A.M. No.

MTJ-11-1778 June 5, 2013

(Formerly OCA IPI No. 08-1966-MTJ)

MARICOR L. GARADO, Complainant, vs. JUDGE LIZABETH GUTIERREZ-TORRES, Respondent.

Before us is a Verified Complaint-Affidavit,1 filed by complainant Maricor L. Garado charging respondent Judge
Lizabeth Gutierrez-Torres, Presiding Judge, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 60, Mandaluyong City, with violation of
the Rule 3.05,2 Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct in connection with Civil Case No. 20129 entitled "Maricor
Garado v. Rose Virgie Estor."

Complainant alleges that she is the plaintiff in the aforesaid civil case for sum of money and damages. She
complaints that the case is covered by the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure and only involves a claim for
the payment of a loan amounting to ₱50,000 plus interest and a claim for damages amounting to ₱30,000, but the
case has remained unresolved for more than 20 months from the time it was filed.

Complainant narrates that her complaint against defendant Rose Virgie Estor was filed on August 22, 2005. After
respondent judge denied defendant Estor’s motion to dismiss on July 3, 2006, Estor thereafter filed an Urgent Ex-
parte Motion for Extension of Time (To File Responsive Pleading) followed by a second motion to dismiss on
November 16, 2006. Complainant, meanwhile, filed a motion to render judgment with an opposition to the second
motion to dismiss on November 27, 2006. The two motions were submitted for resolution on November 27, 2006 and
January 15, 2007, respectively, but both motions remained unresolved as of the date of the filing of the complaint on
May 9, 2007.

In a 1st Indorsement3 dated May 17, 2007, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) directed Judge Torres to file
her Comment on the complaint within ten days. Respondent judge received the 1st Tracer 4 against respondent judge
on July 24, 2007 requiring her to file the May 25, 2007, but failed to comply with the directive. Thus, the OCA issued
required Comment within five days from notice. Respondent judge also received the 1st Indorsement on Tracer on
August 3, 2007, but still failed to comply.

On March 10, 2008, this Court’s Third Division issued a Resolution 5 directing respondent judge to: (1) show cause
why she should not be administratively sanctioned in view of her refusal to submit her Comment despite the two
directives, and (2) file her Comment within five days from receipt of notice, otherwise, an administrative case will be
filed against her. Respondent judge received a copy of the Resolution on April 16, 2008, but again ignored the same.
Consequently, the Court issued another Resolution6 on July 14, 2008 imposing upon Judge Torres a fine of ₱1,000,
to be paid within ten days from receipt, or imprisonment of five days if the fine is not paid within the period of ten
days. The July 14, 2008 Resolution also directed respondent judge to comply with the Court’s Show Cause
Resolution dated March 10, 2008. Despite receipt of the Resolution, however, Judge Torres neither complied with the
Resolution nor paid the fine.

Thus, on April 21, 2010, the Court issued a Resolution 7 and resolved to await the payment of the fine by respondent
judge; to consider the filing of her Comment as waived; and to refer this administrative matter to the OCA for final
evaluation, report and recommendation.

On November 11, 2010, the OCA submitted its Memorandum 8 to the Court finding respondent judge administratively
liable and recommending that the Court:

1. RE-DOCKET the case as a regular administrative matter against respondent Judge Lizabeth G. Torres;

2. DISMISS respondent Judge Lizabeth G. Torres from the service and impose upon her all the attendant penalties;
and

3. IMPOSE upon respondent Judge Lizabeth G. Torres the penalty of FIVE (5) days imprisonment for her failure to
pay the FINE of ₱1,000.00 within the required period, pursuant to the Court’s Resolution dated 14 July 2008. 9

In recommending the penalty of dismissal, the OCA noted that in five previous administrative cases, 10 respondent
was found liable for undue delay in rendering a decision, resolution or order, and sternly warned that the commission
of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely. The OCA also noted eight other pending
administrative cases11 filed by different litigants against respondent judge involving offenses of similar nature. As well,
the OCA noted the four instances under the present administrative case where respondent judge failed to comply
with directives/orders issued by this Court.

We agree with the OCA that respondent judge should be held administratively liable.

At the outset, the Court notes that respondent had been given ample opportunity to address the complaint against
her. The OCA sent and respondent judge received the 1st Indorsement dated May 17, 2007 and 1st Tracer dated
July 24, 2007, both of which explicitly required her to file her Comment on the complaint. However, up until her
dismissal from the service by the Court on November 23, 2010,12 respondent had not complied with the OCA
directives. Moreover, respondent also failed to comply, despite due notice, with the Resolutions dated March 10,
2008 and July 14, 2008 of the Court itself.

Respondent’s failure to submit her Comment and compliance as required by the OCA and this Court is tantamount to
insubordination, inefficiency, and neglect of duty.14 It was respondent’s duty then not only to obey the lawful orders of
her superiors, but also to defend herself against complainant’s charges and prove her fitness to remain a member of
the bench. By her failure to comply with the OCA and this Court’s directives, respondent judge has completely lost
her chance to defend herself.

As to the merits of the administrative complaint, the pleadings and evidence on record clearly establish respondent’s
liability for undue delay in resolving Civil Case No. 20129.

Section 15(1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, mandates that cases or matters filed with the lower courts must be
decided or resolved within three months from the date they are submitted for decision or resolution. With respect to
cases falling under the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, first level courts are only allowed 30 days
following the receipt of the last affidavit and position paper, or the expiration of the period for filing the same, within
which to render judgment. Section 6 of the said Rule also requires first level courts to render judgment motu proprio
or upon motion of the plaintiff if the defendant fails to file an answer to the complaint within the allowable period.

Judges are oft-reminded of their duty to act promptly upon cases and matters pending before their courts. Rule 3.05,
Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct directs judges to "dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases
within the required periods." Canons 6 and 7 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics further exhort judges to be prompt and
punctual in the disposition and resolution of cases and matters pending before their courts:

6. PROMPTNESS

He should be prompt in disposing of all matters submitted to him, remembering that justice delayed is often justice
denied.

7. PUNCTUALITY

He should be punctual in the performance of his judicial duties, recognizing that the time of litigants, witnesses, and
attorneys is of value and that if the judge is unpunctual in his habits, he sets a bad example to the bar and tends to
create dissatisfaction with the administration of justice.1âwphi1

Administrative Circular No. 1 dated January 28, 1988 likewise reminds all judges to observe scrupulously the periods
prescribed in Section 15, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution and to act promptly on all motions and interlocutory
matters pending before their courts.

Prompt disposition of cases is attained basically through the efficiency and dedication to duty of judges. If judges do
not possess those traits, delay in the disposition of cases is inevitable to the prejudice of litigants. Accordingly, judges
should be imbued with a high sense of duty and

responsibility in the discharge of their obligation to administer justice promptly. 15 In this case, respondent judge failed
to live up to the exacting standards of duty and responsibility that her position required. Upon the failure of the
defendant Estor to file her Answer in Civil Case No. 20129, respondent was then required under Section 6 of the
1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure to render judgment in Civil Case No. 20129 within 30 days. She failed to
do so contrary to the rationale behind the said Rule, which was precisely adopted to promote a more expeditious and
inexpensive determination of cases, and to enforce the constitutional rights of litigants to the speedy disposition of
cases.16

Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended, classifies undue delay in rendering a decision and violation of
Supreme Court directives as less serious charges which are punishable with the penalty of suspension from office
without salary and other benefits for one month to three months, or a fine of ₱10,000 to ₱20,000. Given that
respondent had been previously dismissed from the service in Lugares v. Gutierrez-Torres,17 however, the penalty of
suspension is already inapplicable. Thus, the Court imposes upon respondent for her undue delay in resolving Civil
Case No. 20129 a fine in the maximum amount of ₱20,000, and another fine of ₱10,000 for her repeated failure to
obey this Court’s directives, both amounts to be deducted from her accrued leave credits.

WHEREFORE, respondent Lizabeth Gutierrez-Torres is found LIABLE of the less serious charges of undue delay in
resolving Civil Case No. No. 20129 and violation or Supreme Court directives. She is FINED the amount or ₱20,000
for the first offense and another ₱10,000 for the second offense, both amounts to be deducted from her accrued
leave credits. To effect the penalties imposed, the Employee's Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services-OCA,
is DIRECTED to ascertain respondent Lizabeth Gutierrez-Torres's total earned leave credits. Thereafter, the Finance
Division, Fiscal Management Office-OCA, is DIRECTED to compute the monetary value or respondent Lizabeth
Gutierrez-Torres's total accrued leave credits and deduct therefrom the amount of the fines imposed, without
prejudice to whatever penalty the Court may impose on other remaining and/or pending administrative cases against
her, if any.

[AM No. RTJ-02-1669. April 14, 2004]

HON. JULIETA A. DECENA, HON. VIRGILIO D. PONTANAL, HON. AMELITA A. IBASCO, HON. GERRY D. RAA,
HON. PEDRO N. MORA. JR., and HON. FERDINAND T. AGUILAR, complainants, vs. JUDGE NILO A.
MALANYAON, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 32, Pili, Camarines
Sur, respondent.
The regular session of a municipal council was interrupted by a heckler in the audience hurling various
accusatory remarks and insults at the council members. The heckler is a judge, the incident, the subject of this case.
On 26 May 2000, the Office of the Court Administrator received a Joint Affidavit-Complaint executed by various
municipal officials of Bula, Camarines Sur. The affiants-complainants, Mayor Julieta A. Decena (Decena), Vice-mayor
Virgilio D. Pontanal (Pontanal), and Councilors Amelita A. Ibasco (Ibasco), Gerry D. Raa (Raa), Pedro N. Mora, Jr.
(Mora), and Ferdinand T. Aguila (Aguilar) sought the dismissal from the service and the disbarment of respondent
Judge Nilo A. Malanyaon (Judge Malanyaon), Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 32, of Pili,
Camarines Sur, on account of his conduct during the 21 February 2000 session of the Sangguniang Bayan of Bula.
In a Resolution dated 19 June 2002, the Court referred the matter for investigation, report and recommendation
to Court of Appeals Justice Eriberto U. Rosario, Jr.[1] After Justice Rosario sought to be excused owing to his
forthcoming retirement then,[2] the Court referred the matter to the Court of Appeals for assignment to a Justice by
court-wide raffle.[3] The case was raffled to Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. After conducting several hearings on the
case, Justice Reyes, Jr. rendered a Report and Recommendation (Report), which was received by this Court on 22
July 2003. From the Report, we draw the following antecedent facts:
On 21 February 2000, the Sangguniang Bayan of Bula, Camarines Sur convened its regular session, with Vice-
mayor Pontanal presiding. Among the matters on the agenda was the revocation of two previous council
resolutions[4] authorizing Rolando N. Canet (Canet) to operate a cockpit in the municipality. A former vice-mayor of
Bula, Canet is also the nephew-in-law of Judge Malanyaon. Both Judge Malanyaon and Canet attended the 21
February 2000 session of the Sangguniang Bayan. Canet, however, came along with many supporters. [5] Noticing his
presence, the Sanggunian offered to recognize Judge Malanyaon; but he declined, saying that he merely wanted to
be an observer.[6]
From that point on, the episode during the Sanggunian session as culled in the Report on the basis of the
submitted affidavits transpired in this wise:

Subsequently, during the deliberations, the vice mayor attested that respondent interrupted the session by shouting
comments in their vernacular such as: Ambog, Ambog iyan (lies, they are lies); Butig! Caya mo yan? Maski Butig!
Maski Piglalado Camo! (Lies! Can you do that? Even if they are lies? Even if you are being deceived?) and Dale
Sana Camong Dale! (You do things recklessly). During the deliberations relative to the authority of Mr. Rolando N.
Canet to operate a cockpit, the respondent judge, with blazing eyes and a red face further interrupted the session by
lambasting the municipal councilors with disparaging and insulting remarks, which left the whole proceedings in
confusion.

In the heat of respondents outbursts, he uttered the following remarks to the vice mayor:

Ika Bondying (the vice mayors nickname),. So kag-igin MO BUKO ADTONG MADAYA, Di adto nag gagamit kana
kuwa kan municipyo, o camo ginagamit mo si Revo mo! Mag adal kamo, a biente uno mil, susmareosep kamo. Sabi
co ka ninyo mig-lecture aco pero abo man kamo, o taono, basta camo matugaan ni alkalde? Mga uda ugali! (You
Bodying, your father was not deceitful. He was not using the property of the municipality, now you are using
your Revo. You all study! You are receiving twenty one thousand pesos, my god, I told you I will lecture you,
but you did not want me to. Why? As long as you were promised by the mayor? You have no etiquette!)

O Bondying ika, maski ambugan camo kana alkalde, tutubudon ninyo? Urgent na ono? Din a kamo pwendeng
butigan. Pigbubutigan camo. Amo yan sabihon ko ka ninyo! (You Bondying, even if the mayor is telling you lies,
will you follow her? What urgent? You could not be lied upon again! You are being deceived, thats what I will
tell you!)

Pedro N. Mora, former municipal councilor of Bula, Camarines Sur, in his affidavit also conformed that he heard the
respondent judge utter: Ambog, Ambog iyan (lies, they are lies); Butig! Caya mo yan? Maski Butig! Maski Piglalado
Camo! (Lies! Can you do that? Even if they are lies? Even if you are being deceived?) and Dale Sana Camong
Dale! (You do things recklessly) during the session of Sangguniang Bayan of Bula, held on 21 February 2000.xxx

Ferdinand T. Aguilar, another former councilor of Bula, Camarines Sur, likewise attested to the intemperate language
used by the respondent during the regular session of the Sangguniang Bayan of Bula on 21 February 2000.Aguilar
however adds that he too became the object of respondents ire when the latter publicly told him the following:

O, Aguilar, ono pigsusunod mo? Ilinga, ilinga tolos ninyo, ono regal, o ono regal ninyo? You cannot suspend the rule
without 2/3 votes! Ono, magbasa kamo! Saying kito sweldo ninyo! (You Aguilar, What are you following?Look,
look at this, what is the regulation, what are your regulations? You cannot suspend the rule without the 2/3
votes! You read! Your salary is just a waste!);

O, ika (pointing at Aguilar) O ono pigsusunod mo? O, kua raw, basaha ninyo! Onong klaseng Sanggunian adi? Di
nagsusunod sa regal a, Ferdinand? Di ninyo piggagamit to mga payo ninyo! O, ilinga! Basaha Ferdinand. (You,
[pointing at Aguilar] what are you following? You get [the rules] and read them! What kind of Sanggunian is
this? You not following the rules a, Ferdinand? You are not using your head! You look and read it,
Ferdinand.);

Ika sana Ferdinand saying kito alintak mo! Uray ni ina nya, onong urgent na nakakaptan ninyo? Kon pig-gagamit ya
mga gamit kot munisipyo, di ninyo pigaactibaran! (You Ferdinand you what is in your head is such a waste.Ass
of your mother! To what urgent matter that you are holding on? If it is the property of this municipality is the
one being used, you are not acting on it.);

Ika Ferdinand nag-aadal ka kin abugasiya, nagpapabuta man ika, ining, pigbubutigan na kamo? (You Ferdinand,
you are studying law and yet you were blinded even though you are cheated);

Ika, Ferdinand basahon ko, kon gusto mo bikolon ko, di san sinasabing bago magtaong permit agko Ordinansa. Si
isay ya nagsasabi? Ya tinatawam kin poder ngowan uya Sangguniang Bayan ya mig-taong lisensya! Tinawan na kin
lisensa o ono pa? (You Ferdinand, I will read to you, if you want I will read it to you in our dialect. That it is
never stated there that before issuing permit, there should be an ordinance first. Who said that? The one that
is given the power is the Sangguniang Bayan the one that will issue the license! He [Rolando Canet] was
already given a license, what else?);

Ika Aguilar, basahon mo iton a! da siton nagsasabing bago tawan kin lisensya, kumasta ngona kin ordinansa! O sa
cockfighting o kon sa demonyo! Ining sa bulangan na ini 1964 pa ako, a! ngani ninyong maintindihan. Ngowan, si
Rolando Canet agko lisensiya, huli ta abo ni Decena, natugon man kamo gusto ninyong anularan! Ngowan, gusting
bumayad abong pabayadon. Magbasa kamo, 21 mil, buray ni ina niya! Ako, nag-absent akong kabangang aldow
para magatender kading session, sangribo ana nauda kanako! Gusto ko sanang porbaran kamo adding osipon na
kon talagang nakastahan na kamo! Magbasa kamo, 21 mil, buray ni ina niya, 21 mil. (You Aguilar, read that
[referring to the rules], it is never stated here that before you issue a license, you have to pass first an
ordinance, in the cockfighting or whatever devil is that! This law about the cockfighting this has been the law
since 1964 so that you will understand. Now, Rolando Canet has a license, just because Decena does not
want to give permit you want the same annulled. Now, he wants to pay but does not want to accept the same.
You read, 21 thousand [referring to our salary] ass of your mother! I did not report for half a day just to
attend this session and I lost P1,000.00 in the process in the form of salary just so I will be able to prove for
myself about the rumors that you have been bought [or to that effect]! You read! Twenty one thousand! Ass
of your mother, twenty one thousand!)

Sayang Ferdinand, kun arog ya naturan mo, di ida makakapasar, amo yan sasabihon ko kanimo! Kon arog kito ya
studio mo, babaliktaron mo to demonyong iton, a, maski ton butig, amo tutuboron mo a, tibaad di ika maka-abogado,
kon maka-abogado man, makakarsel ka! (What a waste Ferdinand, if thats what you learned, you will not pass
[the Bar exams] thats what I will tell you. What are you going to tell them, if that is how you understand, that
you will reverse this kind of devil even if it is a lie and yet you will follow the same. You might not become a
lawyer, and if you become one you will go to jail.)

Ernesto B. Ballaber, who is the incumbent Barangay Captain of Salvacion, Bula, Camarines Sur, testified through his
affidavit that he was present and seated beside the respondent judge on the date in question. He noticed that the
respondent judge was drunk as the latter gave off a strong alcoholic scent. Moreover, Ballebar observed that the
respondents eyes were watery and red.

Ballebars deduction that Judge Malanyaon was drunk was reinforced when the respondent stood up, banged the
table and shouted in the vernacular: Butig!, Butig! Butig! (Lies! Lies! Lies!) and Ambog! Ambog iyan! (Lie! Its a
lie!)during the session. Ballebar further testified that the respondent also verbally abused the members of the
Sangguniang.xxx

Gerry D. Raa asseverated that when the issue on the resolutions affecting the operation of the cockpit arena by
Rolando N. Canet was being taken up by the council, Judge Malanyaon suddenly pushed the table in front of him,
bolted from his chair and fiercely castigated the members of the Sangguniang Bayan with every personal attacks. In
fact, Raa attested that the respondent publicly discredited and humiliated him during the session by imputing that he
was operating an illegal cockpit in the municipality. [7] (Emphasis not ours.)

Mora and Raa, as well as two other witnesses [8] for the complainants confirmed that Judge Malanyaon reeked
of liquor as he proceeded with his tirade.
According to Bartolome D. Parro, the Sangguniang Bayan OIC Secretary, because of the outbursts of Judge
Malanyaon the session was suspended. Meanwhile, the Sanggunian members were involuntarily detained at the
session hall. They were unable to leave as the entrance and exits were blocked by supporters of Canet. Meanwhile,
Judge Malanyaon continued his outbursts against the councilors. [9]
Admitting his presence during the Sanggunian session, Judge Malanyaon explained, however, that he was
there not as a judge but in his private capacity as a taxpayer. He denied he was drunk, even as he admitted he was
enraged and furious over the proceedings at the Sanggunian. He did not deny delivering a diatribe, but he claimed
his actions were appropriate since the proposed revocation of his nephew-in-laws cockpit license was illegal in his
estimation.[10]
All told, Judge Malanyaon did not dispute the facts as laid down by the complainants and the latters
witnesses. He justified his behavior though as the fulminations of a righteously outraged citizen which according to
him should be segregated from his function as a judge.
Judge Malanyaon deserves to be taken to task for his outrageous behavior as it clearly violates the Code of
Judicial Conduct.
First. The remarks uttered are patently defamatory and even vulgar. Indeed, such utterances should not be
expected of a public official worthy of his office. At fault is not the sentiment harbored, but the impolitic choice of
words employed to express such sentiment. [11] It is not even particularly relevant if Judge Malanyaon was inebriated
at that time, for the reckless character of his remarks are in themselves palpable, whether they were delivered in a
drunken or sober state.
Second. Judge Malanyaons harangue was directed at the members of the Sangguniang Bayan in the course of
a regular session of the body. The members of the Sanggunian are, by reason of their public office, entitled to the
respect of other people, especially their fellow public officers. Judge Malanyaons diatribe indicates his inability to
accord his fellow public officials their due.
Third. Judge Malanyaon made his remarks in a public forum. Obviously, however, he forgot or even failed to
realize that he is a representative of the judicial branch of government, the judge being the visible representation of
the law and, more importantly, of justice.[12] The judiciary is loathe to interfere with the due exercise by co-equal
branches of government of their official functions, absent any justiciable action brought in due course.
Fourth. It must be understood that Judge Malanyaons remarks were aimed at preventing the Sanggunian from
revoking the cockpit license of Canet. In doing so, he was attempting to interfere with the will of the Sanggunian as an
independent legislative body. As observed by Investigating Justice Reyes, Jr., the awkward situation was aggravated
when Judge Malanyaon publicly humiliated the councilors in front of their constituents, making them look witless and
obtuse, and thereby creating a mockery of the proceedings. [13] The disruptive presence of several supporters of
Canet, a local town politician, porated the protest against the plan to revoke the cockpit license with political
color. Judge Malanyaons active participation in apparent concert with Canets supporters exposed him as nothing but
a common lobbyist, as he forgot to act as a judge with the standard judicial temperament and prudence.
Fifth. Judge Malanyaon obstructed the Sangguniang members from performing their official duties. As
Investigating Justice Reyes, Jr. pointed out, the acts complained of Judge Malanyaon is no less a crime under Article
144 of the Revised Penal Code.[14] As a judge, respondent should very well know how deleterious it would be to the
discharge of his functions if the court hearings he presides over would be rudely interrupted by fulsome tirades
delivered by a spectator in the audience. If such a situation arise in his courtroom, Judge Manlayaon would have
every right to take offense to the disruption in the proceedings. A legislative session is no less an official proceeding
as a court session and any one who disrupts either proceedings deserves to be sanctioned.
Sixth. The Code of Judicial Conduct requires that a judge shall neither allow family relationships to influence
judicial conduct or judgment, nor allow the prestige of judicial office to be used or lent to advance the private interests
of others.[15] It does not escape our attention that Judge Malanyaon was agitated during the Sanggunian session
because the interests of his nephew-in-law were under attack. Perhaps, Judge Malanyaon honestly believed that the
revocation of Canets cockpit license was illegal. Yet, it would not justify his undisguised attempt to prevent the
threatened detrimental action against his relative with his influence. We agree with the conclusion of Investigating
Justice Reyes, Jr. that Judge Malanyaon allowed himself to be used by his nephew-in-law to promote the latters
private interests, in contravention of the Code of Judicial Conduct. [16]
Judge Malanyaon needs to be reminded that his judicial identity does not terminate at the end of the day when
he takes off his judicial robes. Even when garbed in casual wear outside of the halls of justice, a judge retains the air
of authority and moral ascendancy that he or she wields inside the sala. As the Court once held:

Being the subject of constant public scrutiny, a judge should freely and willingly accept restrictions on conduct that
might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen.

A judge should personify judicial integrity and exemplify honest public service. The personal behavior of a judge, both
in the performance of official duties and in private life should be above suspicion. [17]

It may strike perhaps as a poetically tragic notion, but for very good reasons, a judge's official life cannot simply
be detached or separated from his personal existence.[18] Indeed, the Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2 in particular,
mandates that a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities, as well as behave
at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. [19] Thus, the Court has to
dismiss outright Judge Malanyaons suggestion that his actions be evaluated as one of a taxpayer or ordinary citizen
and not as that of a judge. In fact, his utterances were not made under a cloak of anonymity, for the members of the
council, as well as some of the people in the gallery knew very well that he was a judge. It is highly probable that his
invectives took on a greater imperative on the listeners precisely because he was a judge, with all the authority
attendant to the office.
The conduct of Judge Malanyaon relative to the 21 February 2000 legislative session of the Sangguniang
Bayan of Bula is inexcusable and simply cannot be condoned. His actuations constitute palpable violations of the
Code of Judicial Conduct:

CANON 2 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 impartiality of
the judiciaryxxx

Rule 2.03. 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.

The Office of the Court Administrator recommends that respondent be fined Five Thousand Pesos
(P5,000.00). In his seventeen (17) years in the judiciary, Judge Malanyaon has not been sanctioned, except once by
reprimand. With the comparative seriousness of the offense, a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) would
serve as an appropriate penalty.
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Nilo A. Malanyaon is hereby found GUILTY of conduct unbecoming of a
judge, in violation of Canon 2, Rule 2.01 and Rule 2.03 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. He is ordered to pay a FINE
of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) with a STERN WARNING that the commission of the same or a
similar act or omission in the future will be dealt with more severely.