9. SYLVIA SANTOS, vs. JUDGE EVELYN S. ARCAYA-CHUA, Regional Trial Court, Branch 144, Makati City, Respondent. (A.M.

No. RTJ-07-2093/February 13, 2009)[Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2312-RTJ] Facts Complainant, alleges: that in the first week of September 2002, she asked respondent's help, who was then the Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 63 of Makati City, regarding the cases of complainant's friend, Emerita Muoz, pending before the Supreme Court. Respondent, a former employee of the Court, said that she could help as she had connections with some Justices of the Court; she just needed P100,000.00 which she would give to an employee of the Court for the speedy resolution of said cases. In the first week of October 2002, complainant gave respondent P100,000.00 in the privacy of the latter's chamber. When complainant followed up the cases in February 2003, respondent told her that there was a problem, as the other party was offering P10 million to the Justices. Complainant asked respondent to return the P100,000.00; however respondent could no longer be contacted. In her Comment dated August 19, 2005, respondent denies the charges against her Complainant and respondent filed several pleadings reiterating their respective claims. The Court in its Resolution dated July 4, 2007, referred the instant case to Associate Justice Marina L. Buzon of the CA for investigation. Issue: Whether or not, respondent is liable for gross misconduct. Held: Judge Evelyn S. Arcaya-Chua is found GUILTY of gross misconduct and is hereby SUSPENDED from office for six (6) months without salary and other benefits. She is WARNED that the commission of the same or a similar act in the future shall merit a more severe penalty. The office of a judge is sacred and imbued with public interest. The need to maintain the publics confidence in the judiciary cannot be made to depend solely on the whims and caprices of complainants who are, in a real sense, only witnesses therein. Thus, withdrawal of a complaint or desistance from a complaint will not deprive this Court of its power under the Constitution to ferret out the truth and discipline its members accordingly. Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction of duty, unlawful behavior, willful in character, improper or wrong behavior; while "gross," has been defined as "out of all measure; beyond allowance; flagrant; shameful; such conduct as is not to be excused.

10. FLORENDA V. TOBIAS, Complainant, v JUDGE MANUEL Q. LIMSIACO, JR., Presiding Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Valladolid-San EnriquePulupandan, Negros Occidental, Respondent. ( A.M. No. MTJ-09-1734 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-1933-MTJ] January 19, 2011) Facts: On June 6, 2007, complainant alleged that respondent Judge offers package deals for cases filed in the court where he presides. For the sum of P30,000.00, respondent would provide the lawyer, prepare the necessary pleadings, and ensure a favorable decision in the ejectment case. Fegidero allegedly required them to pay the initial amount of P10,000.00 and the remaining balance would be paid in the course of the proceedings. In his Comment, respondent denounced the allegation that he offers package deals to prospective litigants as malicious, baseless and a lie. He denied that he demanded from complainant and alleged that he does not know complainant and she is a total stranger to him. On February 20, 2008, the Court issued a Resolution, which noted the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on the complaint against respondent. Due to the conflicting allegations of the parties, the OCA opined that a formal investigation was necessary to afford the parties opportunity to substantiate their respective claims. On May 20, 2008, the parties were summoned for a formal investigation before Investigating Judge Frances V. Guanzon. Issue: Whether or not, the respondent Judge violated the New Code of Judicial Conduct. Held: Respondent Judge Manuel Q. Limsiaco, Jr., is found GUILTY of gross misconduct for which he is FINED in the amount of Twenty-five Thousand Pesos (P25,000.00). The Office of the Court Administrator is DIRECTED to deduct the fine of P25,000.00 from the retirement benefits due to Judge Limsiaco, Jr.

The Court agrees with the findings of Investigating Judge Guanzon that complainant failed to prove by substantial evidence her allegation that respondent offers package deals to prospective litigants in his court. However, the aforementioned acts of respondent constitute gross misconduct. Misconduct means a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, willful in character, improper or wrong behavior. Gross has been defined as out of all measure, beyond allowance; flagrant; shameful; such conduct as is not to be excused. Respondents act 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 and impartiality of his court, considering that the said motion was filed in his own sala and was acted upon by him.

11. ROSARIO CASTILLO and SONIA VILLASANTA, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE JUDGE CELESTINO JUAN, respondent. G.R. Nos. L-39516-17 January 28, 1975 Facts: In this certiorari proceedings, petitioners, two young maidens who are the offended parties in two rape cases, assail the actuation of respondent Judge and seek his disqualification on the ground of bias and prejudice. Briefly, on two separate occasions on August 15 and 27, 1974, in the secrecy of his chambers he informed petitioners of the weakness of their cases, the likelihood of a verdict of acquittal in favor of the accused, and impressed upon them that it would be to their advantage to settle, as the most he could do on their behalf was to have such accused indemnify them. This move, according to him, would assure their being spared from the embarrassment occasioned by suits of this character, clearly prejudicial to their future. Issue: Whether or not the Petitioners are entitled to the remedy sought and Respondent Judge must be disqualified from further hearing the cases. Held: This Court grants the petitions for certiorari, and respondent Judge is ordered to desist from further conducting the trial of the two prosecutions for rape. In every litigation, perhaps much more so in criminal cases, the manner and attitude of a trial judge are crucial to everyone concerned, the offended party, no less than the accused. It is not for him to indulge or even to give the appearance of catering to the at times human failing of yielding to first impressions. He is to refrain from reaching hasty conclusions or prejudging

matters. It would be deplorable if he lays himself open to the suspicion of reacting to feelings rather than to facts, of being imprisoned in the net of his own sympathies and predilections. What is equally important is that he should avoid any conduct that casts doubt on his impartially. What has been said is not merely a matter of judicial ethics. A judge, according to Justice Castro, the ponente, should strive to be at all times "wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independent. Elementary due process requires a hearing before an impartial and disinterested tribunal. A judge has both the duty of rendering a just decision and the duty of doing it in a manner completely free from suspicion as to its fairness and as to his integrity." This is not to discount in its entirety the submission of respondent Judge, who argued on his own behalf, that his final decision would be dependent on the evidence that could be presented by petitioners. What cannot be denied, however, is that after such conferences, they could no longer be expected to have faith in his impartiality.

12. CONSTANTE PIMENTEL, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE JUDGE ANGELINO C. SALANGA, respondent. (G.R. No. L-27934/September 18, 1967) Facts: Petitioner is counsel of record in cases pending before respondent judge, viz: (1) Civil Case 21-C, entitled "Pablo Festejo et al., petitioners, vs. Marciano Cabildo et al., respondents," a special civil action for mandamus to compel payment of salaries of elective and appointive municipal officials; (2) Criminal Case 4898 and C-5, entitled "People of the Philippines, plaintiff, vs. Constante Anies, accused," for frustrated murder; (3) Criminal Case C-93, entitled "People of the Philippines, plaintiff, vs. Romeo Pimentel, accused," for frustrated homicide; (4) Election Case 2470, entitled "Avelino Balbin, protestant, vs. Clemente Abaya, protestee," an election protest involving the office of mayor of Candon, Ilocos Sur; Petitioner's misgivings stem from the fact that he is complainant in an administrative case he himself lodged in this Court on May 12, 1967, against respondent judge upon averments of "serious misconduct, inefficiency in office, partiality, ignorance of the law and incompetence."1 Petitioner seeks in the complaint therein to have respondent judge immediately suspended;

On July 31, 1967, petitioner moved in the court below to have respondent judge disqualify himself from sitting in Civil Case 21-C, Criminal Cases 4898 and C-5, and Election Case 2470 aforesaid. On August 1, 1967, respondent judge rejected the foregoing motion. A move to reconsider the foregoing resolution failed of its purpose. Civil Case 21-C was rescheduled for hearing from August 10 and 11, 1967 to August 22 and 23, 1967. Hence, the present petition. Issue: Whether or not the judge disqualified from acting in litigations in which counsel of record for one of the parties is his adversary in an administrative case said counsel lodged against him? Held: The petition herein for certiorari and prohibition is denied, respondent judge is not legally under obligation to disqualify himself Section 1, Rule 137, Rules of Court, which reads in full: Sec. 1. Disqualification of judges. No judge or judicial officer 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 consaguinity or affinity, or to counsel within the fourth degree, computed according to the rules of the civil law, or in which be 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. A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion, disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons other than those mentioned above.