discourteously shouted at Prosecutor HazelinaTujan-Militante, who was then
observing trial from the gallery: You are better than Director Somido? Are you better than
Director Chua? Are you here to supervise Somido? Your office is wasting funds for one
prosecutor who is doing nothing.
Finally, Justice Hernandez berated Atty. Pangalangan, the father of former UP Law
Dean Raul Pangalangan, thus:Just because your son is always nominated by the JBC to
Malacañang, you are acting like that! Do not forget that the brain of the child follows that of
their (sic) mother.
Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent justices are liable for Improprieties During Hearings
Amounting to Gross Abuse of Judicial Authority and Grave Misconduct?
RULING OF THE COURT:Unbecoming Conduct of Justice Ong and Justice Hernandez.
and Justice Hernandez had
uttered the improper and intemperate statements attributed to them.A review of the
transcripts of the stenographic notes for the hearings in which the offensive statements were
supposedly uttered by them has failed to substantiat
absence of a clear showing to the contrary, the Court must accept such transcripts as the
faithful and true record of the proceedings, because they bear the certification of correctness
executed by the stenographers who had prepared them.
Even so, Justice Ong and Justice Hernandez admitted randomly asking the counsels
appearing before them from which law schools they had graduated, and their engaging during
the hearings in casual conversation about their respective law schools. They thereby publicized
their professional qualifications and manifested a lack of the requisite humility demanded of
public magistrates. Their doing so reflected a vice of self-conceit. We view their acts as
bespeaking their lack of judicial temperament and decorum, which no judge worthy of the
judicial robes should avoid especially during their performance of judicial functions. They
should not exchange banter or engage in playful teasing of each other during trial proceedings
(no matter how good-natured or even if meant to ease tension, as they want us to believe).
Judicial decorum demands that they behave with dignity and act with courtesy towards all
who appear before their court.
Indeed, Section 6, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary clearly enjoins that:
Section 6. Judges shall maintain order and decorum in all proceedings before the court and be
patient, dignified and courteous in relation to litigants, witnesses, lawyers and others with
20
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
whom the judge deals in an official capacity. Judges shall require similar conduct of legal
representatives, court staff and others subject to their influence, direction or control.
We point out that publicizing professional qualifications or boasting of having
studied in and graduated from certain law schools, no matter how prestigious, might have
even revealed, on the part of Justice Ong and Justice Hernandez, their bias for or against some
lawyers. Their conduct was impermissible, consequently, for Section 3, Canon 4 of the New
Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, demands that judges avoid situations that
may reasonably give rise to the suspicion or appearance of favoritism or partiality in their
personal relations with individual members of the legal profession who practice regularly in
their courts.
Judges should be dignified in demeanor, and refined in speech. In performing their
judicial duties, they should not manifest bias or prejudice by word or conduct towards any
person or group on irrelevant grounds. It is very essential that they should live up to the high
standards their noble position on the Bench demands. Their language must be guarded and
measured, lest the best of intentions be misconstrued.
In this regard, Section 3, Canon 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary, mandates judges to carry out judicial duties with appropriate
consideration for all persons, such as the parties, witnesses, lawyers, court staff, and judicial
colleagues, without differentiation on any irrelevant ground, immaterial to the proper
performance of such duties.
In view of the foregoing, Justice Ong and Justice Hernandez were guilty of
to a broader range of transgressions of rules not only of social behavior but of ethical practice
(23) Velasco vs. Judge Angeles
September 06, 2010
Legal Ethics (Case Digests) Compiled by: Ann Tomarong

Held: No, the respondent the respondent did not incur unauthorized absences during her
Facts: Respondent, Presiding Judge of the Caloocan Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 121 (until attendance at the hearing in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila on 3 May 2005 and on 3
her retirement on May 23, 2010), was charged by then petitioner with violation of Supreme August 2005.
Court Circulars, the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically for
unauthorized practice of law, unauthorized absences and falsification of certificate of
service.
2010 Resolution, applied the ruling in Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Delia H.
Criminal Case No. 04-230908, for libel, which was, on her complaint, filed against him before the
Manila RTC, she appearing at Branch 26 thereof (to which the case was raffled) without her
Panganiban
lapses. However, as correctly pointed out by respondent in her second motion for partial
filing leaves of absence on the following dates February 2, 2005, May 3 and 19, 2005, June 14,
reconsideration, said case should not have been applied, as it presupposes that respondent
15, 22 and 30, 2005, July 12-13, 2005 and August 3 and 11, 2005. Petitioner thus concluded that
when respondent indicated in her Certificates of Service that she had rendered service during indeed committed lapses which her long service and unblemished reputation would not justify
while she has always maintained that she had not committed the act complained of, that is,
the questioned dates, she is guilty of falsification and of violation of Canons 3 and 5 of the Code
the non-filing of the leaves of absence for May 3 and August 3, 2005 because she did not have
of Judicial Conduct and Canons 3, 7, 22 and 31 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. After concluding
to.
his investigation, the Investigating Justice considering only the remaining issues of falsification
motion for partial reconsideration on the basis of the Panganiban decision deserves to be
and incurring unauthorized absences, reported that respondent is guilty of unauthorized
reviewed. May 3, 2005, while
absences on May 3 and August 3, 2005. With respect to the rest of the questioned dates, he
admittedly no subpoena was served on her to appear on said date that was a re-scheduled
date of hearing, the earlier-scheduled hearing having been postponed. There was thus no
the subpoenas issued by the trial court. Respondent filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration
absolute need for her to be subpoenaed for the purpose.
which was denied by Resolution of February 22, 2010 of the Court of Appeals. Hence, the
present second Motion for Partial Reconsideration.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent incurred unauthorized absences during her attendance at
the hearing in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila on 3 May 2005, where her attendance
thereat as a private complainant was without subpoena which resulted in her unjustified
absence from her own court and on 3 August 2005 where respondent failed to file a leave of
absence rationalizing that she was out only for a few minutes which she compensated by
staying in the office and working beyond office hours and the forfeiture of her leave credits in
the name of public service.
May 3, 2005 hearing was covered by subpoena, she still needed to secure a Certificate of
Service because she was the private complainant: The Court notes that this is merely a
matter of practice for government employees who need such certification to show to their
superiors that they indeed attended the hearing. In any case, the minutes of a hearing show
the parties who are present, hence, such certification becomes a mere surplusage. Respecting
August 3, 2005; the same did not require the filing of a

21
Legal Ethics (Case Digests) Compiled by: Ann Tomarong

leave of absence. The Investigating Justice himself noted that her absence involved only a Yes. First, on the question of jurisdiction as Judge Duque is no longer a member of
the judiciary having retired from the service on 21 February 2008, the records show that Reyes
filed four similar complaints against Judge Duque. It is clear from the records that Reyes filed
her intended complaint before Judge Duque retired. Consequently, the Court no doubt has
(24) SUSAN O. REYES v. JUDGE MANUEL N. DUQUE
jurisdiction over this administrative case.
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2136, 21 September 2010, EN BANC (Carpio, J.)

On the charge of graft and corruption, the Investigating Justice and the OCA found
FACTS:
ion that Judge Duque demanded and received
Complainant Susan O. Reyes charged respondent Judge Manuel N. Duque with
money from her in consideration of a favorable ruling. Thus, this charge should be dismissed
Impropriety, Corruption and Gross Misconduct. Reyes alleged that she was a party-in-
for being unsubstantiated.
intervention in a land registration case. Atty. Herminio Ubana, Sr., the lawyer of Reyes,
introduced her to Judge Duque. When Reyes was unable to re-negotiate with the bank with
On the charge of impropriety and gross misconduct, and after a thorough
regard to the pending case, she allegedly received a phone call from Judge Duque, instructing
investigation conducted by the Investigating Justice, it was established, and Judge Duque

P100,000 but Reyes was unable to give the full amount.

liability for impropriety and gross misconduct when he sexually assaulted Reyes. The
When Reyes went again to his house, he allegedly scolded her, locked the main door of his
Investigating Justice likewise observed that Judge Duque merely attempted to destroy the
house and asked Reyes to step into his office. Judge Duque touched her private parts and
attempted to have sexual intercourse with her.
udge has a right to
solicit sexual favors from a party litigant even from a woman of loose morals. In Tan v.
On the other hand, Judge Duque averred that since the complaint of Reyes was filed
Pacuribot, this Court further stressed:
after he retired, he was no longer under the jurisdiction of the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA). He denied the charges hurled against him
We have repeatedly reminded members of the Judiciary to so conduct themselves
as to be beyond reproach and suspicion, and to be free from any appearance of
impropriety in their personal behavior, not only in the discharge of their official duties but
ISSUE:
also in their everyday lives. For no position exacts a greater demand on the moral
Whether or not Judge Duque should be held liable for impropriety and gross
righteousness and uprightness of an individual than a seat in the Judiciary. Judges are
misconduct for soliciting sexual favors from a party litigant
mandated to maintain good moral character and are at all times expected to observe
irreproachable behavior so as not to outrage public decency. We have adhered to and set
HELD:
forth the exacting standards of morality and decency, which every member of the

22
 Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
judiciary must observe. A magistrate is judged not only by his official acts but also by his
private morals, to the extent that such private morals are externalized. He should not only
possess proficiency in law but should likewise possess moral integrity for the people look
up to him as a virtuous and upright man.
The conduct of Judge Duque fell short of the exacting standards for members of the
judiciary. He failed to behave in a manner that would promote confidence in the judiciary.
Considering that a judge is a visible representation of the law and of justice, he is naturally
indubitably bore the marks of impropriety and immorality. He failed to live up to the high moral
standards of the judiciary and even transgressed the ordinary norms of decency of society.
Had Judge Duque not retired, his misconduct would have merited his dismissal from the
service.
(25) Re: Anonymous Letter- dated August 12, 2010, complaining against Judge Ofelia T. Pinto,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 60, Angeles City, Pampanga.
FACTS:
1. A letter-complaint was filed before the Office of the Court Administrator against Judge
Ofelia Pinto where she was charged with dishonesty, violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, Gross Misconduct in violation of the Judicial Conduct, and knowingly
rendering an unjust judgment in connection with the reopening of a criminal case whose
decision was already final and executor and subject of an entry of judgment in the Court
of Appeals.
2. OCA required Judge Pinto to comment on the anonymous letter-complaint and Judge Pinot
alleged that the outright denial of the motion to re-open the case was improper, without
her acts were indeed erroneous, they were done in the exercise of her adjudicative
functions which cannot be made subject of a disciplinary, civil, or criminal action absent
fraud, dishonest, and corruption on her part.
3. OCA recommended that Judge Pinto be held guilty of Gross Ignorance of Law and Procedure
and be suspended from service without salary and other benefits for a period of six month
23
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
with a stern warning. The Court agreed with the resolution of OCA but changed the penalty
to dismissal from service.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Judge Pinto should be dismissed from service on the ground of
Gross Ignorance of Law and Procedures.
RULING:
The court said that in order to render substantial justice and maintain public
confidence in the legal system, judges should be embodiments of competence, integrity and
independence. They are likewise expected to demonstrate mastery of the principles of law,
keep abreast of prevailing jurisprudence and discharge duties in accordance therewith. Judge
Judge Pinto had no jurisdiction to entertain the motion filed by the accused-movant
to reopen Criminal Case No. 91- -
the clear language of Section 24, Rule 119 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. In
other words, a motion to reopen a criminal case is not the proper procedural recourse when
there is already a final judgment of conviction. This rule is consistent with the doctrine of
e of finality of judgment,
which is grounded on fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice, dictates
that at the risk of occasional error, the judgments of the courts must become final and
this case, the final decision of the CA should
have been given effect.
Even granting that Judge Pinto had been motivated by good intentions leading her to
disregard the laws and rules of procedure, these personal motivations cannot relieve her from
the administrative consequences of her actions as they affect her competency and conduct as
a judge in the discharge of her official functions.
We have previously held that when a law or a rule is basic, judges owe it to their
settled law and jurisprudence because of bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption. Gross
ignorance of the law or incompetence cannot be excused by a claim of good faith.
Legal Ethics (Case Digests) Compiled by: Ann Tomarong

procedure constitutes gross ignorance of the law which merits administrative sanction. ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Pinto the Code of Judicial Conduct? (Yes but under Section 1 of
Section 8(9), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court classifies gross ignorance as a serious charge with
Canon 4)
the following imposable penalties:
1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may HELD:
determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, Upon assumption of office a Judge becomes the visible representation of the law
including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the
and of justice. Faithful observance of the Canons is the price one has to pay for being a
forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits;
2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not magistrate. He must conduct himself in a manner that will withstand the most searching public
exceeding six (6) months; or scrutiny, for the ethical principles and sense of propriety of a judge are essential to the
3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.13
We note that this not the first time that we found Judge Pinto administratively
liable. We found her liable in two other administrative cases. judges that they measure up to the standards of conduct of the saints and martyrs, but we do
eir activities.
26. Rolando Marcos vs.Judge Ofelia Pinto
In acting as the solemnizing officer is improper and highly unethical for a judge
A.M. OCA No. RTJ-09-2180July 26, 2010
considering that the accused is a party in a case pending before her sala.
FACTS:
*Canon 4, Section 1 Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of
Judge Pinto is the presiding judge in a criminal case for violation of R.A. 7610 where
their activities.
Marcos is a witness. While the case is being tried, the DOJ Secretary issued a resolution
granting the motion for reconsideration filed by the defense questioning the filing of the
(27). DR. JANOS B. VIZCAYNO, complainant vs. JUDGE JASPER JESSE G. DACANAY, in his official
information against the accused. By virtue of this resolution, Judge Pinto issued an order
capacity as the Presiding judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Liloan- Compostela, Cebu,
terminating the proceedings and required the prosecution to file a comment thereon. The
respondent
prosecution failed to file such comment within the given period and as a result, the proceeding
(A.M. No. MTJ-10-1772; Second Divison ; J. Carpio; December 5, 2012)
was terminated.
FACTS:
Marcos filed an administrative case against Judge Pinto for gross ignorance of the
1. Dr. Vizcayno filed an administrative complaint against Judge Dacanay for gross
law by not reviewing such resolution of DOJ, for manifest bias and partiality on the basis that
Ignorance of the Law, Abuse of Authority, Manifest Partiality and Delay relative to a
Civil Case.
year the case was terminated. In her defense, Judge Pinto claimed that she duly exercised
2. The complaint originated from the alleged ex-parte ocular inspection conducted by
judicial discretion at every stage of the proceeding and that she is allowed by law to solemnize
respondent Judge without notice given to the complainant.
marriage under the Family Code.
3.
Upon investigation of the presiding Justice of Court of Appeals found no basis for
with his utility personnel only to conduct his own investigation and no one from the
the alleged violation of Canon 2.

24
Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
plaintiffs or the defendant ever entertained him. He argues that he made the
inspection in good faith and with noble intentions.
4. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended that respondent be declared guilty
of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service in violation of Sec. 1, Canon 4
of The New Code of Judicial Conduct.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not Judge Dacanay should be held administratively liable for conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service for conducting an ocular inspection
without informing the parties
2. Whether Judge Dacanay should be held administratively liable for the delay in the
resolution of the Motion for Inhibition
HELD:
1. Judge Dacanay is guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
previously ruled in similar cases that an ocular inspection without notice to nor
presence of the parties is highly improper. Good and noble intentions notwithstanding,
diminished public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. All those
involved in the dispensation of justice, from the presiding justice to the lowliest clerk,
must always be beyond reproach. Their conduct must, at all times, be circumscribed
with the heavy burden of responsibility free from any suspicion that may taint the
judiciary.
2. The Respondent Judge expunged from the records the said motion because the
counsel of complainant failed to indicate the date of issue and number of MCLE
Compliance as required by Bar Matter No. 1922. Said Order may therefore be
considered as a denial of the Motion for Inhibition, which was issued within the 90-day
period to resolve a motion.
25
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
(28). AMBASSADOR HARRY C. ANGPING and ATTY. SIXTO BRILLANTES vs.JUDGE REYNALDO G. ROS
A.M. No. 12-8-160-RTC
December 10, 2012
Facts:
The petitioners charged respondent Judge Ros for violating Canons 2 and 3 of the
Code of Judicial Conduct. The said letter-complaint emanated from the actions and rulings of
Judge Ros relative to Criminal Case Nos. 10-274696 to 10-274704. Petitioners alleged that on
March 23, 2010, the above cases were raffled to Branch 33, RTC-Manila. However, on the very
same day the said case was raffled to the respondent judge, the latter issued an order
dismissing the criminal cases for lack of probable cause.
The aforesaid incidents started to create reservations in the mind of the petitioners
aforementioned criminal cases because of the speed at which he disposed them when they had
just been raffled to him. The petitioners could not believe that he could resolve the
cases within the same day considering that the records thereof are voluminous and that the
criminal cases were raffled to him on the day he issued the order of dismissal. Nevertheless,
the
such as the filing of a motion for reconsideration. However, when Judge Ros issued the order
resolving the motion for reconsideration after two (2) days from the filing of the comment and
, petitioners were convinced that respondent Judge Ros acted
with partiality and malice, thus the petition filed against him.
Issue/s:
Whether or not respondent Judge Ros is liable for violation of Canons 2 and 3 of the
Code of Judicial Conduct.
Held:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the charge against Judge Reynaldo G. Ros for
violation of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct is hereby DISMISSED. However, for failing to
Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
live up to the degree of propriety required of him under Canon 2 of the same Code, he is
hereby ADMONISHED and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be
dealt with more severely.
Ratio:
Jurisprudence repeatedly teaches that litigants are entitled to nothing less than the
cold neutrality of an impartial judge. The other elements of due process, like notice and
hearing, would become meaningless if the ultimate decision is rendered by a partial or biased
judge. Judges must not only render just, correct and impartial decisions, but must do so in a
manner free of any suspicion as to their fairness, impartiality and integrity. In the instant
administrative complaint, while no evidence directly shows partiality and malice on the
annot ignore the fact that the dispatch by which the
respondent Judge dismissed the criminal cases provokes in the minds of the petitioners doubt
in the partiality of the respondent.
29.
PROSECUTOR HILARIO RONSON H. TILAN vs. JUDGE ESTER PISCOSO-FLOR, RTC, BRANCH 34, BANAUE,
IFUGAO
A.M. No. RTJ-09-2188 (Formerly A.M. OCA-IPI No. 08-2995-RTJ)
January 10, 2011
FACTS:
In People v. Baguilat, Judge Piscoso-Flor issued an order dated October 20, 20072 directing the
parties to submit their respective memoranda within thirty (30) days from receipt of the order.
The complainant alleged that the judge failed to render a decision within the ninety (90)-day
reglementary period; instead, she issued an order, dated April 8, 2008, reiterating her earlier
directive for the parties to submit their respective memoranda.
26
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
In People v. Talanay, Judge Piscoso-Flor issued an order dated September 25, 20074 giving the
accused fifteen (15) days to file his formal offer of evidence, and five (5) days for the
prosecution to file its comment/objections. Allegedly, Judge Piscoso-Flor again failed to resolve
the case within the 90-day reglementary period; instead, she issued another order dated May
21, 20085 giving the parties fifteen (15) days within which to file their memoranda.
Prosecutor Tilan claimed that in both cases, Judge Piscoso-Flor resorted to the issuance of an
for the resolution of cases.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Judge Piscoso-Flor failed to render speedy disposition of cases.
Whether or not Judge Piscoso-Flor failure to decide cases and resolve motions within the
reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency and gross negligence.
HELD:
The OCA evaluation tells us that Judge Piscoso-Flor is guilty of failing to decide cases within the
required periods, citing Criminal Case No. 127 ( People v. Juanito Baguilat) as the principal basis
of its conclusion. In this case, the OCA faulted Judge Piscoso-Flor for using as justification for
is not a valid reason for not deciding the case; if she believed she would not be able to decide
the case on time, she could have asked the Court for an extension of the required period. The
OCA acknowledged though that Judge Piscoso-Flor requested for an extension to decide the
case in her monthly report of cases and certificate of service.
We find the OCA evaluation in order. Although Judge Piscoso-Flor claimed that she had
requested for an extension of time to decide Criminal Case No. 127, there was no showing that
the request was ever granted. Over and above this consideration, she allowed the parties to
control the period of disposition of the case through their lukewarm response to her call for the
submission of memoranda, which she had to do twice. She could have acted more firmly,
considering, as she said, that she only inherited the case, which implies that it had been on the
docket for quite some time. In any event, Judge Piscoso-Flor should have known that "[t]he
Court may grant extension of time to file memoranda, but the ninety (90) day period for
deciding the case shall not be interrupted thereby."
Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
On the whole, we find Judge Piscoso-Flor guilty of undue delay in the disposition of cases.
Except for People v. Dimpatan, Judge Piscoso-Flor failed to resolve the other cases within the
required period, in violation of the law and the rules. No less than the Constitution sets the
limits on this all-important aspect in the administration of justice. It mandates that lower
courts have three (3) months or ninety (90) days within which to decide cases or matters
submitted to them for resolution. Also, the Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to dispose
of
It cannot be over emphasized that judges need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously.
Delay in the disposition of cases, it must again be stated, is a major cause in the erosion of
public faith and confidence in the justice system. For this fundamental and compelling reason,
judges are required to decide cases and resolve motions with dispatch within the
reglementary period. Failure to comply constitutes gross inefficiency, a lapse that warrants
the imposition of administrative sanctions against the erring magistrate.
(30) RE: SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMMITED BY JUDGE REXEL M. PACURIBOT, RTC, BR. 27, GINGOOG CITY
AM No. RTJ-06-1983 (December 14, 2007)
This case deals with violence against women through the commission of rape and sexual
harassment, by no less than a member of the Bench. Aside from using his position and
ascendancy in having his way with the women, he also attempted to discredit their
testimonies by perpetuating gende
-will and revenge in accusing him. The
Court sifted through and beyond the arguments raised by the Respondent Judge,
demonstrating commendable sensitivity to the plight of the women.
Facts -Stenographer of RTC, Branch 27, Gingoog City, filed an
affidavit-
On 20 December 2005, another affidavit-complaint was filed against Judge Pacuribot by B
charging him with sexual harassment.
A was working under Judge Tan. On 20 October 2004, she filed a half-day leave of absence to
attend a wedding in Cagayan de Oro City. At around 8
enjoying the wedding reception, she received a call from Judge Pacuribot. Judge Pacuribot
asked her when she was going back to Gingoog City. She answered that she would go back
27
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
after the wedding reception. Judge Pacuribot offered Ms.A a ride to the Agora Bus Station. She
declined the offer. Judge Pacuribot, then, ordered her to come out of the reception area,
saying he was already waiting outside. Aware of his tendency to humiliate anyone in public
when angry, she decided to abruptly leave the wedding reception and comply. When she went
out, she saw Judge Pacuribot alone in his car. When A went inside the car, she saw, in between
ead,
and the Judge succeeded in raping A. After, A told Judge Pacuribot that she would just take the
taxi to the bus station. However, instead of driving her to the bus station, Judge Pacuribot took
her to another place. When A protested, the Judge told her that it would be safer if she slept
there as it was already nearing midnight. Still frightened, she failed to ask for help or call her
husband. When the judge left the place, A tried to leave but the bellboy told her that she should
settle the account first, which she could not do because she had no money. In the meantime,
the Judge kept calling her and threatening her. A was also afraid of what the Judge would do
to her family, and what reaction her husband would have if she were to tell him. The next day,
Judge Pacuribot went back. The judge again succeeded in raping A. After, the Judge drove her
to Cogon, Cagayan de Oro City. Judge Pacuribot left her there. The next day, A did not report for
work.
A did not tell anyone of what happened to her and Judge
he would grab her blouse, mash her breast, and kiss her neck. The Judge also told A to send
him text messages of endearment. He warned her that her failure to do so would prejudice her
performance rating. The situation got worse when the Judge rented a room, such that
his room. A tolerated the judge because of his threats to her performance rating. Her
performance rating eventually went down, from very satisfactory to satisfactory.
B first met Judge Pacuribot sometime in November 2004 at the lobby near the Probation Office
where she was working. Her childhood friend was the driver of the Judge. One day, B received
a cellphone call from Judge Pacuribot followed by text messages telling her how pretty and
sexy she was, how her mini-skirt suited her, etc Thereafter, Judge Pacuribot started inviting
her to dinner, which invitations she always refused, being herself married and knowing that
the Judge was, too. In the last week of February 2005, she again received a call from Judge
Pacuribot. The Judge was fuming mad because she refused his dinner invitations. Scared, she
finally relented.
The dinner was set on 22 February 2005. She picked a restaurant owned by her relative, feeling
that she would be safe there. The Judge picked her up. While they were talking inside the car,
Judge Pacuribot took out his gun, cocked it, and put it in between them. When B noticed that
the Judge was going the wrong way, she called his attention. Judge Pacuribot responded that
Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
he knew a good place in Butuan City. After an hour of driving, they entered a compound. It was
then that B realized that Judge Pacuribot brought her to a motel. Inside the room, the judge
succeeded in forcing himself on B. The Judge, using his mobile phone, even took a picture of her
while she was naked. Judge Pacuribot told her nobody in his right mind would refuse his
The next day, B reported back to work. When she arrived, she was told that Judge Pacuribot
had already called her twice. When the judge called again, Judge Pacuribot belittled her, yelling
threatened her with a publication of her naked picture. She tried to pacify him sensing that he
could make real his threats. She was scared to figure in a scandal, being married to an
overseas worker with two kids. B was also ordered by the judge to send him text messages of
endearment, love letters, etc.
The Judge always threatened B that he would publish her naked picture, that he was going to
tell her mother-in-law (who was the Mayor of Gingoog City at that time), and that he was going
to destroy her. The Judge went so far as to order B to petition to annul her marriage from her
husband. When she failed to do so, she wa
was inside, he slapped her.
was not reflective of a rape victim, as she did not immediately report the incident to the
authorities. He contended that a 43-year old lady was no longer naïve and having assisted as
stenographer in a number of rape cases, she knew how important it was to report the incident
immediately. He also contended that even a month after the supposed incident, A even invited
Judge Pacuribot to her birthday party.
Judge Pacuribot also belied the charge of B. He contended that B was just a woman scorned
and that she was out to seek revenge. He alleged that B was the one who called him
repeatedly, sending him alluring and seductive text messages and that he rejected all of
these advances. He also alleged that B was angry with him because, in one of his cases, he
mentioned her incompetence, inexperience, and unprofessional attitude toward her work.
Held: Judge Pacuribot was found guilty of the charges of rape (of A) and the sexual harassment
(of B).
Judge was known in the community as a terror: that he was fond of humiliating people in
public, using excruciating language on his victims, and that female employees avoided him and
28
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
veered away from him (every time they would run into him in the Hall of Justice). In stark
contrast to his nature, the Court found it hardly likely that a 29-year old, very pretty married
that B was
very much capable of protecting herself, having relatives in positions of power to be not valid.
The Court held that, on the contrary, it was the fact that B had relatives in public positions that
compelled her to protect them at all costs from any scandal.
The Court rejected the argument of Judge Pacuribot that rape could not have happened as A
did not report the incident immediately. The Court held that A cannot be put in the same footing
moral ascendancy over her. In the case at bar, A valued her job, in fact, she conscientiously
kept track of her performance ratings. An underling who believes that her superior wields
control over her continued employment will cower in fear to the point of tolerating the
indignities committed on her. Hence, her delay in reporting the incident was understandable.
rape victim. The Judge contended that a rape victim normally behaves with animosity and
grievance toward the offender. The Court held that A could not display her animosity and
grievance toward Judge Pacuribot as this would have cost her to lose her job. The Court also
found that the delay of A in filing the case was of no moment, as she was afraid of Judge
ower and influence.
The Court, further, reiterated that it is against human nature for a married woman to fabricate
a story that would not just put herself in a lifetime of dishonor, but would destroy her family
as well. The fact that the victim resolved to face the ordeal and relate it in public evinces that
she did so to obtain justice.
The Court dismissed Judge Pacuribot from service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits,
with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch or service.
31 Re: ANONYMOUS LETTER-COMPLAINT AGAINST HON. MARILOU RUNES- TAMANG, PRESIDING JUDGE,
MeTC PATEROS, METRO MANILA AND PRESIDING JUDGE, MeTC SAN JUAN, METRO MANILA (April 7, 2010)
FACTS:
which contains a request for an investigation of an alleged connivance of Judge Tamang, her
husband who is a sheriff of RTC, arresting officer and court employees in arbitrarily approving
Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
fake bonds for a fee of P
conducted by the office of the Court Administrator (OCA), it was revealed that the judge had
approved bail bonds issued by a blacklisted assurance company (COVENANT). Although some
were secured through legitimate assurance companies, it was found that judge approved bail
bonds in San Juan despite availability of judges in RTC of Mandaluyong to which court the cases
are pending. In answer, Judge Tamang admitted that she approved the bail bonds but she
insisted that she merely relied on the representation of her duly authorized personnel that the
bail bonds were in order.
ISSUE: WON Judge Tamang competently act in approving the bail bonds.
HELD:
New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary requires that a magistrate be
the embodiment of judicial competence. According to Webster, competence
quality or state of being functionally adequate or having sufficient knowledge, judgment, skill,
or strength.
unfortunately took advantage of her leniency and kindness betrayed a deficiency in that
requisite degree of circumspection demanded of all those who don the judicial robe. She cannot
now thereby exculpate herself, or take refuge behind that excuse, for, in fact, such reliance
was actually her admission of being neglectful and of lacking the diligent care in paying
degree of incompetence on her part, we should not find Judge Tamang guilty of simple
misconduct, a less serious charge under Section 9, Rule 140, Rules of Court. Instead, we find
her guilty of simple neglect of duty, a light charge under Section 10, Rule 140, Rules of
Court, for we are all too aware of the pitfalls that a judge like her frequently stumbles into
29
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
when detailed in another station. She became an unwitting victim of the continuing illegal
activities of Medrano, who took advantage of her being too busy with her judicial and
administrative duties and tasks to have noticed and prevented his
liability was mitigated Medrano (Clerk of Court) admitted his liability and totally exonerated
Judge Tamang of any participation in or knowledge of the anomalous scheme of submitting
blacklisted bonds for approval; Second: It is undisputed that upon learning about the anomaly in
August 2003 Judge Tamang immediately took steps to frontally deal with it by conducting an
investigation, and directing Sorio at first and Medrano later to explain their participations in
the uncovered anomaly.[ Third
(32) A.M. No. RTJ-09-2190 April 23, 2010
HADJA SOHURAH DIPATUAN vs JUDGE MAMINDIARA MANGOTARA
FACTS: On September 2001, a criminal case for murder for the killing of Elias Ali Taher was filed
the Regional Trial Court of Marawi City then presided by Judge Pangadapun but the said judge
died during the pendency of the case which resulted to its transfer to different judges
designated by the Supreme Court. Later on, by virtue of Administrative Order No. 201-2007, the
Supreme Court designated Judge Mamindiara Mangotara, Presiding Judge of the RTC of Iligan
City, Lanao Del Norte, as Acting Presiding Judge. Judge Mangotara suffered a mild stroke;
hence, the Supreme Court, by virtue of Administrative Order No. 220-2007 issued on December
26, 2007, revoked the earlier designation of Judge Mangotara and designated Judge Busran as
the new Acting Presiding Judge. On December 28, 2007, Mangotara issued the disputed
Decision and found both accused Abdul and Dipatuan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of murder and sentenced them to imprisonment of reclusion perpetua and likewise,
P75,000.00 to P200,000.00. As a result, Hadja Sohurah
Dipatuan (spouse of the Dipatuan) filed in the Supreme Court a complaint against Judge
Mangotara for Gross Ignorance of the Law and Grave Abuse of Authority alleging that the judge
Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
displayed bias and prejudice considering that he is a relative by affinity and consanguinity of
the victim Elias Ali Taher, he reside in the same locality where Taher also used to reside, and
despite the designation of Judge Busran as Acting Presiding Judge, he acting with grave abuse
of authority, illegally and maliciously rendered the disputed Decision as well as the two Orders
dated February 2008.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is bias or partiality on the part of Judge Mangotara resulting to
grave abuse of authority.
Whether or not there is gross ignorance of the law on part of Judge Mangotara in
deciding the case.
RULING: Petition GRANTED. WHEREFORE, the Court finds JUDGE MANGOTARA, GUILTY of GROSS
IGNORANCE OF THE LAW for which he is FINED in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos
(P20,000,00), to be deducted from his retirement benefits.
st
On the 1 issue, the Court rule in the negative.
As correctly observed by the Investigating Justice, complainant indeed failed to specify the
degree of relationship of respondent Judge to a party in the subject case. She failed to
present any clear and convincing proof that respondent Judge was disqualified being related
within the prohibited degree with the victim under Section 1, Rule 137 of the Revised Rules of
Court.
This being the case, the inhibition was indeed discretionary or voluntary as the same was
primarily a matter of conscience and sound discretion on the part of the respondent
Judge. When Mangotara chose not to inhibit and proceed with the promulgation of the
disputed decision, he cannot be faulted by doing so. Significantly, complainant while asserting
that Mangotara should have inhibited in the said case, she nonetheless failed to institute any
motion for inhibition.
30
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
Complainant failed to cite any specific act that would indicate bias, prejudice or vengeance
Complainant merely pointed on the
alleged adverse and erroneous rulings of respondent Judge to their prejudice. By themselves,
however, they do not sufficiently prove bias and prejudice.
To be disqualifying, the bias and prejudice must be shown to have stemmed from an
extrajudicial source and result in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than what the
judge learned from his participation in the case. Opinions formed in the course of judicial
proceedings, although erroneous, as long as they are based on the evidence presented and
conduct observed by the judge, do not prove personal bias or prejudice on the part of the
judge. As a general rule, repeated rulings against a litigant, no matter how erroneous and
vigorously and consistently expressed, are not a basis for disqualification of a judge on
grounds of bias and prejudice. Extrinsic evidence is required to establish bias, bad faith, malice
or corrupt purpose, in addition to the palpable error which may be inferred from the decision or
order itself. Although the decision may seem so erroneous as to raise doubts concerning a
judge's integrity, absent extrinsic evidence, the decision itself would be insufficient to
establish a case against the judge.
Moreover, we likewise found no basis to hold respondent Judge administratively liable anent
his issuance of the Decision dated December 2007. As aptly observed by the Investigating
Justice, Mangotara acted in good faith when he issued the subject decision, since he received
notice of his replacement by Judge Busran, dated December 26, 2007, only on January 26,
2008. It must be stressed that not every error or mistake that a judge commits in the
performance of his duties renders him liable, unless he is shown to have acted in bad faith or
with deliberate intent to do an injustice. Good faith and absence of malice, corrupt motives or
improper considerations are sufficient defenses in which a judge can find refuge. In this case,
complainant adduced no evidence that Mangotara was moved by bad faith when he issued the
disputed order.
On the 2nd issue, the Court ruled on the affirmative.
Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
Bail, when
discretionary. Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua
The rule is very explicit as to when admission to bail is discretionary on the part of the
respondent Judge. It is imperative that judges be conversant with basic legal principles and
possessed sufficient proficiency in the law. In offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua or
death, the accused has no right to bail when the evidence of guilt is strong. Thus, as the
accused in Criminal Case No. 3620-01 had been sentenced to reclusion perpetua, the bail should
have been cancelled, instead of increasing it as respondent Judge did.
Clearly, in the instant case, the act of Mangotara in increasing the bail bond of the accused
instead of cancelling it is not a mere deficiency in prudence, discretion and judgment on the
part of respondent Judge, but a patent disregard of well-known rules. When an error is so
gross and patent, such error produces an inference of bad faith, making the judge liable for
gross ignorance of the law.
(33) FRANCISCO P. OCAMPO vs. JUDGE EVELYN S. ARCAYA-CHUA
April 23, 2010
FACTS:
Sylvia Santos filed a Complaint against Judge Arcaya-Chua for serious misconduct
for the
Arcaya-Chua, a former employee of the Supreme Court, said that she could help as she had
connections with some of the Justices therein; she just needed P100,000.00 which she would
give to an employee of the Court for the speedy resolution of the said cases. Santos gave the
cases, Judge Arcaya-Chua told her that there was a problem, as the other party was offering
31
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
P10 million to the Justices. Complainant asked respondent to return the P100,000.00; however,
respondent could no longer be contacted.
ISSUE: WON the conduct of the judge is violative of Canons 1, 2 and 4 of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct.
RULING:
YES. The conduct of Judge Arcaya-Chua is violative of the provisions of the New
Code of Judicial Conduct, thus:
Canon 1, Sec. 4. A judge shall not allow family, social, or other relationships to influence
judicial conduct or judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to
advance the private interests of others, nor convey or permit others to convey the impression
that they are in a special position to influence the judge.
Canon 2, Sec. 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it
is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.
Canon 2, Sec. 2.
integrity of the judiciary. Justice must not merely be done but must also be seen to be done.
Canon 4, Sec. 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of
their activities.
All those who don the judicial robe must always instill in their minds the
exhortation that the administration of justice is a mission. Judges, from the lowest to the
highest levels, are the gems in the vast government bureaucracy, beacon lights looked upon as
the embodiments of all what is right, just and proper, the ultimate weapons against injustice
and oppression. Those who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and
integrity have no place in the judiciary.
Judge Arcaya-Chua was suspended from office for six months.
(34) Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty, October 19, 2010
Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
FACTS:
Atty. Harry Roque, Jr. and Atty. Romel Bagares alleged that Justice Mariano Del Castillo
committed an intellectual offense when the latter plagiarized its discussion of the principles of
jus cogens and erga omnes in Vinuya vs. Executive Secretary case. By reason of such
allegation, members of UP College of Law call for the resignation of Justice del Castillo.
However, the statement they made was aggravated by additional imputations against the
court and criticizing it beyond reproach.
ISSUE: WON the criticisms made by the members of UP College of law is proper
HELD:
No. while most agree that the right to criticize the judiciary is critical to maintaining free and
democratic society, there is also a general consensus that the healthy criticism only goes so
far. These potentially devastating attacks and unjust criticism can threaten the independence
business in an orderly manner, free from outside interference obstructive of its functions and
(35) STATEMENTBYTHEFACULTYOFTHEUNIVERSITY
OFTHEPHILIPPINESCOLLEGEOF LAW ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF PLAGIARISM AND MISREPRESENTATION IN THE
A.M. NO. 10-10-4-SC, 8 MARCH 2011,
(G.R.No. 162230). Counsels Attys. H. Harry L. Roque, Jr. (Atty. Roque) and Romel Regalado
Bagares (Atty.Bagares) for Vinuya, et al . (the
Reconsideration, on theground that, inter alia, charge of plagiarism as one of the grounds for
reconsideration of theVinuya decision and a twisting of the true intents of the plagiarized
sources by the ponenciawas made to suit the arguments of the assailed Judgment for denying
the Petition. Works allegedly plagiarized in the Vinuya decision were namely: (1) Evan J. Criddle
and Evan Fox-
32
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
b o o k Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations in International Law
estoring
Integrity: A Statement by the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law on the
Marvic M.V.F. Leone to the Court through Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. The statement
basically conveys that the plagiarism committed in the case of Vinuya v Executive Secretary is
unacceptable, unethical and in breach of the high standards of moral conduct and judicial and
professional competence expected of the Supreme Court. (See attachment for complete text of
the statement). The SC Ethics Committee referred this matter to the Court en banc.
April 28 decision on the Vinuya et al. v the Executive Secretary et al. case. It claimed that the
competence in
Accordingly,the Court directed the 37 UP law faculty-signatories to show cause, within ten
(10)days from receipt why they should not be disciplined as members of the Bar for violation of
Canons 1, 11 and13 and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondents should be disciplined as Members of the Bar
under the Code of Professional Responsibility
HELD: All lawyers, whether they are judges, court employees, professors or
privatepractitioners, are officers of the Court and have voluntarily taken an oath, as an
indispensable qualification for admission to the Bar, to conduct themselves with
good fidelity towards the courts.
The administrative matter is decided by reminding the Thirty-five UP professors of their duty as
officers of the court while Dean Marvic M.V.F. Leonen was admonished to be more mindful of
his duty, as a member of the Bar, an officer of the Court, and a Dean and professor of law, to
observe full candor and honesty in his dealings with the Court and warned that the same or
similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely. While a lawyer is entitled to present
his case with vigor and courage, such
(36) In The Matter of Charges of Plagiarism Against Justice Mariano del Castillo
A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC, February 8 , 2011
Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
Per Curiam:
Facts: Petitioners Isabelita C. Vinuya, et al., all members of the Malaya Lolas Organization,
seek reconsideration of the decision of the Court dated October 12, 2010 that dismissed their
charges of plagiarism, twisting of cited materials, and gross neglect against Justice Mariano
Del Castillo in connection with the decision he wrote for the Court in G.R. No. 162230, entitled
Vinuya v. Romulo. Petitioners claim that the Court has by its decision legalized or approved of
the commission of plagiarism in the Philippines. This claim is absurd. The Court, like everyone
else, condemns plagiarism as the world in general understands and uses the term
Issue:
1. Whether or not there is plagiarism in the case at bar.
2. Whether or not Justice Del Castillo is guilty of misconduct and gross negligence
Held:
(1) No. It has been a long standing practice in this jurisdiction not to cite or acknowledge the
true for many of the decisions that have been penned and are being penned daily by
magistrates from the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals, the
Regional Trial Courts nationwide and with them, the municipal trial courts and other first level
courts.
regarded and demeaned as plagiarism.
As put by one author Joyce C. George from her Judicial Opinion Writing Handbook:
A judge writing to resolve a dispute, whether trial or appellate, is exempted from a charge of
plagiarism even if ideas, words or phrases from a law review article, novel thoughts published
Thus
judges are free to use whatever sources they deem appropriate to resolve the matter before
them, without fear of reprisal. This exemption applies to judicial writings intended to decide
cases for two reasons: the judge is not writing a literary work and, more importantly, the
33
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
purpose of the writing is to resolve a dispute. As a result, judges adjudicating cases are not
subject to a claim of legal plagiarism.
(2) No. Justice Del Castillo is not guilty of misconduct. The error here is in good faith. There was
no malice, fraud or corruption. Though the ponencia of Justice Del Castillo accidentally deleted
the attribution to them, there remained in the final draft of the decision attributions of the
same passages to the earlier writings from which those authors borrowed their ideas in the
first place.
In short, with the remaining attributions after the erroneous clean-up, the passages as it
finally appeared in the Vinuya decision still showed on their face that the lifted ideas did not
belong to Justice Del Castillo but to others. He did not pass them off as his own.
The Court DENIES
(37) OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE MA. ELLEN M. AGUILAR
A.M. No. RTJ-07-2087 , 7 JUNE 2011, EN BANC (Leonardo-De Castro,J.)
Facts: While Judge Aguilar was still the Legal Officer of Olongapo City, a complaint for
Falsification of Public Document, Perjury and Estafa was filed against her before the Office of
Regional Prosecutor and Ombudsman and the same was dismissed in the former. Following her
retirement, then Atty. Aguilar applied for the position of judge, supported with her
accomplished Personal Data Sheet (PDS), Question No. 23 of the PDS asked: "Is there any
pending civil, criminal or administrative (including disbarment) case or complaint filed against
you pending before any court, prosecution office, any other office, agency or instrumentality
of the government, or the Integrated Bar of the Philippines?" In answer to said question, Atty.
Aguilar wrote "None" so Atty. Aguilar was appointed as RTC Judge of Burgos, Pangasinan. After
dishonesty but only for misconduct and imposed the penalty of one month suspension. Atty.
Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
Aguilar assumed her judicial position on February 8, 2006 and accomplished another PDS for
submission to the Supreme Court and were asked:37. a. Have you ever been formally charged?
b. Have you ever been guilty of any administrative offense?38. Have you ever been convicted of
any crime or violation of any law, decree, ordinance or regulation by any court or tribunal?
Judge Aguilar answered "No" to all the questions.
Issue: Is Judge Aguilar guilty of dishonesty in filling out her PDS ?
Held: Yes. Judge Aguilar admitted that in two of her PDS one accomplished in September 2004,
attached to her application for judgeship position, and the other accomplished on March 6,
2006, upon her assumption as RTC Judge of Burgos, Pangasinan Judge Aguilar answered that
she had no pending administrative case against her; and that she had not been formally
administrative complaint against Judge Aguilar, OMB-L-A-03-0718-G, was pending before the
Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon. The Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, in a Decision dated November
29, 2005 in OMB-L-A-03-0718-G, found Judge Aguilar guilty of misconduct and imposed upon her
the penalty of one month suspension; and in an Order dated January 31, 2006, denied Judge
equivalent to one month salary.
The accomplishment of the PDS is a requirement under the Civil Service Rules and Regulations
for employment in the government. Since truthful completion of PDS is a requirement for
employment in the Judiciary, the importance of answering the same with candor need not be
judgeship application, we are guided by the ruling in Plopinio v. Zabala-Cariño wherein we
clarified that a person shall be considered formally charged in administrative cases only upon a
finding of the existence of a prima facie case by the disciplining authority, in case of a
-L-A-03-
0718-G in her PDS filed upon her assumption of office when she already had notice of the
34
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
adverse decision therein constitutes dishonesty, considered a grave offense under the
Administrative Code of 1987, as well as the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service (Civil Service Rules), with the corresponding penalty of dismissal from service even for
the first offense.
(38) RE: PETITION FOR RADIO AND TELEVISION COVERAGE OF THE MULTIPLE MURDER CASES AGAINST
MAGUINDANAO GOVERNOR ZALDY AMPATUAN, ET AL.,
AM No. 10-11-5-SC
June 14, 2011
FACTS:
Petitioners seek the lifting of the absolute ban on live television and radio coverage of court
proceedings of the Maguindanao Massacre. They principally urge the Court to revisit the 1991
Case and the 2001 ruling in Re: Request Radio-TV Coverage of the Trial in the Sandiganbayan of
the Plunder Cases Against the Former President Joseph E. Estrada which were rulings that
violated the doctrine that proposed restrictions on constitutional rights that are to be narrowly
construed and outright prohibition cannot stand when regulation is a viable alternative.
Petitioners state that the trial case has attracted intense media coverage due to the
gruesomeness of the crime, prominence of the accused, and the number of media personnel
killed. They inform that reporters are being frisked and searched for cameras, recorders, and
cellular devices upon entry, and that under strict orders of the trial court against live
broadcast coverage, the number of media practitioners allowed inside the courtroom has been
limited to one reporter for each media institution. The record shows that NUJP Vice-Chairperson
Jose Jaime Espina, by January 12, 2010 letter to Judge Solis-Reyes, requested a dialogue to
discuss concerns over media coverage of the proceedings of the Maguindanao Massacre
cases. Judge Solis-Reyes replied, however, that ―matters concerning media coverage should
ISSUE:
Whether or not there can be live broadcast by television and radio of the trial court
proceedings without violation of Canon 1 Section 1 of The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary?
RULING:
broadcast of the trial court proceedings. The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary Canon 1, Section 1 provides:
Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
assessment of the facts and in accordance with a conscientious understanding og the law,
free of any extraneous influence, inducement, pressure, threat or interference, direct or
According to the ruling penned by Conchita Carpio-Morales, the indication of ―serious risks
po
unexplored in the era obtaining in Aquino and Estrada, has left a blow to the exercise of press
freedom and the right to public information. In this day and age, it is about time to craft a win-
win situation that shall not compromise rights in the criminal administration of justice,
sacrifice press freedom and allied rights, and interfere with the integrity, dignity and
solemnity of judicial proceedings. Compliance with regulations, not curtailment of a right,
provides a workable solution to the concerns raised in these administrative matters, while, at
the same time, maintaining the same underlying principles upheld in the two aforementioned
cases.
(39) ATTY. CONRADO B. GANDEZA vs. JUDGE MARIA TABIN
A.M. No. MTJ-09-1736 | July 25, 2011 | Peralta, J.
FACTS:
his driver Guimba Digermo, and the car of the nephew of respondent Judge Tabin. When Atty.
Gandeza arrived at the scene, respondent Judge was conferring with the police investigator
and when he approached complainant, he spoke in a harsh tone accusing the driver to have
been driving under the influence of liquor. This allegation was repeatedly said to the
investigator by Judge Tabin. When they were all in the hospital, Judge Tabin continued her
demanded a re-examination.
Complainant also suspected Judge Tabin to be conspiring with the prosecutor since
wife, also a lawyer, even saw an employee of Judge Tabin carrying the folder of the criminal
case, which the employee said that she was to bring it to the sala of the judge. Further, when
Philippine Mediation Center, she was informed by the clerk that Judge Tabin likewise inquired
about the same. Thus, the administrative complaint was filed by Atty. Gandeza against Judge
Tabin before the OCA, who referred the case to the Executive Judge of RTC Baguio.
35
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
Investigation Judge Clavarall recommended the dismissal of the complaint for lack
of evidence but OCA held that Judge Tabin was guilty of violation of Canon 4, Section 1 of the
New Code of Judicial Conduct.
ISSUE:
WON Judge Tabin is guilty of Canon 4, Section 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct
on Propriety
HOLD:
Yes, Judge Tabin is guilty of violating said provision. Even though there was no
evidence of malice amounting to gross misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a judge, the
acts of Judge Tabin such as directing a second test for alcohol be taken and interfering in the
investigation of the incident. Even though there was no disclosure made by Judge Tabin of her
personality, both the police and the complainant knew her to be a judicial officer, and that
should have been enough cause for her to refrain from her actions.
above
reprimanded
and given a stern warning that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more severely.
(40) Atty. Jose Vicente D. Fernandez v. Judge Angeles S. Vasquez, A.M. No. RTJ-11-2261
July 26, 2011, Perez, J.
Facts: Atty. Jose Vicente D. Fernandez is the counsel of several cases instituted for the
recovery of the properties against spouses Ranolas which were all raffled to the court
presided over by respondent Judge Vasquez. Respondent judge asked complainant to file a
motion for his inhibition on the ground that respondent judge was the counsel, prior to his
appointment as public prosecutor, of the Rañola family. No action was taken by respondent
judge on the Motion. It was only after a year, after complainant filed a Supplemental Motion
for Inhibition, on the ground of manifest bias, partiality and inexcusable delay in the
proceedings, that respondent judge ruled and denied the two motions which according to
complainant, the Supplemental Motion for Inhibition was triggered by the apparent bias of
respondent judge for the Spouses Rañola.
Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
Another matter that complainant emphasized in his complaint was the dishonesty
allegedly committed by respondent when he accomplished his Personal Data Sheet (PDS) for the
Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) when he placed an "x" in the box indicating a "No" answer to the
question: "Have you been charged with or convicted of or otherwise imposed a sanction of any
law, decree, ordinance or regulation by any court, tribunal, or any other government office,
agency or instrumentality in the Philippines or any foreign country, or found guilty of an
administrative offense or imposed any administrative sanction? (Question No. 24), and Have you
ever been retired, dismissed or forced to resign from employment? (Question No. 25)."
Respondent was alleged to had been criminally charged for indirect bribery in the early 1970s
and tendered his resignation from his position as clerk of court to evade the administrative
case that may arise from the indirect bribery incident, thus, in brazenly giving untruthful
statements in his PDS, respondent committed dishonesty and falsification of public documents.
Issue: Whether or not respondent judge is guilty of gross dishonesty and falsification of an
official document in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Held:
although we differ with respect to the penalty imposed.
The Court, in the exercise of its administrative supervision over the lower courts,
has the authority to look into the time spent by respondent judge in resolving the incident. As
observed by the OCA, respondent judge failed to resolve the motion for his inhibition within the
90-day reglementary period. In the orderly administration of justice, judges are required to act
with dispatch in resolving motions filed in their court. The parties have the right to be properly
informed of the outcome of the motions they have filed and the Constitutional right to a speedy
disposition of their case. Taking into account the circumstances in this case, we find no reason
w is not
excusable and cannot be condoned.
36
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
That respondent is guilty of dishonesty in accomplishing his PDS is impossible to
refute. It was not mere inadvertence on his part when he answered "No" to that very simple
question posed in the PDS. He knew exactly what the question called for and what it meant, and
that he was committing an act of dishonesty but proceeded to do it anyway. Clearly, there was
an obvious lack of integrity, the most fundamental qualification of a member of the judiciary.
(41) ATTY. TOMAS ONG CABILI, Complainant, versus JUDGE RASAD G. BALINDONG, Acting Presiding
Judge, RTC, Branch 8, Marawi City, Respondent.
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2225
September 6, 2011
FACTS: Branch 6 of the Iligan City RTC rendered a decision holding the Mindanao State
University (MSU) liable for damages amounting to P2, 726, 189.90. When MSU failed to comply
depository bank, Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), Marawi City Branch. Consequently, MSU filed
a petition for prohibition and mandamus with an application for the issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO) and/or preliminary injunction against the LBP and Sheriff Gaje, which
was raffled to Branch 8 Marawi City RTC presided by Judge Balindong. Respondent Judge
issued the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), hence, an administrative complaint was filed
charging him with Gross Ignorance of the Law, Grave Abuse of Authority, Abuse of Discretion,
and/or Grave Misconduct Prejudicial to the Interest of the Judicial Service for interfering with
the order of a co-equal court, Branch 6 of the Iligan City RTC.
ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Balindong violated the principle of judicial stability.
HELD: YES. Respondent Judge clearly ignored the principle of judicial stability by issuing a
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to restrain Sheriff Gaje from enforcing the writ of execution
issued by a co-equal court, Branch 6 of the Iligan City RTC, and from pursuing the garnishment
account with LBP, Marawi City Branch.
The doctrine of judicial stability or non-interference in the regular orders or
judgments of a co-equal court is an elementary principle in the administration of justice: no
court can interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders of another court of concurrent
jurisdiction having the power to grant the relief sought by the injunction. The rationale for the
rule is founded on the concept of jurisdiction: a court that acquires jurisdiction over the case
and renders judgment therein has jurisdiction over its judgment, to the exclusion of all other
coordinate courts, for its execution and over all its incidents, and to control, in furtherance of
justice, the conduct of ministerial officers acting in connection with this judgment.
His lack of familiarity with the rules in interfering with the acts of a co-equal court
undermines the public confidence in the judiciary through his demonstrated incompetence.
Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
When the law is sufficiently basic, a judge owes it to his office to know and to simply apply it.
Anything less would be constitutive of gross ignorance of law.
(42) OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V. JUDGE UYAG USMAN, A.M. No. SCC-08-12, Third Division,
October 19, 2011, Mendoza, J.
FACTS:
Complainant alleged that respondent acquired a brand new SUV, specifically a Kia Sorento EX,
Automatic Transmission and 2.57 CRDI Diesel for ₱1,526,000.00; that he paid in cash the total
down payment of ₱344,200.00; and that the remaining balance was payable in 48 months with
a monthly amortization of ₱34,844.00 to the Philippine Savings Bank (PS Bank), Ozamis City
Branch. Complainant further averred that respondent had just been recently appointed as a
judge and since he assumed his post, he seldom reported for work and could not be located
said vehicle has been questioned because he is the sole bread winner in his family and he has
seven (7) children, two (2) of whom were college students at the Medina College School of
Nursing, a private school. Respondent bared that, at present, he is receiving a monthly take
home pay of more than ₱40,000.00 including his salary and allowances plus honorarium from
the local government.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent is is guilty of violating Section 7 of R.A. No. 3019 and Section 8 of R.A.
No. 6713.
HELD:
The Court agrees with the finding of the OCA that the charges against respondent were not
fully substantiated. The evidence adduced in the case, consisting of documents submitted by
respondent are sufficient to prove that it was, indeed, his mother who paid the down payment
and the monthly amortizations for the subject vehicle.
The Court also agrees with the OCA that respondent is guilty of violating Section 7 of R.A. No.
3019 otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees and of Section 7 of R.A. No. 3019, known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
It is imperative that every public official or government employee must make and submit a
complete disclosure of his assets, liabilities and net worth in order to suppress any
questionable accumulation of wealth. This serves as the basis of the government and the
people in monitoring the income and lifestyle of public officials and employees in compliance
with the constitutional policy to eradicate corruption, to promote transparency in government,
and to ensure that all government employees and officials lead just and modest lives, with the
37
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
end in view of curtailing and minimizing the opportunities for official corruption and
maintaining a standard of honesty in the public service.
In the present case, respondent clearly violated the above-quoted laws when he failed to file
his SALN for the years 2004-2008. He gave no explanation either why he failed to file his SALN
for five (5) consecutive years. While every office in the government service is a public trust, no
position exacts a greater demand on moral righteousness and uprightness of an individual than
a seat in the Judiciary. Hence, judges are strictly mandated to abide with the law, the Code of
Judicial Conduct and with existing administrative policies in order to maintain the faith of our
people in the administration of justice.
(43) ROLAND ERNEST MARIE JOSE SPELMANS vs. JUDGE GAYDIFREDO T. OCAMPO,
A.M. No. MTJ-07-1663, March 26, 2010
ABAD, J.
FACTS:
1. Roland Ernest Marie Jose Spelmans, a Belgian, filed before the Office of the
Ombudsman complaint for theft and graft and corruption against respondent
scheme of removing properties in their home by filing a complaint a complaint of
theft.
2. In the course of the investigation of the complaint, Judge Ocampo, together with
the parties, held an ocular inspection of that rented house and another one
where Spelmans kept some of the personal belongings of his late mother and that
during the inspection Judge Ocampo allegedly took some of the personal properties
in the house.
3. Judge Ocampo Ocampo denied the charge, pointing out that Villan
gave him certain household items for safekeeping before she filed the case of theft
and according to him when he received a copy of
legal battles.
4. OCA found Judge Ocampo guilty of committing acts of impropriety and maintaining
close affinity with a litigant in violation of Canons 1 and 4 of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary
ISSUE: Whether or not Judge taking and keeping of the personal items belonging
to Spelmans
violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct.
Legal Ethics (Case Digests) Compiled by: Ann Tomarong

HELD: Finding that their son Gilbert had been dissipating the assets of Lincoln Continental, the spouses
Guy caused the registration of 50% of the 20,160 shares of stock of NICI in the names of their
Yes, Judge Ocampo is guilty of misconduct. three daughters, thus enabling the latter to assume an active role in the management of NICI.
Judge Ocampo did not explain why, of all people in Polomolok,
would entrust to him, a municipal judge, certain personal items for safekeeping. He also does Herein Smartnet, one of the occupants of the NICI premises, filed on December 16, 2004 with the
not deny that he conducted an ocular inspection of the houses that Spelmans used in Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City a complaint for forcible entry against NICI and the
Polomolok but Judge Ocampo did not explain what justified it. The charge was not robbery Guy family.
where he might have an interest in personally looking at where and how the break-in took
place. It was a case of theft where it would be sufficient for the complainant to simply state In the meantime, the CA-Eighth Division directed the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction
in her complaint-affidavit where the alleged theft took place. If Judge Ocampo received the prayed for by NICI and the Guy family in their new petition, CA-G.R. SP No. 87104, and a writ was
pieces of antique from Villan for safekeeping, this meant that a relation of trust existed
accordingly issued on December 22, 2004.
between them. Consequently, Judge Ocampo had every reason to inhibit himself from the
case from the beginning. He of course claims that he dismissed the case
against Rencio eventually but this is no excuse since his ruling could have gone the other
way. Besides, Spelmans claims that the complaint was just a scheme to enable Villan to steal Issue: Whether or not Section 3(e), R.A. No. 3019 has been violated?
his personal properties from the two houses.
Held: No.The assailed Resolutions issued by respondents favored NICI and the Guy family does
Further, Judge Ocampo only did return the items after four years. Hence, not necessarily render respondents guilty of violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, absent
Respondent judge should be made accountable for gross misconduct constituting violations of
proven particular acts of manifest, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence, good
the New Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically Section 6 of Canon 1, Section 1 of Canon 2, and
Section 1 of Canon 4. From the circumstances, his acts were motivated by malice. He was not a faith and regularity being generally presumed in the performance of official duties by public
warehouseman for personal properties of litigants in his court. He certainly would have officers.
kept the latter not filed a complaint against him. He was guilty of
covetousness. It affected the performance of his duties as an officer of the court and tainted While respondents may have based the assailed Resolutions on mere allegations, thus
He should be punished accordingly.
corporation is the alter ego of the individual stockholders is insuff
them administratively liable because not every error or mistake that a judge commits in the
(44). 3-D INDUSTRIES, INC. and SMARTNET PHILIPPINES, INC. vsJUSTICES VICENTE Q. ROXAS and JUAN Q. performance of his duties renders him liable, unless he is shown to have acted in bad faith or
ENRIQUEZ, JR., with deliberate intent to do an injustice, which is not the case here.

Facts: (45) OCA vs.LERMA October 12, 2010

FACTS:
Five (5) administrative cases were filed with the Office of the Court Administrator
Simny Guy. The spouses organized Northern Islands Co., Inc. (NICI) which is engaged in the (OCA) against Judge Alberto L. Lerma (respondent judge) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
- Branch 256, Muntinlupa City, for violating Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars, for
The spouses also organized Lincoln Continental Development Corporation, Inc. (Lincoln making untruthful statements in his certificates of service, for gross ignorance of the law
Continental) as a holding company of 50% of the 20,160 shares of stock of NICI in trust for their and/or gross negligence, for delay in rendering an order, for abusing judicial authority and
three daughters Geraldine, Gladys and Grace-sisters of Gilbert. discretion, and for serious irregularity.

38
Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
OCA charged respondent judge with exceeding his authority under the Supreme
Court resolution dated June 30, 1998 in A.M. No. 98-6-179-RTC. According to the OCA, the
authority given to respondent judge under the resolution was clearly limited to the
arraignment of the accused and the taking of his testimony; it did not authorize respondent
judge to decide the merits of the case. The OCA contended that the act of respondent judge
constituted violation of a Supreme Court directive.
According to the OCA, its records in the Office of the Administrative Services show
that respondent judge has incurred absences without filing a leave for such absence, wherein
respondent judge was found playing golf on the dates of his absences.
Also, respondent judge issued divergent orders raising serious questions of
Coupled with the
clandestine issuance of a second order where one part
staff were left completely in the dark the action of respondent judge gives rise to an
inference of bad faith. Indeed, it is reasonable to believe that the second order was really
intended to give counsel of the opposing party the ammunition to oppose the Urgent
Manifestation and Motion to Recall Writ of Execution/Garnishment , which was to be heard by
the RTC of Makati City.
On August 23, 2007, a complaint was filed with the Supreme Court, contending that
respondent judge did not have the judicial authority to hear and decide the issues involved in
Civil Case No. 2003-433 for want of jurisdiction. According to complainant, this was brought to
the attention of respondent judge, but the latter, being grossly ignorant of existing laws and
rules, if not completely insolent of the same, and with grave abuse of discretion, took
cognizance of the case.
ISSUE: whether or not respondent judge is liable for violating Supreme Court rules, directives,
and circulars, for making untruthful statements in his certificates of service, for gross
ignorance of the law and/or gross negligence, for delay in rendering an order, for abusing
judicial authority and discretion, and for serious irregularity?
RULING: LIABLE
These unjustified absences indubitably established that respondent judge violated
Supreme Court Memorandum Order dated November 19, 1973, Administrative Circular No. 3-99
dated January 15, 1999, and Administrative Circular No. 5 dated October 4, 1988, which
provides for the observance by judges, among other officials and employees in the judiciary, of
a five-day forty-hour week schedule which shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and from 12:30
p.m. to 4:30 p.m. from Mondays to Fridays.
39
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Investigating Justice, the Court finds that
the actions of respondent judge constitute gross negligence and/or gross ignorance of the law.
We have repeatedly held that to warrant a finding of gross ignorance of the law, it
must be
or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and
intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences insofar as other persons may be
affected. It is the omission of that care which 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.
confidence in the judiciary. He has been remiss
in the fulfillment of the duty imposed on all members of the bench in order to avoid any
impression of impropriety to protect the image and integrity of the judiciary.
To reiterate, officers of the court have the duty to see to it that justice is
dispensed evenly and fairly. Not only must they be honest and impartial, but they must
also appear to be honest and impartial in the dispensation of justice. Judges should make
sure that their acts are circumspect and do not arouse suspicion in the minds of the
public. When they fail to do so, such acts cast doubt upon their integrity and ultimately on
the judiciary in general.[37] y succeed in their task and mission if the judges
presiding over them are truly honorable men, competent and independent, honest and
Court will not withhold pe
(46) Villanueva vs. Judge Buaya
November 22, 2010
Facts: Complainant assisted by her father Pantaleon Villanueva, charged respondent Acting
Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court ( RTC), Branch 17, of Palompon, Leyte, with Gross
Ignorance of the Law and Abuse of Authority. Villanueva accused then Vice-Mayor Constantino S.
Tupa of Palompon, Leyte, of the crime of Qualified Seduction and filed another complaint
against the same accused for violation of Section 5, paragraph (b), Article III of Republic Act No.
7610 otherwise known as the Special Protection of Children against Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act with the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Palompon, Leyte. Judge Eric F.
Menchavez, then Presiding Judge of the RTC, Branch 17, of Palompon, Leyte, issued a warrant
for the arrest of Tupa, however, the warrant was not served because Tupa went into hiding
Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
and could not be located. Meanwhile, Judge Menchavez was reassigned to the RTC in Cebu City
which led to the designation of the respondent-judge as Acting Presiding Judge of the RTC,
Branch 17. Without hearing and without notice to the prosecution, respondent-judge granted
the ex-parte motion and ordered the release of Tupa on bail after the said accused allegedly
surrendered voluntarily in the Ormoc City Police Station and filed with the RTC, Branch 17 an
Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to Grant Bail. Complainant moved to reconsider the order granting
the ex-parte motion but without acting on the merits of the said motion, respondent-judge
issued an order allowing the accused to submit his comment or opposition within ten days;
thereafter, the matter would be submitted for resolution. Respondent-
treatment of the ex-parte motion and her motion for reconsideration apparently irked
complainant, prompting her to file the present administrative complaint against the RTC judge.
Complainant contended that respondent- ex-parte motion was
contrary to the Rules of Court requirement that a motion to grant bail must be set for hearing
to afford the State and the prosecutor their day in court. She further accused respondent-
judge of being manifestly partial as evidenced by the two temporary restraining orders (TROs)
he issued in favor of the accused in another case for quo warranto, then pending before the
RTC, Branch 17.
Issue: Whether or not the respondent is guilty with Gross Ignorance of the Law and Abuse of
Authority because of the granting of an ex-parte motion to grant bail which must be set for
hearing to afford the State and the prosecutor their day in court.
Held: Yes, respondent is guilty with Gross Ignorance of the Law and Abuse of Authority because
of the granting of an ex-parte motion to grant bail which must be set for hearing to afford the
State and the prosecutor their day in court.
The Court has always stressed the indispensable nature of a bail hearing in petitions for bail.
Where bail is a matter of discretion, the grant or the denial of bail hinges on the issue of
whether or not the evidence on the guilt of the accused is strong and the determination of
whether or not the evidence is strong is a matter of judicial discretion which remains with the
judge. In order for the judge to properly exercise this discretion, he must first conduct a
hearing to determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong. This discretion lies not in the
determination of whether or not a hearing should be held, but in the appreciation and
evaluation of the wei
40
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
In any event, whether bail is a matter of right or discretion, a hearing for a petition for bail is
required in order for the court to consider the guidelines set forth in Section 9, Rule 114 of the
Rules of Court in fixing the amount of bail. This Court has repeatedly held in past cases that
even if the prosecution fails to adduce evidence in opposition to an application for bail of an
accused, the court may still require the prosecution to answer questions in order to ascertain,
not only the strength of the State's evidence, but also the adequacy of the amount of bail.
One who accepts the exalted position of a judge owes the public and the Court the duty to
maintain professional competence at all time. When a judge displays an utter lack of familiarity
with the rules, he erodes the confidence of the public in the courts. A judge owes the public and
the Court the duty to be proficient in the law and is expected to keep abreast of laws and
prevailing jurisprudence. Ignorance of the law by a judge can easily be the mainspring of
injustice.
(47) ATTY. JONNA M. ESCABARTE, et.al. v. LOIDA MARCELINA J. GENABE
A.M. No. P-09-2602, 1 December 2010, THIRD DIVISION
FACTS:
Judge Bonifacio Maceda issued an order suspending respondent Loida Marcelina
Genabe for 30 days for neglect of duty and for being unruly and highly combative during the
staff meeting in his chambers, shouting disrespectfully to him and disrupting the meeting. Atty.
Jonna M. Escabarte, et. al. alleged that Genabe continued to render service despite her 30-day
suspension. Genabe denied the allegations against her and claimed that Judge Maceda treated
her oppressively to drive her out of her employment in the judiciary and to get even with her on
account of her intolerance of the anomalous practices prevailing in the court. Further, Genabe
accused Judge Maceda of malversation when the judge allegedly diverted to other purposes
as City government.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended the following: (1) Genabe
be found guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and conduct
unbecoming of a court employee and be fined in an amount equivale
(2) Judge Maceda be reminded to strictly comply with A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, with a warning
against a similar violation in the future; and (3) the charge against Escabarte, Agbayani,
Chavez, Gerero, Ortiz, Ramos and Villar be dismissed for lack of merit.
ISSUE:
Whether or not respondent Genabe should be disciplined, making the order of
suspension imposed by Judge Maceda proper
Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
HELD:
penchant for using offensive language can only prejudice the best interest of the service, not
to mention that they constitute conduct unbecoming a court employee. It is well to remind
Genabe that "the conduct and behavior of everyone connected with x x x the dispensation of
justice, from the presiding judge to the x x x lowliest clerk x x x must be characterized with
every "official and employee of an agency involved in the administration of justice, like the
Court of Appeals, from the Presiding Justice to the most junior clerk, should be circumscribed
with the heavy burden of responsibility.
We agree with the OCA observations that while the act of Judge Maceda in
disciplining Genabe with a 30-day suspension is "not oppressive, capricious or despotic, that is,
without color of law or reason, or without supporting facts," he still had no authority to
directly discipline her under the terms of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, which provided that the Executive
Judge shall have the authority to act upon and investigate administrative complaints involving
light offenses as defined under the Civil Service Law and Rules (Administrative Code of 1987),
and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act
No. 6713), where the penalty is reprimand, suspension for not more than thirty (30) days, or a
resolutions or issuances, filed by (a) a judge against a court employee, except lawyers, who
employee against another court employee, except lawyers, who both work in the same station
wit
Judge shall conduct the necessary inquiry and submit to the Office of the Court Administrator
the results thereof with a recommendation as to the action to be taken thereon, including the
penalty to be imposed, if any, within thirty (30) days from termination of said inquiry. At
his/her discretion, the Executive Judge may delegate the investigation of complaints involving
light offenses to any of the Presiding Judges or court officials within his/her area of
administrative supervision.
line. But while the Judge overstepped the limits of his authority, we see no reason not to ratify
his action in light of its obvious merits. Thus, the 30-day suspension he imposed should stand
but he should be warned against a repetition of the direct action he took.
by the Las Piñas City, we agree with the OCA that the judge cannot not be held liable.
Nevertheless, in view of the nature of the fund (which required no liquidation and is not an
41
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
accountable judicial fund), we believe that the Judge should have taken steps such as the
informing the court staff or filing of a report with the OCA on how the fund was handled. This
precautionary move would have placed the Judge above any suspicion of impropriety. We
stress that "Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all their
actions.
(48) JOVITOS. OLAZO v.JUSTICE DANTE O.TINGA
A.M. No. 10-5-7-SC December 7, 2010
FACTS
J. Olazo filed a sales application covering a parcel of land in Taguig. The land was previously
part of Fort Andres Bonifacio that was segregated and declared open for disposition. J. Olaza
filed various charges against Justice Tinga as follows:
The First Charge: Violation of Rule 6.02
J. Olazo claimed that the Justice Tinga abused his position as Congressman and as a member
of the Committee on Awards when he exerted undue pressure and influence over the
claim the subject land for himself and that Justice Tinga brokered the transfer of rights of the
wife. As a result of abuse of his official functions, the sales application was
denied. The conveyance of rights to Joseph Rodriguez and his sales application were
subsequently given due course by the DENR.
The Second Charge: Violation of Rule 6.03
J. Olazo alleged that Justice Tinga persuaded Miguel Olazo to direct Manuel to convey his rights
over a different piece of land to Joseph Rodriguez. In addition, J. Olazo alleged that Justice
Tinga meet with Manuel for the purpose of nullifying the conveyance of rights over the land to
Joseph Rodriguez.. J. Olazo claimed that Justice Tinga wanted the rights over the land
transferred to one Rolando Olazo, a Taguig Barangay Chairman. Justice Tinga in this regard
executed an "Assurance" where he stated that he was the lawyer of Ramon Lee and Joseph
Rodriguez.
The Third Charge: Violation of Rule 1.01
 Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
J. Olazo alleged that Justice Tinga engaged in unlawful conduct considering his knowledge that
Joseph Rodriguez was not a qualified beneficiary. J. Olazo averred that Joseph Rodriguez is not
a bona fide resident of the proclaimed areas and does not qualify for an award.
ISSUES :
1. WON Justice Tinga constitute a breach of the standard ethical conduct while he was still an
elective public official and a member of the Committee on Awards; and
2. WON Justice Tinga constitute a breach of the standard ethical conduct when he was no
longer a public official, but a private lawyer who represented a client before the office he
was previously connected with.
RULING
NO. SC ruled that there is an absence of any concrete proof that the Justice Tinga abused
hisposition as a Congressman and as a member of the Committee on Awards in the manner
defined under Rule 6.02 ofthe Code of Professional Responsibility. First, the records do not
Awards. The circumstances do not show that Justice Tinga did in any way promote, advance or
use his private interests in the discharge of his official duties.
NO. Under the circumstances, it should be correlated with R.A.No. 6713 and Rule 6.03 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility which impose certain restrictions on government lawyers
to engage in private practice after their separation from the service. As a rule, government
lawyers are not allowed to engage in the private practice of their profession during their
incumbency. By way of exception, a government lawyer can engage in the practice of his or
her profession under the following conditions: 1) private practice is authorized by the
Constitution or by the law; and 2) the practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with his or her
official functions. As the records show, no evidence exists showing that the respondent
was
still a member of the Committee on Awards.
SC resolved case dismissed the adminis
failure to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the former committed unethical
(49)JOSEPHINE JAZMINES TAN vs. JUDGE SIBANAH USMAN
A.M. No. RTJ-11-2666; February 15, 2011; Carpio Morales, J.
42
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
[Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3320-RTJ
FACTS:
ComplainantJosephine Jazmines Tan filed a Motion for Inhibition against respondent
JudgeSibanahUsman. Tan alleged that during the hearing of the Motion for Inhibition, Judge
Usman became very emotional, coerced her to testify without the assistance of counsel and
demanded a public apology from her; and that while she requested to refer the motion to the
Executive Judge, Judge Usman interrogated her relentlessly following which he issued an
Order finding her guilty of Direct Contempt andordered her detention for a period not exceeding
thirty (30) days. Tan was actually detained for 19 days.
ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Usman is guilty of gross ignorance of the law.
HELD: Yes.
Failure to follow basic legal commands as prescribed by law and the rules is
tantamount to gross ignorance of the law. By accepting the exalted position of a judge,
respondent ought to have been familiar with the legal norms and precepts as well as the
procedural rules.
Respondent judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law. The penalty for direct contempt if
imprisonment is imposed should not, as Section 1 of Rule 71 provides, exceed 10 days. In this
case, Complainant was detained for 19 days or 9 days more than the limit imposed by the
Rules.
Moreover, Respondent judge did not fix the bond, in violation of the same Section 2 of Rule 71,
which complainant could have posted had she desired to challenge the order. And on the same
day the Order was issued, respondent ordered the confinement of complainant to the provincial
jail.
Thus, the court imposed the penalty of fine.
(50) TERESITA D. SANTECO, complainant, vs.
Legal Ethics (Case Digests) Compiled by: Ann Tomarong

ATTY. LUNA B. AVANCE, respondent. conduct indicates a high degree or

to be construed as a mere request, nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately, or
FACTS:
recalcitrant f
Teresita Santeco filed an administrative case against Atty. Luna Avance for mishandling an
orders which is only too deserving Rule 138 of the Rules of Court
action to declare a deed of absolute sale null and void and for reconveyance and damages;
a member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from office as an attorney
where Atty. Avance was found guilty. She was ordered suspended from the practice of law for
for gross misconduct and/or for a wilful disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court,
five years and was directed to return to the complainant the amount of P3,900 which the
to wit:
complainant paid her for filing a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals which she
never filed. SEC. 27. Disbarment or suspension of attorneys by Supreme Court; grounds therefor . A
member of the bar may be disbarred or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme
-year suspension from the practice of law, Judge Consuelo Amog-
Court for any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such office, grossly immoral
Bocar, sent a letter-report to the Court Administrator, informing him that Atty. Avance
conduct, or by reason of his conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or for any violation
appeared and actively participated in three cases wherein she misrepresented herself as Atty.
of the oath which he is required to take before admission to practice, or for a willful
LiezlTanglao. Acting on the report, the court required Atty. Avance to comment within ten days
disobedience of any lawful order of a superior court, or for corruptly or willfully appearing as
from notice. However, despite reiteration of the directive, Atty. Vance still failed to file the
an attorney for a party to a case without authority so to do. The practice of soliciting cases at
required comment, hence, the court found the respondent guilty of indirect contempt ordering
law for the purpose of gain, either personally or through paid agents or brokers, constitutes
her to pay a fine of P30,000 and stern warning.
malpractice. (Emphasis supplied.)
Atty. Avance failed to pay the imposed fine despite due notice hence, the court finds the
respondent unfit to continue as a member of the bar.
membership in the Philippine Bar. Worse, she remains indifferent to the need to reform
ISSUE: herself. Clearly, she is unfit to discharge the duties of an officer of the court and deserves the
ultimate penalty of disbarment.
Whether or not Atty. Vance should be disbarred.

RULING:

Respondent Atty. Luna B. Avance is disbarred for gross misconduct and wilful disobedience
of lawful orders of a superior court. Her name is ordered stricken off from the Roll of
Attorneys.
(51) Judge Napoleon Inoturan vs. Judge Manuel Limsiaco
ld the dignity and authority of the court.
A.M. OCA No. MTJ-01-1362February 22, 2011
orders and FACTS:
processes.We have held that failure to comply with Court directives constitutes gross misc
onduct,insubordinat This is a consolidated case filed against Judge Limsiaco. The first case is for failure
to comply with the directives of the Court and the second for failure to decide a case within the
utter disrespect to the judicial institution. 90-day reglamentary period.

43
Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
First Case:
Judge Limsiaco ordered the release of an accused in a criminal case. The judge was
found guilty of ignorance of the law and of violating Code of Judicial Conduct. He was directed
to explain within 10 days from notice why he should not be administratively charged but failed
to do so. The Court then granted several motions for extension to file his motion for
reconsideration on account of his alleged physical ailment. Despite the grant of such motions,
Judge Limsiaco still failed to respond to such directive nor offered any explanation.
Second Case:
The plaintiff in an ejectment case claimed that Judge Limsiaco failed to seasonably
decide such even though the case has already been submitted for resolution as early as April
25, 2005. Judge Limsiaco admitted he only decided the case 2 years after February 4, 2008.
ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Limsiaco violated the Code of Judicial Conduct? (Yes under
Sections 7 & 8 of Canon 1 and Section 5 of Canon 6)
HELD:
The counduct of Judge Limsiaco constitutes clear acts of defianc
authority. It is a deliberate disrespect and indifference to the authority of the Court which
further shows his inability to accept instructions of his superior. His conduct failed to provide a
good example for other court personnel, and the public as well, in placing significance to the
failure to perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently,
fairly and with promptness.
The Court likewise found that Judge Limsiaco has already been held liable in several
administrative cases undue delay in rendering decision, gross misconduct, gross ignorance of
the law and procedure, delay in submission of monthly report of cases, and gross misconduct.
Being a repeat offender exhibits his unworthiness to don the judicial robes and merits a
heavier sanction of dismissal from service, but having been retired, his retirement benefits
shall be forfeited instead.
*Canon 1
44
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
Section 7 Judge shall encourage and uphold safeguards for the discharge of
judicial duties in order to maintain and enhance the institutional and operational independence
of the Judiciary.
Section 8 Judges shall exhibit and promote high standards of judicial conduct in
order to reinforce public confidence in the Judiciary, which is fundamental to the maintenance
of judicial independence.
*Canon 6, Section 5 Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved
decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.
(52) ASSISTANT SPECIAL PROSECUTOR III ROHERMIA J. JAMSANI-RODRIGUEZ vs. JUSTICES GREGORY S.
ONG, JOSE R. HERNANDEZ, and RODOLFO A. PONFERRADA, SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS:
Respondents Sandiganbayan Associate Justices sought reconsideration of SC Decision finding
them guilty for simple misconduct. The charge was based on the complaint of Assistant
Prosecutor Rodriguez who alleged that the respondents failed to hear cases as collegial during
scheduled sessions by hearing the cases either alone or only two of the three of them, and for
falsification of public documents grounded on their issuance of orders signed by the three of
them making it appear that they acted as a collegial body. It was also alleged that they have
conducted themselves in gross abuse of judicial authority and grave misconduct for
intemperate and discriminatory utterances during hearings. Justice Ong and Hernandez
admitted randomly asking the counsels appearing before them from which law schools they
had graduated, and their engaging during the hearings in casual conversation about their
respective law schools.
ISSUE: WON there is sufficient cause to establish the Justices complete exoneration.
HELD:The motion for reconsideration was denied.
ule VII of the Revised Internal Rules of the Sandiganbayan expressly requires that
rulings on oral motions made or objections raised in the course of the trial proceedings or
hearings are be made by the Chairman of the Division. Obviously, the rule cannot be complied
with because Justice Ong, the Chairman, did not sit in the hearing of the cases heard by the
other respondents. Neither could the other respondents properly and promptly contribute to
the rulings of Justice Ong in the hearings before him X X X This necessitates the equal and full
participation of each member in the trial and adjudication of their cases. It is simply not
Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
enough, therefore, that the three members of the Fourth Division were within hearing and
communicating distance of one another at the hearings in question, as they explained in
As applied to Justice Ong and Hernandez, SC maintained their initial ruling on discriminatory
eby publicized their professional qualifications and manifested a lack of
the requisite humility demanded of public magistrates. Their doing so reflected a vice of self-
conceit. We view their acts as bespeaking their lack of judicial temperament and decorum,
which no judge worthy of the judicial robes should avoid especially during their performance of
judicial functions. They should not exchange banter or engage in playful teasing of each other
during trial proceedings (no matter how good-natured or even if meant to ease tension, as they
want us to believe). Judicial decorum demands that they behave with dignity and act with
courtesy towards all who appear before their court. This is in violation of Section 6, Canon 6 of
the New Code of Judicial Conduct wh
in all proceedings before the court and be patient, dignified and courteous in relation to
(53) A.M. No. RTJ-09-2197 April 13, 2011
ANTONINO MONTICALBO vs JUDGE CRESCENTE MARAYA
FACTS: Fatima Credit Cooperative filed a civil case for collection of sum of money against
Antonino Moncalbo and his wife before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Calubian-San Isidro,
Leyte. The case was dismissed by the said court in its February 2008 Order on the ground that
the representative of Fatima Credit Cooperative had no authority to prosecute the case but it
ees and litigation expenses.
Aggrieved, after his motion for reconsideration is denied, complainant elevated the case to the
Regional Trial Court, Calubian but Judge Crescente Maraya dismissed the appeal for having
been filed out of time because under the rules on Summary Procedure which was applied to
govern the proceedings of this case, a motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading and it
will not suspend the period of appeal. As a result, Monticalbo filed an administrative case in the
Supreme Court against Judge Maraya for gross ignorance of the law, gross incompetence and
grave abuse of authority thru false representation.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is grave misconduct on the part of Judge Maraya resulting to
grave
abuse of authority.
Whether or not there is gross ignorance of the law on part of Judge Maraya in
deciding
the case.
45
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
RULING: Petition DENIED.
On the 1st issue, the Court rule in the negative.
In order to merit disciplinary action, it must be established that r
motivated by bad faith, dishonesty or hatred or were attended by fraud, dishonesty or
corruption.15 In the absence of such proof, the decision or order in question is presumed to
have been issued in good faith by respondent judge.
In cases where a judge is charged with bribery or grave misconduct, bias or partiality cannot
be presumed. Neither can bad faith or malice be inferred just because the judgment or order
rendered by respondent is adverse to complainant.
Before a judge can be held liable for deliberately rendering an unjust judgment or order, one
must be able to show that such judgment or order is unjust and that it was issued with
malicious intent to cause injustice to the aggrieved party. Well-established is the rule in
administrative proceedings that the burden of proof rests on the complainant, who must be
able to support and prove by substantial evidence his accusations against
respondent. Substantial evidence, the quantum of proof required in administrative cases, is
that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion. Failure of the complainant to substantiate his claims will lead to the
dismissal of the administrative complaint for lack of merit because, in the absence of evidence
to the contrary, the presumption that a judge has regularly performed his duties will prevail.
In this case, complainant has nothing but mere assertions and conjectures to buttress his
allegations of grave misconduct and bribery on the part of respondent who, if complainant is to
be believed, accepted bribes of food and engaged in drinking sprees with court employees
during office hours. Contr
respondent was attending to his cases during the dates when he allegedly had those drinking
sessions.
On the 2nd issue, the Court rule in the negative.
A cursory reading of Section 1 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure clearly shows that
This rule shall govern
the summary procedure in the Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the
Municipal Trial Courts, and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts in the following cases falling within
their jurisdiction:
A. Civil Cases
Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
xxx
does not exceed One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) or Two hundred thousand pesos
(P
Evidently, the complainant has been consulting old books. The rule now, as amended by A.M. No.
02-11-09-SC, effective November 25, 2002, has placed the ceiling at P100,000.00. As such, the
that he was remiss in his obligation to be familiar with the law which "even law students these
days know such x x x."
The complainant should have elevated his grievance to the higher courts. The filing of an
administrative case against the judge is not an alternative to the other judicial remedies
provided by law, neither is it complementary or supplementary to such actions.
(54) FLORENDA TOBIAS vs. JUDGE MANUEL LIMSIACO, JR.
A.M. No. MTJ-09-1734, January 19, 2011
Peralta, J.
FACTS:
Florenda Tobias requested her sister, Lorna Vollmer, to inquire from the Fourth MCTC
of Valladolid-San Enrique-Palupandan, Negros Occidental about the requirements needed in filing
an ejectment case. The Judge advised Volmer that since there was no lawyer in Valladolid,
Negros Occidental, she had to choose the nearest town lawyer as it would lessen expenses in
transportation and appearance fee, and mentioned the name of Atty. Robert Juanillo. After the
withdrawing the services of Atty. Juanillo. Because of such, the Judge prepared the motion for
the withdrawal of appearance of the said lawyer.
ISSUE: WON the Judge violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.
RULING:
YES. The respondent judge committed acts of 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. Juanillo, which pleading was filed in his
court and was acted upon by him. The conduct of the judge should be beyond reproach and
reflective of the integrity of his office.
46
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
The acts of the respondent judge violated Section 1 of Canon 2, Section 2 of Canon 3,
and Section 1 of Canon 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary,
thus:
CANON 2
INTEGRITY
Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office but also
to the personal demeanor of judges.
-
Sec. 1. Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it
is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.
CANON 3
IMPARTIALITY
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 decision is made.
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 of the judiciary.
CANON 4
PROPRIETY
Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all
the activities of the judge.
Sec. 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of
their activities.
Sec. 2. As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must accept personal
restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should so
freely and willingly. In particular, judges shall conduct themselves in a way that is
consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.
The aforementioned acts of the respondent Judge constitute gross misconduct.
beyond allowance; flagrant; shameful; such conduct as is not to be excused.
of preparing the Motion to Withdraw the Appearance of Atty. Juanillo as counsel of complainant
is inexcusable. In so doing, respondent exhibited improper conduct that tarnished the integrity
Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
and impartiality of his court, considering that the said motion was filed in his own sala and
was acted upon by him.
Judge Limsiaco was found guilty of Gross Misconduct for which he was fined in the
amount of P25,000.
(55) SY VS. DINOPOL
FACTS:
This case arose to a land which was mortgage to the mortgagee, Metrobank. The latter
foreclosed the mortgaged land and won as the highest bidder. Petitioner then filed an
Annulment and/or Declaration of Nullity of the real estate mortgage. The respondent judge
inhibited himself to the case before him on the ground that he received a call both from the
parties, and claimed that he wanted to avoid being charged with partiality. However,
notwithstanding his inhibition on the said case, he nonetheless grants the petition of Metrobank
for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession over the disputed land. Petitioner charged the
respondent judge of gross ignorance of law and conduct of unbecoming a member of the
judiciary. The latter charged has been founded on the ground that respondent judge received
commodity loans in t
house. Hence, this case.
ISSUE: WON respondent judge is guilty of gross ignorance of law and conduct of unbecoming a
member of the judiciary
HELD:On the ground of gross ignorance of law, judge Dinopol cannot be held responsiibile for he
acted within the ambit of law and his jurisdiction. However, with respect to the conduct of
unbecoming a judge, he is found guilty by the OCA of such charge.
Judge Dinopol violated Sections 2 and 3 of Canon 3, Section 1 of Canon 1, Sections 1 and 2 of
Canon 2, and section 1 of Canon 4 of New code of Judicial Conduct.
(56) IMELDA R. MARCOS v. JUDGE FERNANDOVIL PAMINTUAN
A.M. No. RTJ-07-2062, January 18, 2011
Facts:
Imelda Marcos filed an administrative case against Judge Pamintuan of Branch 3, RTC, Baguio
City with Gross Ignorance of the Law for reversing motu propio the final and executory order
47
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
of then Judge Reyes dated May 30, 1996 (and modified in the September 2, 1996 order), The
order of Judge Reyes in the said case did not rule on the authenticity of the Golden Buddha
because it was not made as an issue while the questioned order of Judge Pamintuan,10 years
after, has ruled that said Buddha, which is under the custody the court, was fake and a mere
replica.
Issue: Whether or not Judge Pamintuan was liable for gross ignorance of the law.
Held: Yes. It is axiomatic that when a judgment is final and executory, it becomes immutable
and unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any respect either by the court which rendered
it or even by this Court. The doctrine of immutability and inalterability of a final judgment has a
two-fold purpose, to wit: (1) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus,
procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of judicial business; and (2) to put an end to judicial
controversies, at the risk of occasional errors, which is precisely why courts exist.
Controversies cannot drag on indefinitely.
Judge Pamintuan failed to conform to the high standards of competence required of judges
under the Code of Judicial Conduct, which provides that:
Rule 1.01 - A judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity, and
independence
Rule 3.01 - A judge shall x x x maintain professional competence.
Competence is a mark of a good judge. When a judge exhibits an utter lack of know-how with
our courts. It is highly crucial that judges be acquainted with the law and basic legal principles.
Ignorance of the law, which everyone is bound to know, excuses no one  not even judges
In this case, the Court finds Judge Pamintuan accountable for gross ignorance of the law. This
is not . Having been previously warned
and punished for various infractions.
Judge Fernando Pamintuan of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 3, is DISMISSED
from the service.
Legal Ethics (Case Digests) Compiled by: Ann Tomarong

(57) OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE BENJAMIN P. ESTRADA AND JUDGE JOSEFINA GENTILES- administrative supervision in case of official leave of absence, inhibition, disqualification, or
BACALA.M. No. RTJ-09-2173, 18 JANUARY 2011, EN BANC (Brion, J.)
preventive suspension of the municipal judge concerned, or of permanent or temporary
Facts: Atty. Nicandro A. Cruz, officer-in-charge, Court Management Office, Office of the Court vacancy in the position. Such designation shall be effective immediately, unless revoked by the
Administrator (OCA), addressed to then Deputy Court Administrator (DCA) Reuben P. De la Cruz, Supreme Court.
regarding anomalies in the disposition of cases in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC),
The Executive Judge shall furnish the Office of the Court Administrator with copies of the
Malaybalay City, Bukidnon and reported that several orders, attached to the report, that were
orders of designation effected under this Section within five (5) days from the date of such
issued by Executive Judge Josefina Gentiles-Bacal, RTC, Malaybalay City, and Judge Benjamin P.
designation."
Estrada, RTC, Branch 9, same station, dismissing the cases then pending in the MTCC. Atty. Cruz
pointed out that the MTCC, Malaybalay City had no regular presiding judge at the time the
Instead of allowing Judge Estrada and herself to act on cases pending before the MTCC, Judge
orders were issued, as Judge Estrada, the former presiding judge, had been appointed to
Bacal, as executive judge of the RTC, Malaybalay City, should have designated a municipal
preside over the RTC, Branch 9, Malaybalay City, on June 1, 2008. Atty. Cruz commented that
judge within her area of supervision, to act on the pending cases. She took time (two months
Judge Estrada could no longer take cognizance of cases pending in his former sala after he
as she claimed) in making the designation, which delayed action, by itself, is a negative
took his oath on July 17, 2008; neither could Judge Bacal do the same even if she had then been
reflection on her performance as an executive judge. Judge Estrada, who was the former
the executive judge of the RTC, Malaybalay City.
presiding judge of the MTCC, Malaybalay City, acted only on one case, but like Judge Bacal, he
Issue: Are Judge Estrada and Judge Bacal guilty of gross ignorance of the law for taking
had no authority to take over the case as he had already taken his oath as RTC judge on July 17,
cognizance of cases pending before another court?
2008, almost a month before he issued the order in Criminal Case No. 878-08, People v. Bellman
E. Durango, et al., for Attempted Homicide. Either Judge Estrada and Judge Bacal forgot the
Held: Yes. There is no question about the guilt of the two judges. Their shared intention to
guidelines or chose to ignore them, but whatever it was, they should suffer the consequences
uphold the right of the accused to liberty cannot justify their action in excess of their
of their actions in violation of the guidelines.
authority, in violation of existing regulations. The vacuum in a first level court, such as the
MTCC in Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, created by the absence of a presiding judge, is not What Judge Estrada and Judge Bacal did was worse than overriding the action or decision of a
remedied by a take over of the duties of the still-to-be appointed or designated judge for the lower court.They entirely took over the judicial function of the lower court. While they might
court, which exactly was what Judge Estrada and Judge Bacal did. The remedy lies in Chapter
have been motivated by noble intentions in taking cognizance of the pending cases with the
V of the Guidelines in the Selection and Appointment of Executive Judges and Defining their
ot escape
Powers, Prerogatives and Duties,which provides: liability. However well-intentioned they might have been, they still did not have the authority to
act on the cases as these were not pending before their respective salas. Their lack of
"Section 1. Designation of Judges of the First Level Courts to Try Cases. (a) The Executive Judge
authority was so patent and so self-evident; to disregard it would itself be ignorance of the
of the RTC shall have authority to designate a municipal judge within his/her area of
law. In Mupas, the Court recognized that "not every judicial error bespeaks ignorance of the
administrative supervision to try cases of other courts of the first level within said area of

48
Legal Ethics (Case Digests)
law and that, if committed in good faith, does not warrant administrative sanction, but only in
cases xxx of tolerable misjudgment. Where, however, the procedure is so simple and the facts
so evident as to be beyond permissible margins of error, to still err thereon amounts to
ignorance of the law."
Clearly, Judge Estrada and Judge Bacal are guilty of gross ignorance of the law.
(58) VIVIAN T. DABU vs. EDUARDO RODEN E. KAPUNAN, Presiding Judge, Branch 51 and Acting Judge,
Branch 52, MA. THERESA CORTEZ, LEILA O. GALO, Both Court Stenographers, SUZETTE O. TIONGCO,
Legal Researcher, All of Regional Trial Court, Branch 51, Guagua, Pampanga
A.M. No. RTJ-00-1600
February 1, 2011
FACTS:
On August 24, 2000, Complainant Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Vivian T. Dabu executed an
Affidavit citing several incidents wherein the court records of cases for annulment of
marriage, lost titles and declaration of presumptive death were being falsified. The Affidavit
was treated as a Complaint for falsification of court records against Judge Eduardo Roden E.
Kapunan and court stenographers Ma. Theresa Cortez and Leila O. Galo. Respondent Suzette
Tiongco was not included in the charge of falsification of court records as complainant ha[d] no
evidence linking her thereto but the Office of the Court Administrator included her with the
charge of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
ISSUE:Whether or not Judge Kapunan is guilty of falsification and for violation against Canon 2,
Section 1 of Judicial Conduct For The Philippine Judiciary
HELD:Yes. A judge's conduct should be above reproach and in the discharge of his judicial duties
he should be conscientious, studious, thorough, courteous, patient, punctual, just, impartial,
fearless of public clamor, and regardless of private influence should administer justice
according to law and should deal with the patronage of the position as a public trust; and he
49
Compiled by: Ann Tomarong
should not allow outside matters or his private interests to interfere with the prompt and
proper performance of his office.
Taking all these into consideration, it is undeniable that Judge Kapunan, Galo and Cortez acted
together in issuing questionable orders and decisions through falsification of public documents.
With regard to Tiongco, however, there is no evidence against her. The inclusion of Tiongco in
this case was only upon the initiative of the Office of the Court Administrator. As the record is
bereft of any evidence to hold her liable, her exoneration is in order.
Court employees, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, being public servants in an
office dispensing justice, should always act with a high degree of professionalism and
responsibility. Their conduct must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum, but
must also be in accordance with the law and court regulations. No position demands greater
moral righteousness and uprightness from its holder than an office in the judiciary. Court
employees should be models of uprightness, fairness and honesty to maintain the people's
respect and faith in the judiciary. They should avoid any act or conduct that would diminish
public trust and confidence in the courts. Indeed, those connected with dispensing justice bear
a heavy burden of responsibility.
Falsification of an official document such as court records is considered a grave offense. It
also amounts to dishonesty. Under Section 23, Rule XIV of the Administrative Code of 1987,
dishonesty (par. a) and falsification (par. f) are considered grave offenses warranting the
penalty of dismissal from service upon commission of the first offense.
Furthermore, falsification of an official document is punishable as a criminal offense under
Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code and dishonesty is an impious act that has no place in the
judiciary.
The penalty of dismissal, however, can no longer be imposed and carried out with respect to
the late Judge Kapunan. The administrative complaints against him have become moot and
academic and the case should be deemed closed and terminated following our ruling in Loyao,
Jr. v. Caube and Apiag v. Cantero
(59) GAUDENCIO B. PANTILLO III vs. JUDGE VICTOR A. CANOY
A.M. No. RTJ-11-2262 | February 9, 2011 | Velasco, Jr., J.
FACTS:
Legal Ethics (Case Digests) Compiled by: Ann Tomarong

A criminal case was pending before the sala of respondent Judge Canoy, wherein Rules, and thus no validity should be given to the bail posted by the accused. Judge Canoy was
fined 11,000php and was given a stern warning.
along with a few police officers escorted the accused Leonardo Melgazo to the City
(60) Daniel G. Sevilla v. Judge Francisco S. Lindo, M. No. MTJ-08-1714 , February 9, 2011 ,
was relayed to Pantillo. Complainant was able to verify this from the precinct and he was also Bersamin, J.
informed the release was pursuant to a 30,000php bail posted by Melgazo.
Facts: Daniel G. Sevilla charged Hon. Francisco S. Lindo with delay in the disposition of a criminal
Pantillo was even more puzzled when he found out that no Information was filed
case. Sevilla asserted that Judge Lindo thereby violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of
against Melgazo yet, but there was already approval of the bail. He learned that there was only
Judicial Conduct, which requires that a judge should administer justice impartially and without
a verbal order made by the Judge for the approval of a bail. The following day, 05 September
delay; that Judge Lindo also violated Section 1, Rule 135 of the Rules of Court, which mandates
2008, Melgazo filed a Motion for the release of his vehicle that was object evidence to the case.
He prayed that said motion be heard on September 5 or on the same day of the filing, which
unreasonable resetting of the hearings 12 times rendered inconsequential his right to the
was in clear violation of the rules. Judge Canoy issued an Order directing the prosecutor to file speedy disposition of his case; and that such resettings were made upon the instance of Judge
a Comment within 3 days upon receipt, and this was complied with, but still the motion was Lindo, not upon motion of the parties.
granted. Pantillo filed a motion for inhibition of judge Canoy but the same was denied. Thus, the
instant complaint was filed with the OCA.
In his comment dated July 26, 2007, Judge Lindo refuted the charge, claiming that
In his Comment, Judge Canoy said that he considered the constitutional right to bail the postponements were upon valid grounds.

presents as a defense Sec. 17, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court which does not require a formal
proper, lacking only the formal papers to finalize the same. OCA recommended that the
complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that Judge Canoy be fined
40,000php with a stern warning.
ISSUE:
Issue: Whether or not retired Judge Lindo was administratively liable for the numerous
postponements in violation of the Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Held: We agree with and adopt the report and recommendation of the OCA that Judge Lindo be
held liable for delay in the disposition of his cases that was tantamount to inefficiency and
incompetence in the performance of his official duties. Although the postponement of a hearing
in a civil or criminal case may at times be unavoidable, the Court disallows undue or
unnecessary postponements of court hearings, simply because they cause unreasonable

liable for violation of Supreme Court rules, circulars and decisions Judiciary, aside from aggravating the financial and emotional burdens of the litigants. For this
reason, the Court has enjoined that postponements and resettings should be allowed only upon
HOLD: meritorious grounds, and has consistently reminded all trial judges to adopt a firm policy
against improvident postponements.
Yes, Judge Canoy is liable for such. Though the right to bail is definitely allowed in
the instant case, it is the matter of procedure that was violated herein. Rule 114 requires an
application or petition for the release on bail of an accused. There was no such written
application made to the court, yet Judge Canoy allowed the bail to be accepted. Also, another
requirement is that the bail should be deposited with the nearest collector of internal revenue
or any municipal, city or provincial treasurer. Instead, it was the clerk of court who received
and acknowledged the bond.

50
Legal Ethics (Case Digests) Compiled by: Ann Tomarong

51