Marces v. Arcangel 10. The barangay officials failed to amicably settle the dispute.
11. The feud between the families worsened. A violent confrontation happened
Ponente: J. Mendoza
Date: July 9, 1996
Petitioner: Ben D. Marces, Sr.
Respondent: Judge Paul T. Arcangel, Presiding Judge, Branch 12, Regional Trial Court
Davao City
FACTS:
1. Complainant is a 61y.o. retiree, married to one Ruth Jovellar and has 5
children. The family resided in BRC Village, Catalunan Pequeño, Davao City
2. Spouses Wilfredo and Flordeliza Cañas moved into complainant’s
neighborhood. The became the nearest neighbors of complainant, houses
being 45 meters apart.
3. A domestic helper of Cañases sought help for alleged maltreatment she
received from her employers.
4. Complainant, who was then the incumbent Purok Leader, referred the matter
to barangay authorities. The dispute was resolved but the relation of Marces
and Cañases became strained.
5. One time, Mrs. Cañas had an exchange of words with Mrs. Marces and the
latter’s daughter, during which they hurled invectives at each other. It was
triggered by a fight between the turkeys of the family.
6. The following day, Mrs. Cañas, with her sister and a neighbor, boarded a
passenger jeepney despite the fact that there were no more seats available
because complainant was riding that vehicle. Mrs. Cañas intended to cause the
complainant’s arrest because as the jeepney neared the police station, Cañas
asked the dirver to stop the vehicle. She got off and called a policeman and had
the complinant Ben D. Marces arrested.
7. The arrest was made in the basis of alias warrants handed to the police by Mrs.
Cañas. The warrants were issued by MTCC Judge Edipolo Sarabia in 3 criminal
cases against herein complainant for violations of BP 22. Complainant was
detained for one night without knowledge of his family.
8. Complainant saw Judge Sarabia and explained that the cases against him had
long been amicably settled. The judge told him that he did not really know
anything about the cases and that he had only been requested by respondent
Judge Paul Arcangel to issue the warrants.
9. Cañas filed a case against complainant in the Barangay. Mediation conferences
were conducted between the two families. Although he had not been asked to,
respondent Judge Arcangel attended the conferences.
- walked in and out of the hall
- introduced himself as the executive Judge of RTC Davao in an attempt to
influence the barangay officialsd
- accompanied Mrs. Cañas and acted as the baby sitter of the latter’s
daughter.
and as a result of which, parties were injured.
12. Armed men in uniform arrived in two military vehicles and arrested the
members of complainant’s family and took them to Davao Metrodiscom
Headquarters. The arrests were made on orders of certain Col. Nelson Estares.
13. The investigating officer found probable cause and filed charges of attempted
murder against complainant, his wife and son. Complainant alleges that
respondent Judge took advantage of his position and influenced the conduct of
the preliminary investigation. At the time of applications for bail bond were
being baing made, the respondent judge arrived and questioned the validity of
the bond posted.
14. Because of these events, complainant questioned the interest of the Judge in
the dispute between the 2 families. All they knew was that Judge’s car was
often parked in front of house of Mrs. Canas, especially when Mr. Cañas was
working away overtime.
15. COMMENT of respondent judge:
- charges are false, malicious and utterly baseless
- the same were filed merely to gratify complainant’s personal spite and
animosity against him
- complaint was filed in anticipation of the cases which the respondent
intends to file against the complainant for slander and threats.
- The warrants were valid in connection with the pending cases against
complainant which could not be served due to complainant’s connections
with the officers of the warrant section.
- Denied that he acted as escort to Mrs. Cañas. He went to the Barangay to
file his own complaint against Ruth Marces and daughter Lydia.
- Denied that he has illicit relations with Mrs. Cañas. They are only business
partners in the manufacture of appliance protectors.
16. Report and Recommendation of Associate Justice Purisima: DISMISSAL of the
charges for insufficiency of evidence EXCEPT the charge that respondent judge
attended the mediation conferences between the feuding families and tried to
intervene. Penalty: be admonished and sternly warned.
ISSUE1: WON the respondent Judge is guilty of impropriety therefore violating
the Code of Judicial Conduct—YES.
HELD/RATIO1: The Court fines the conclusions of the investigator that
respondent judge is guilty of improper conduct to be fully supported by the
evidence in the record. HOWEVER, the report of the investigating Justice fails to
consider other serious allegations in the complaint of which there is also
sufficient evidence in the record, to wit:
1.) caused the issuance of alias warrants of arrest by requesting another judge,
before whom the case against the complainant was pending
Page 1 of 4
 2.) Arrest would have not been made without the intervention of respondent
judge.
These charges were actually admitted by respondent judge. The criminal cases against
complainants have been in archive since 1983. Its discovery and revival was made
possible upon the request for verification and its status and information by Judge
Arcangel.
Respondent justifies his intervention on the ground that complainant Marces has been
able to evade service of the warrants because of connections with the warrant officers
of Davao City. Even if this had been the case, it would not excuse respondent judge in
using his own influence.
Clearly, respondent intervened in the feud between the two families and such
interference was not limited to the barangay mediation proceedings but extended to
various stages of the conflict. The Court finds the actuations of the respondent judge
improper and censurable.
Respondent is the visible representation of the law, the intermediary between
conflicting interest, and the embodiment of the people’s sense of justice. Unless it
was a case filed with his court, it was improper for him to intervene in a dispute
or controversy.
Code of Judicial Conduct:
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.
He should not suffer his conduct to create the impression that any person can unduly
influence him or enjoy his favor.
ISSUE2: PROPER PENALTY
HELD/RATIO2: REPRIMAND with WARNING
The court believes that dismissal from service is an excessive penalty. They took into
consideration the following
- no other charge against respondent Judge
- first administrative case
- record as a judge is exemplary
A.M. No. 90-474 October 4, 1991
CLEMENCIO C. SABITSANA, JR., complainant
vs. JUDGE ADRIANO R. VILLAMOR, RTC, BRANCH 16, NAVAL, LEYTE, respondent.
FACTS:
Atty. Clemencio Sabitsana, Jr., a practicing lawyer in Naval, Biliran Subprovince, Leyte,
charged respondent, Judge Adriano R. Villamor of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 16,
Naval, Leyte, with falsification of his monthly Certificates of Service by making it appear
that he had resolved all cases submitted for decision within the ninety-day period
required by the Judiciary Act of 1948
Complainant further furnished the Court with an Affidavit of Judge Dulcisimo Pitao of
the Municipal Trial Court of Maripipi, Leyte, stating that Respondent had intervened for
the accused in Criminal Case No. 959 then pending with the said Municipal Court.
In his Comment filed on 20 December 1990, Respondent claimed that the Complaint
was more for harassment and vengeance. That there were other cases not decided
within the 90-day rule, including those listed in the Complaint allegedly because the
transcripts were incomplete.
Issue: WON the respondent violated Section 3 Canon 1 of the New Code of JUdical
Conduct
Ruling: Yes
From the Investigative Report of Justice Fermin Martin, the imputation that respondent
intervened in Criminal Case No. 959 is sufficiently substantiated. That a letter was sent
to judge Pitao by the wife of he accused and that the respondent mentioned the case
during their conversation.
Cardinal is the rule that a Judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of
impropriety in all activities. The Canons mince no words in mandating that a Judge shall
refrain from influencing in any manner the outcome of litigation or dispute pending
before another Court (Canon 2, Rule 2.04). Interference by members of the bench in-
pending suits with the end in view of influencing the course or the result of litigation
does not only subvert the independence of the judiciary but also undermines the
people's faith in its integrity and impartiality (Commentaries on the Code of Judicial
Conduct).
Respondent is dismissed from service.
OCA v Judge Floro
RTJ-99-1460
Page 2 of 4
 It was in 1995 that Atty. Florentino V. Floro, Jr. first applied for judgeship. A
pre-requisite psychological evaluation on him then by the SC Clinic revealed "(e)vidence
of ego disintegration" and "developing psychotic process." Judge Floro later voluntarily
withdrew his application. In June 1998, when he applied anew, the required
psychological evaluation exposed problems with self-esteem, mood swings, confusion,
social/interpersonal deficits, paranoid ideations, suspiciousness, and perceptual
distortions. Both 1995 and 1998 reports concluded that Atty. Floro was unfit to be a
judge. But because of his impressive academic standing, the JBC allowed Atty. Floro to
seek a second opinion from private practitioners. The second opinion appeared
favorable thus paving the way to atty. Floro's appointment as RTC judge.
An administrative complaint was filed against him by court administrator
Alfredo L. Benipayo. Then he recommended as well that Judge Floro be placed under
preventive suspension for the duration of the investigation against him. In a Resolution
dated 20 July 1999, the Court en banc adopted the recommendations of the OCA,
docketing the complaint as A.M. No. RTJ-99-1460, in view of the commission of the acts
or omissions as reported by the audit team.
One of those reported is for 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 or Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. The audit team
reported that Judge Floro relayed to the members thereof that in criminal cases, he is
always "pro-accused" particularly concerning detention prisoners and bonded accused
who have to continually pay for the premiums on their bonds during the pendency of
their cases.
Judge Floro denies the foregoing charge. He claims that what he did impart
upon Atty. Buenaventura was the need for the OCA to remedy his predicament of having
40 detention prisoners and other bonded accused whose cases could not be tried due to
the lack of a permanent prosecutor assigned to his sala. At any rate, Judge Floro submits
that there is no single evidence or proof submitted by any litigant or private
complainant that he sided with the accused. Atty. Dizon, Judge Floro’s Clerk of Court, on
the other hand, categorically stated under oath that Judge Floro, during a staff meeting,
admitted to her and the staff of Branch 73 and in the presence of his PAO lawyer that he
is pro-accused for the reason that he commiserated with them especially those under
detention as he, himself, had been accused by his brother and sister-in-law of so many
unfounded offenses.
Issue: W/n Judge Floro violated Canon 3 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct
Held: Yes. 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. Judge Floro, by
broadcasting to his staff and the PAO lawyer that he is pro-accused, opened himself up
to suspicion regarding his impartiality. Prudence and judicial restraint dictate that a
judge should reserve personal views and predilections to himself so as not to stir up
suspicions of bias and unfairness. Irresponsible speech or improper conduct of a judge
erodes public confidence in the judiciary.
On a more fundamental level, what is required of judges is objectivity if an
independent judiciary is to be realized. And by professing his bias for the accused, Judge
Floro is guilty of unbecoming conduct as his capacity for objectivity is put in serious
doubt, necessarily eroding the public’s trust in his ability to render justice.
In Re: Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos
A.M. No. 97-2-53-RTC July 6, 2001
Complainant: Mrs. Rotilla A. Marcos and Her Children
Respondent: Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos
FACTS: In 1996, complainant, the wife of respondent Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos, and
their children filed a complaint against respondent for his failure to sufficiently support
the family and for having an illicit relationship with a law student. Complainants prayed
that all remuneration due respondent be directly released to them but the complaint
was later withdrawn and dismissed.
In 2000, Chief Justice Hilario Davide recommended for the suspension of respondent
after a scandalous incident during an exclusive Fun Run sponsored by the Philippine
Judges Association where respondent brought along a woman. When Chief Justice
pulled respondent aside to validate the facts about the latter's illicit relationship with
the woman, respondent candidly admitted that he had been living with the woman
named Mae Tacaldo, for three (3) years already.
During investigation, respondent denied all the allegations. However, the evidences
including a phone bill addressed to the respondent not to their conjugal dwelling but to
the address of the alleged mistress, a birthday card which read “MT cares a lot, you
know” and a vehicle and its insurance policy under the name of both the respondent
and his alleged mistress, among others, proved respondent’s infidelity. The matter of
the illicit relationship was even published in the newspapers.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated the Code of Judicial Conduct
Page 3 of 4
HELD: YES. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that the conduct of a
judge must be free of a whiff of impropriety not only with respect to his performance
of his judicial duties, but also to his behavior outside his sala and as a private individual.
The Code dictates that a judge, in order to promote public confidence in the integrity
and impartiality of the judiciary, must behave with propriety at all times. 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.

Keeping a mistress is certainly not an act one would expect of a judge who is expected to
possess the highest standard of morality and decency. If a judge fails to have
high ethical standards, the confidence and high respect for the judiciary diminishes as
he represents the judiciary.

Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos has demonstrated himself to be wanting of moral integrity.

He has violated the code of Judicial Conduct, which requires every judge to be the
embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence and to avoid the appearance of
impropriety in all activities as to promote public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary.

Having tarnished the image of the Judiciary, respondent was ordered dismissed from
service.

Page 4 of 4