LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES A. Lawyers 1.

Disbarment of lawyer for grossly immoral conduct Ui v. Atty. Boni a!io A.C. No. ""#$. %&'y () 2000. """ SCRA "* PONENTE: De Leon FACTS: A complaint for disbarment was filed against Bonifacio on t e gro!nd of immoralit" for a#ing illicit relations wit a married man w ic res!lted in t e birt of two c ildren$ %er defense: S e married complainant&s !sband wit o!t 'nowledge( in good fait ( of is tr!e marriage stat!s) t at s e parted wa"s !pon 'nowledge of s!c fact$ S e is also c arged for disrespect toward t e *BP for willf!ll" attac ing to er Answer a falsified cop" of t e marriage certificate$ %ELD + ile a law"er ma" be disbarred for ,grossl" immoral cond!ct(, t ere is no fi-ed standard for s!c cond!ct$ Alt o!g circ!mstances e-isted w ic s o!ld a#e ir'ed Bonifacio&s s!spicion( er act cannot be considered immoral$ *mmoralit" connotes cond!ct t at s ows indifference to moral norms of societ"$ .oreo#er( ,a member of t e bar m!st so be a#e imself as to a#oid scandali/ing t e p!blic b" creating t e belief t at e is flo!ting t ose moral standards$, Bonifacio&s act of immediatel" distancing erself from complainant&s !sband !pon 'nowledge of is tr!e ci#il stat!s a#oids t e alleged moral indifference00t at s e ad no intention of flo!ting t e law and t e ig standards of t e legal profession$ T e complaint is dismissed b!t s e is reprimanded for attac ing to er Answer a falsified cop" of er marriage certificate$ 1. al!ractice

Daroy v. A+e!ia A.C. No. "0,-) O!t. 2-) #$$(. 2$( SCRA 2"$ PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: Case of malpractice$ Abecia was co!nsel of Daro" in a case for forcible entr"$ 2!dgment was for Daro"$ To satisf" t e 3!dgment( t e s eriff sold at p!blic a!ction a parcel of land belonging to one of t e defendants to complainant Daro" as ig est bidder$ Daro" alleged t at e entr!sted t e title to t e land 4TCT No$ T05678 to Abecia as is co!nsel and allowed im to ta'e possession of t e land !pon t e latter&s re9!est$ Daro"( t en( acc!sed Abecia of a#ing( forged is signat!re in a deed of absol!te sale b" means of w ic t e latter was able to transfer a parcel of land first to 2ose :anga" and e#ent!all" to is wife Nena Abecia$ Abecia claimed t at t e land was con#e"ed to im as pa"ment of is legal ser#ices to Daro"$ %ELD: Abecia is not g!ilt"$ T e parties were mista'en in t in'ing t at Abecia co!ld not #alidl" ac9!ire t e land$ *n "ue#ara #. Calalang( on facts similar to t ose in t is case( t e SC eld t at t e pro ibition in Art$ 6;<6 does not appl" to t e sale of a parcel of land( ac9!ired b" a client to satisf" a 3!dgment in is fa#or( to is attorne" as long as t e propert" was not t e s!b3ect of t e litigation$ %owe#er( t e parties t o!g t t at t e transfer of t e land to Abecia was pro ibited and so t e" contri#ed a wa" w ereb" t e land wo!ld be sold to 2ose :anga"( w ose wife Anita is t e sister of .rs$ Nena Abecia( and t en :anga" wo!ld sell t e land to .rs$ Abecia$ T e sale of t e land to :anga" ma" be fictitio!s and( t erefore( #oid( b!t it is e#ident t at Daro" intended to con#e" t e land !ltimatel" to Abecia$ $. %es &udicata Reyna'.o Ha'i/ao vs. Danie' 0i''an&eva et. a' A.C. No. "(2*. 1e+. #) #$$-. 2*" SCRA #

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: T is is a complaint for disbarment against Attorne"s =illan!e#a and Ferrer( 2r$( for serio!s miscond!ct$ %alimao alleged t at respondents( wit o!t lawf!l a!t orit" and armed wit armalites and andg!ns( forcibl" entered t e Oo >ian Tio' Compo!nd of w ic complainant was careta'er( on April ;( 6<<1 at 66:?? A$$.$ On A!g!st 6;( 6<<1( respondents filed a comment in w ic t e" claimed t at t e complaint is a mere d!plication of t e complaint filed b" Danilo %ernande/ in Administrati#e Case No$ 5@57( w ic t is Co!rt ad alread" dismissed on A!g!st 7( 6<<1 for lac' of merit t !s amo!nting to res 3!dicata$ %ELD: T e *n#estigating Commissioner properl" dismissed t e complaint in t is case on t e gro!nd of res 3!dicata( it appearing t at it in#ol#es t e same incident and t e same ca!se of action as t at Administrati#e Case No$ 5@17$ T e resol!tion of t is Co!rt in Administrati#e Case No$ 5@57 is concl!si#e( it appearing t at t e complaint in t is case is not ing b!t a d!plication of t e complaint of Danilo %ernande/ in t e prior case$ *n dismissing t e complaint bro!g t b" Danilo %ernande/ in t e prior case( t is Co!rt categoricall" fo!nd ,want of a prima facie s owing of professional miscond!ct on t e part of t e respondents AAttorne"s Daniel =illan!e#a and *nocencio Ferrer( 2r$B, ;. isre!resentation and 'on(!ayment of bar members)i! dues

So'i/an 2. Santos) %r. v. Atty. 1ran!is!o R. L'a/as A.C. No. ,3,$. %an. 20) 2000. "22 SCRA *2$ PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: Complaint for misrepresentation and non0pa"ment of bar members ip d!es$ *t appears t at Att"$ Llamas( w o for a n!mber of "ears now( as not indicated t e proper PTC and *BP OC Nos$ and data in is pleadings$ *f at all( e onl" indicated D*BP Ci/al 17<?E?F b!t e as been !sing t is for at least 5 "ears alread"$ On t e ot er and( respondent( w o is now of age( a#erred t at e is onl" engaged in a DlimitedF practice of law and !nder CA G;51( as a senior citi/en( e is e-empted from pa"ment of income ta-es and incl!ded in t is e-emption is t e pa"ment of members ip d!es$ %ELD: :H*LTI$ C!le 65<0A re9!ires t at e#er" member of t e *ntegrated Bar s all pa" ann!al d!es and defa!lt t ereof for si- mont s s all warrant s!spension of members ip and if nonpa"ment co#ers a period of 60"ear( defa!lt s all be a gro!nd for remo#al of t e delin9!entJs name from t e Coll of Attorne"s$ *t does not matter w et er or not respondent is onl" engaged in DlimitedF practice of law$ .oreo#er( t e e-emption in#o'ed b" respondent does not incl!de e-emption from pa"ment of members ip or association d!es$ *n addition( b" indicating D*BP Ci/al 17<?E?F in is pleadings and t ereb" misprepresenting to t e p!blic and t e co!rts t at e ad paid is *BP d!es to t e Ci/al C apter( respondent is g!ilt" of #iolating t e Code of Professional Cesponsibilit" t at pro#ides: C!le 6$?6 K A law"er s all not engage in !nlawf!l( dis onest( immoral or deceitf!l cond!ct$ %is act is also a #iolation of C!le 6?$?6 w ic pro#ides t at: A law"er s all not do an" false ood( nor consent to t e doing of an" in co!rt) nor mislead or allow t e co!rt to be misled b" an" artifice$ 7. Diligence E'sie Aro/in vs. 0a'entin Bon!avi' A. C. No. *#"*. Se4t. 22) #$$$. "#* SCRA # PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: Ballesteros engaged ser#ices of respondent Att"$ Bonca#il in two cadastral cases$ Hpon receipt of t e ad#erse decision in t e 1 cases( Bonca#il did not inform t e claimants of t e decision( did not file a

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES motion for reconsideration or a notice of appeal( did not file a written offer of e#idence despite t e directi#e of t e trial co!rt and onl" filed a motion to s!bstit!te ; "ears after t e complainantJs fat er died$ %ELD: Att"$ Bonca#il was s!spended for E mont s from notice wit a warning t at repetition of a similar offense will be dealt wit more se#erel"$ Bonca#il #iolated Canon 6@ of t e Code of Professional Cesponsibilit" pro#iding t at Da law"er s o!ld ser#e is client wit competence and diligenceF and C!le 6@$?5 of t e Code of Professional Cesponsibilit" w ic states t at Da law"er m!st not neglect a legal matter entr!sted to im( and is negligence in connection t erewit s all render im liable$F *. Conflicting Interests ( +ull Disclosure He!tor Teo.isio vs. 2er!e.es Nava A. C. No. ,-3". A4r. 23) 200#. PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: Cespondent .ercedes Na#a alleged t at petitioner acted as co!nsel for .elanie Batislaong in se#eral cases as co!nsel for Espinosa and Palma in cases 1 filed b" t em against Batislaong and Na#a$ Cespondent e-plained t at Na#a was t e former manager of Batislaong w o was fired beca!se of mismanagement$ T ereafter( Na#a s!ed Batislaong( Palma and Espinosa for estafa$ Beca!se of alleged false receipts iss!ed b" Na#a( Palma and Espinosa ired petitioner Teodisio in a ci#il case beca!se t e" wanted to settle t eir debts to Batislaong t ro!g Na#a and were !ns!re ow to go abo!t it$ %ence( petitioner impleaded bot Batislaong and Na#a so t ere co!ld be interpleader between t e two$ T is was done wit f!ll disclos!re to all parties concerned$ %ELD: 0 A law"er s all not represent conflicting interests e-cept b" written consent of all concerned gi#en after a f!ll disclos!re of t e facts$ Hnder Canon E of t e pre#io!s Canons of Professional Et ics( a law"er is deemed to represent conflicting interests w en( in be alf of one client( it is is d!t" to contend for t at w ic d!t" to anot er client re9!ires im to oppose$ T e r!le is designed to remo#e from attorne"s t e opport!nit" to ta'e ad#antage of t e secrets of clients obtained d!ring t e e-istence of t e client0attorne" relation$ E#en granting t at t e interests of Espinosa( Palma( and Batislaong are conflicting( petitioner cannot be eld liable for acting as t eir common co!nsel in #iew of t e fact t at( as stated in t eir affida#its( petitioner e-plained to t em t e conse9!ences of is representation and t at t e" ga#e t eir consent to t e same$ ,. Disbarment of lawyer re-uires clear and !re!onderant e#idence Dani'o Con!e4tion vs. Danie' 1an.ino A. C. No. %&ne 2#) 2000. "", SCAR #"PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: A complaint for disbarment was filed against Att"$ FandiLo for gross miscond!ct( deceit and malpractice for a#ing notari/ed se#eral doc!ments wit o!t a#ing been appointed or commissioned as a notar" p!blic$ T e complaint was dismissed b" t e *BP beca!se t e doc!ments s!bmitted b" complainant were mere p otocopies$ %ELD Alt o!g disciplinar" proceedings against law"ers are not ci#il or criminal nat!re( b!t rat er in#estigations b" t e Co!rt into t e cond!ct of its officers( t e r!les on e#idence cannot be disregarded considering t at t e e-ercise of oneJs profession is at sta'e$ Hnder t e Best E#idence C!le( mere p otocopies of t e alleged notari/ed doc!ments is inadmissible in e#idence( in t e absence of e#idence to pro#e t at t e original copies of t e same were lost or destro"ed or cannot be ot erwise prod!ced$ Considering t e serio!s conse9!ence of t e disbarment or s!spension of a member of t e Bar( clear and

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES preponderant e#idence is necessar" to 3!stif" t e imposition of t e administrati#e penalt"( wit t e b!rden of proof resting !pon t e complainant$ .. /it)drawal of Ser#ices wit)out 0ust cause 1e'i!isi/o 2ontano vs. IBP A.C. No. ,2#*. 2ay 2#) 200#. PONENTE: Map!nan FACTS: Att"$ Dealca( co!nsel for Felicisimo .ontano wit drew is ser#ices for is client !pon t e latter&s fail!re to compl" wit t eir retainer agreement$ %ELD: +e find Att" DealcaJs cond!ct !nbecoming of a member of t e legal profession$ Hnder Canon 11 of t e Code of Professional Cesponsibilit"( a law"er s all wit draw is ser#ices onl" for good ca!se and !pon notice appropriate in t e circ!mstances$ Alt o!g e ma" wit draw is ser#ices w en client deliberatel" fails to pa" t e fees for t e ser#ices( !nder t e circ!mstances of t e present case( Att"$ DealcaJs wit drawal was !n3!stified as complainant did not deliberatel" fail to pa" im t e att"Js fees$ C!le 1?$; of Canon 1<?( mandates t at a law"er s all a#oid contro#ersies wit clients concerning is compensation and s all resort to 3!dicial action onl" to pre#ent imposition( in3!stice or fra!d$ Sadl"( for not so large a s!m owed to im b" complainant 4 P 5(7??$??8( respondent law"er failed to act in accordance wit t e demands of t e Code$ B!t( onl" in a clear case of miscond!ct t at serio!sl" affects t e standing and c aracter of t e law"er as an officer of t e co!rt and member of t e bar will mdisbarment be imposed a s penalt"$ 1. Immorality Paras vs. Paras A.C. No. *""". O!t. #() 200#. "," SCRA ,#, PONENTE: .elo FACTS: Cosa Paras cond!cted a case for disbarment against er !sband 2!sto Paras for gross immoral cond!ct and conc!binage$ T e criminal case for conc!binage was dismissed$ %ELD: :ood moral c aracter is not onl" a condition precedent to admission to t e practice of law b!t also its contin!ed possession is also essential for remaining in t e practice of law$ Cespondent as fallen below t e moral bar w en e forged is wifeJs signat!re in t e ban' loan doc!ments( and sired a da!g ter wit a woman ot er t an is wife$ T e dismissal of t e criminal cases does not bar t e filing of t e administrati#e case$ Paras was not disbarred$ Disbarment s o!ld ne#er be decreed w ere an" lesser penalt"( s!c as temporar" s!spension( co!ld accomplis t e desired end$ S!spended for E mont s$ Ansa vs. 2&sa A.2. No. SCC5005*. Nov. 2$) 2000. ",- SCRA 2,0 Per C!riam FACTS: Ansa was a co!rt stenograp er assigned to respondentJs 4S aria8 co!rt$ T e latter made se#eral amoro!s ad#ances towards er$ T en t at fait f!l da" came and t e poor stenograp er finall" reali/ed t at s e wo!ld ne#er be an"t ing more t an t e Dot er womanF$ Ansa c arged er e-0lo#er wit :ross *mmoralit"( t e latter resorted to t e onorable wa" o!t( strongl" and #e ementl" den"ing t e w ole t ing$ %ELD: .!sa #iolated t e Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct$ Not onl" did e transgress t e norms of decenc"

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES e-pected of e#er" person b!t e failed to li#e !p to t e ig moral standard e-pected of a member of t e 2!diciar"$ 12. Intem!erate S!eec) Unite. B1 Ho/eowners vs. San.ova'5G&tierre6 A.2. No. CA5$$5"0. O!t. #-) 2000. "," SCRA #-2 PONENTE: Map!nan FACTS: *n t e SC resol!tion dated Sept$1<( 6<<<( t e" dismissed t e administrati#e complaint filed against 2!stice Sando#al0:!tierre/ of t e CA and Co!rt Administrator Alfredo Benipa"o and directed t e complainants to s ow ca!se w " t e" s o!ld not be p!nis ed for contempt for( among ot ers( !sing intemperate( offensi#e and libelo!s lang!age against 2!stice :!tierre/ and t e ot er members of t e 65 t Di#ision of t e CA$ +it o!t a!t ori/ation from HBF%A*( Bago la!nc ed a signat!re campaign and filed wit t e Office of t e Co!rt Administrator t e administrati#e complaint against 2!stice :!tierre/$ %e !sed t e name of t e HBF%A* to la!nc is complaint$ T e Board s!bse9!entl" as'ed Bago to resign$ *t wo!ld appear t at t e a!t or of t e administrati#e complaint was a certain Bago( a member of t e 6<<< HBF%A* Board and its d!l" elected Secretar"$ +it o!t a!t ori/ation from HBF%A*( Bago la!nc ed a signat!re campaign and filed wit t e Office of t e Co!rt Administrator t e administrati#e complaint against 2!stice :!tierre/$ %e !sed t e name of t e HBF%A* to la!nc is complaint$ T e Board s!bse9!entl" as'ed Bago to resign$ HELD7 *n t e SC resol!tion of ; Sept$ 6<<<( t e" fo!nd totall" bereft of fact!al basis BagoJs acc!sations and inn!endos against 2!stice :!tierre/$ T e c arge of foot0dragging against t is Co!rt is not onl" malicio!s b!t also false beca!se t e Co!rt ad alread" acted on t eir complaint against 2!stices :!tierre/ and Benipa"o and dismissed t e same in its Cesol!tion$ T e Co!rt finds Bago g!ilt" of indirect contempt$ + ile t e Co!rt recogni/es a litigantJs rig t to critici/e 3!dges and 3!stices in t e performance of t eir f!nctions( Dit is t e cardinal condition of all s!c criticism t at it s all be bona fide and s all not spill o#er t e walls of decenc" and propriet"$ *ntemperate and !nfair criticism is a gross #iolation of t e d!t" of respect to co!rts$ Bani8&e. vs. Ro9as A.2. No. OCA50050". O!t. ,) 2000. ",2 SCRA #. PONENTE: P!risima FACTS: Complainant 4O*C of t e OCAJs Statistical Ceports Di#ision8 c arged respondent 4a Statistician8 wit :ra#e .iscond!ct and Slander$ Basicall"( d!ring office o!rs( t e latter called t e former !seless( biased and an idiot in front of e#er"bod"$ %ELD: SC fined Co3as$ DT is Co!rt condemns and wo!ld ne#er co!ntenance an" cond!ct( act or omission on t e part of all t ose in#ol#ed in t e administration of 3!stice w ic wo!ld #iolate t e norm of p!blic acco!ntabilit" and wo!ld diminis or e#en 3!st tend to diminis t e fait of t e people in t e 2!diciar"$ %is cond!ct( at all times( m!st not onl" be c aracteri/ed b" propriet" and decor!m b!t abo#e all else m!st be abo#e s!spicion$F 11. +ormal In#estigaton andatory in an Admin. Case

Ba'.o/ar vs. Paras A.C. No. ,$(0. De!. #*) 2000. ",( SCRA 2#2

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES PONENTE: =it!g FACTS: Cespondent allegedl" ga#e Baldomar legal ad#ice and t en( became t e co!nsel for .aana" w o was t e opposing part"$ Baldomar alleged t at Paras breac ed t eir law"er0client relations ip$ Paras( owe#er( later wit drew is appearance on t e gro!nd t at t e presiding 3!dge was is former law partner$ %ELD: *t appears t at t ere was no formal in#estigation cond!cted b" t e *BP pertaining to t e allegations made$ A formal in#estigation is a mandator" re9!irement w ic ma" not be done awa" wit e-cept for #alid and cogent reasons$ T ese reasons do not appear ere to be present$ T e administrati#e case is remanded to *BP for f!rt er proceedings$ 13. isconduct

A8&i'ino :. Pi/ente') %r. vs. Attys. Antonio 2. L'orente an. Li;aya P. Sa'ayon A.C. No. ,-$0. A&;&st 2$) 2000. ""$ SCRA #*, PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: T en Senatorial candidate A9!ilino Pimentel( 2r$ alleged t at t e respondents tampered wit t e #otes recei#ed b" t em b" eit er adding more #otes for partic!lar candidates in t eir Statement of =otes 4So=8 or red!cing t e n!mber of #otes of partic!lar candidates in t eir So=$ Pimentel filed an administrati#e complaint for t eir disbarment$ Cespondents arg!ed t at t e discrepancies were d!e to onest mista'e( o#ersig t and fatig!e$ %ELD: :H*LTI$ A law"er w o olds a go#ernment position ma" not be disciplined as a member of t e bar for miscond!ct in t e disc arge of is d!ties as a go#ernment official$ %owe#er( if t e miscond!ct also constit!tes a #iolation of t e Code of Professional Cesponsibilit" or t e law"erJs oat or is of s!c c aracter as to affect is 9!alification as a law"er or s ows moral delin9!enc" on is part( s!c indi#id!al ma" be disciplined as a member of t e bar for s!c miscond!ct$ %ere( b" certif"ing as tr!e and correct t e So=s in 9!estion( respondents committed a breac of C!le 6$?6 of t e Code w ic stip!lates t at a law"er s all not engage in D!nlawf!l( dis onest( immoral or deceitf!l cond!ct$F B" e-press pro#ision of Canon E( t is is made applicable to law"ers in t e go#ernment ser#ice$ *n addition( t e" li'ewise #iolated t eir oat of office as law"ers to Ddo no false ood$F T e Co!rt fo!nd t e respondents g!ilt" of miscond!ct and fined t em P P 6?(??? eac and iss!ed a stern warning t at similar cond!ct in t e f!t!re will be se#erel" p!nis ed$ B. %&.;es 1. "ross Ignorance of t)e Law a. In general S4s. 1ort&na vs. %&.;e Pina!o5Sita!a A.2. No. RT% 0#5#-"". %&ne #$) 200# PONENTE: Inares0Santiago FACTS: Cespondent 2!dge was c arged wit gra#e miscond!ct for granting bail to t e acc!sed in a criminal complaint filed b" complainant Sps$ Fort!na$ T e respondent granted bail based on affida#its and not on an" ot er personal findings andNor e-amination$ %ELD:*t as been eld t at it is patent error for a 3!dge to base is order of granting bail merel" on s!pporting affida#its attac ed to t e information since t ose are merel" intended to establis probable

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES ca!se as basis for t e iss!ance of an arrest warrant and not to control is discretion to den" or grant bail in all sit!ations$ :enerall" t e acts of a 3!dge in an official capacit"( in t e absence of fra!d( dis onest" or corr!ption( are not s!b3ect to disciplinar" action e#en t o!g s!c act ma" be erroneo!s$ B!t it is ig l" imperati#e t at 3!dges s o!ld be con#ersant wit basic legal principles and be aware of well0settled a!t oritati#e doctrines0s!c as in t e proced!res for granting bail$ Car'ito A;&i'ar vs. 0i!tor Da'anao A.2. No. 2T%5005#23*. %&ne () 2000. """ SCAR -2 PONENTE7 2en.o6a FACTS: 2!dge Dalanao re#i#ed a forcible entr" case w ic was alread" dismissed b" is predecessor( claiming t at t e decision was not final since a motion for reconsideration was filed$ *n anot er case for malicio!s misc ief( Dalanao immediatel" iss!ed a warrant of arrest wit o!t first re9!iring t e acc!sed to appear$ *n bot cases( Dalanao disregarded t e application of t e C!les on S!mmar" Proced!re$ Hnder t e s!mmar" r!les( no motion for reconsideration is allowed in cases co#ered b" it) and no order of arrest against can iss!e !nless t e acc!sed is first re9!ired to appear b!t fails to do so$ %ELD *n failing to determine w et er t e cases are go#erned b" t e s!mmar" r!les( Dalanao s owed gross ignorance( albeit wit o!t an" malice or corr!pt moti#e$ Hnder t e s!mmar" r!les( Da patentl" erroneo!s determination to a#oid t e application of t e C!le of S!mmar" Proced!re is a gro!nd for disciplinar" action$F T e Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct en3oins 3!dges to be fait f!l to t e law and maintain professional competence$ T is Co!rt as impressed on 3!dges t e need to be diligent in 'eeping abreast wit de#elopments in law and 3!rispr!dence) fined an e9!i#alent to one0 alf of is salar" for one mont $ 0e'ai.es 0er!i.e vs. Pris!i''a Hernan.e6 A.2. No. 2T%5005#2-*. A4r. -) 2000$ ""0 SCRA ,$ PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: 2!dge %ernande/ dismissed a case for reco#er" of possession of land on t e gro!nd t at it was filed wit o!t prior referral to t e L!pong Tagapama"apa$ Complainants allege t at respondent 3!dge committed 4a8 :ra#e ab!se of a!t orit" b" 'nowingl" rendering an !n3!st and !nlawf!l order) 4b8 *gnorance of t e law in its ig est order( s e being a 3!dge) 4c8 :ra#e disobedience to t e 3!rispr!dence laid down b" t e S!preme Co!rt$ 2!dge claims s e merel" followed t e law in dismissing t e case$ %ELD: *n Ta#ora #s. 4eloso it was alread" r!led t at w ere parties do not reside in t e same cit" or m!nicipalit" or in ad3oining baranga"s( t ere is no re9!irement for t em to s!bmit t eir disp!te in#ol#ing real propert" to t e L!pong Tagapama"apa$ S!c r!ling s o!ld be familiar to t e benc and t e bar$ T at Dignorance of t e law e-c!ses no oneF as special application to 3!dges( w o !nder t e in3!nction of Canon 6$?6 of t e Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct( Ds o!ld be t e embodiment of competence( integrit"( and independence$F Cespondent( in c oosing to 3!stif" instead of correcting er error of 9!oting o!t of conte-t t e Matar!ngang Pambaranga" C!les also #iolated Canon 5 of t e Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct( w ic pro#ides t at Din e#er" case a 3!dge s all endea#or diligentl" to ascertain t e facts and t e applicable law !nswa"ed b" partisan interest( p!blic opinion or fear of criticism$F Danie' < S&4re/a D&/o v. %&.;e Ro/eo 0. Pere6 A.2. No. 2T%5005#2,2 %an. 20) 2000. FACTS: Cespondent 2!dge iss!ed an order stating t at complainants s all not be affected b" a writ of e-ec!tion beca!se t e" were not made parties to t e case$ Despite s!c order( e mo#ed on to iss!e a +rit of Possession in fa#or of t e original plaintiff 4Espinas8$ As a conse9!ence( Espinas !sed s!c +rit of Possession against t e erein complainants in order to e3ect t em from t eir propert" and depri#ed t em from t e en3o"ment of t e same$

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES %ELD: First of all( respondent 2!dge is g!ilt" of ignorance of t e law$ As an .TC 3!dge( e ob#io!sl" ad no 3!risdiction o#er t e action for 9!ieting of title and reco#er" of owners ip filed b" Espinas against t e original defendants$ *t m!st be stressed t at t e case was NOT for e3ectment b!t for 9!ieting of title andNor owners ip falling wit in t e e-cl!si#e 3!risdiction of CTC$ Secondl"( t e 3!dgeJs act of iss!ing conflicting orders is li'ewise ine-c!sable$ After declaring t at t e +rit of E-ec!tion cannot be made enforceable against erein complainants as t e" were not made parties to t e case( e re#ersed imself ne#ert eless b" iss!ing t e +rit of Possession$ Canon 1 of t e Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct pro#ides t at: Da 3!dge s o!ld also a#oid impropriet" and t e appearance of impropriet" in all acti#ities$F A 3!dge s o!ld so be a#e at all times as to promote p!blic confidence in t e integrit" and impartialit" of t e 3!diciar"$ 4C!le 1$?6( Canon 18$ Ro/&'o To'entino v. %&.;e Po'i!ar4io S. Ca/ano) %r. A.2. RT%5005#*22. %an. 20) 2000. "22 SCRA **$ PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: T e complaint alleges t at respondent 2!dge granted bail w ile pending t e olding of a preliminar" in#estigation$ T e defense mo#ed to 9!as t e information against t e acc!sed on t e alleged absence of a preliminar" in#estigation$ Conse9!entl"( respondent 2!dge ordered t at a preliminar" in#estigation be ad b" t e state prosec!tor$ D!ring t e pendenc" of t is( e granted bail in fa#or of t e defendant after se#eral notices of earing to t e state prosec!tor to w ic t e latter failed to appear$ After s!c grant( complainant erein now acc!ses respondent of den"ing t e prosec!tion t e c ance to add!ce e#idence to s ow t at t e g!ilt of t e acc!sed was strong and t at bail s o!ld not a#e been granted in is fa#or$ %ELD: NOT :H*LTI$ T ere was no denial of d!e process$ *t was not necessar" to old earing so t at t e prosec!tion co!ld s ow t at e#idence of g!ilt of t e acc!sed was strong since a preliminar" in#estigation ad been ordered b" t e co!rt$ At t at point( bail was still a matter of rig t$ Cespondent 3!dge( 'nowing t at bail was indeed a matter of rig t at t at stage( ne#ert eless set t e earing for t e petition for bail fo!r times$ %owe#er( complainant failed to appear and present e#idence to s ow t at t e g!ilt of t e acc!sed was strong$ *t t !s appears t at complainant is act!all" t e one w o was remiss in t e performance of is d!ties$ Re7 Ho'. De4art&re Or.er Date. A4ri' #") #$$( Iss&e. By %&.;e %&an C. Nartate6 A. 2. No. $(5#05#,#52TCC Nov. #,) #$$(. 2$( SCRA 3#0 PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: %old depart!re order was iss!ed b" 2!dge Nartate/ for #iolations of B$P$ 11( to pre#ent t e depart!re of t e acc!sed from t e P ilippines$ T e Sec of 2!stice claims t at calls t e order is contrar" to Circ!lar No$ 5<0<G of t is Co!rt( w ic limits t e a!t orit" to iss!e old depart!re orders to t e Cegional Trial Co!rts in criminal cases wit in t eir e-cl!si#e 3!risdiction$ %ELD: T e Co!rt reprimanded 2!dge Nartate/ and reminded im t at e s o!ld 'eep imself abreast of S!preme Co!rt iss!ances so as not to commit t e same mista'e in t e f!t!re$ T e Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct en3oins 3!dges to be fait f!l to t e law and maintain professional competence$ T e" can li#e !p to t is e-pectation onl" b" diligent effort to 'eep t emsel#es abreast of t e legal and 3!rispr!dential de#elopments$ T e learning process in law is a ne#er ending and ceaseless process$ Ra/on T. Ar.osa v. Lo'ita O. Ga'5'an;) et a'. A. 2. No. RT%5$35#"(*. %an. () #$$(. 2(, SCRA *( PONENTE: .endo/a

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES FACTS: *n a Criminal Case before 2!dge :al0Lang( t e acc!sed filed a motion for rein#estigation and pra"ed t at iss!ance of t e warrant of arrest be eld in abe"ance$ Hpon learning t at t e warrant ad alread" been iss!ed on t at da"( t e acc!sed filed a .otion to Cecall t e +arrant of Arrest$ Since t e prosec!tor and complainant were present and ad been f!rnis ed a cop" of t e motion( t e 3!dge decided to ear t e motion on t e same da" it was filed$ %ELD: Cespondent 3!dge committed an ab!se of discretion in earing t e motion of t e acc!sed on t e same da" t e motion was filed$ C!les 67( O; of t e former C!les of Co!rt pro#ides t at notice of a motion s all be ser#ed b" t e applicant to all parties concerned at least t ree 458 da"s before t e earing$ T e co!rt( owe#er( for good ca!se ma" ear a motion on s orter notice$ *n t is case( respondent 3!dge defends er decision to ear t e motion of t e acc!sed for t e recall of t e warrant of arrest on t e same da" it was filed on t e gro!nd t at an"wa" t e p!blic prosec!tor was present$ T e onl" e-c!se for dispensing wit it is if t e matter to be eard is !rgent$ Dr. L&is C. Ben;6on vs. %&.;e L&isito A.aoa; A. 2. No. 2T%5$*5#0,*. Nov. 2() #$$*. 2*0 SCRA ",, PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: 2!dge Adaoag of .TC is c arged wit ignorance of law( incompetence( bias( ostilit"( persec!tion( arassment( obstr!ction of 3!stice and ab!se of a!t orit" for olding in abe"ance t e resol!tion of complainant&s motion for demolition in an e3ectment case$ T e defendants mo#ed to dismiss t e complaint alleging t at t e case was a tenanc" case o#er w ic t e .TC ad no 3!risdiction$ %e eld in abe"ance t e resol!tion of complainant&s motion for demolition !ntil t e decision in t e tenanc" case$ 2!dge Adaoag too' notice of t e claim of Comeo Fernande/ t at e was not a part" in t e e3ectment case and t at e owned t e lot b" #irt!e of a Certificate of Land Transfer$ Complainant mo#ed for a reconsideration of t e resol!tion$ As 2!dge Adaoag denied t e motion( t is complaint was filed against im$ %ELD: Case dismissed$ For alt o!g respondent 3!dge&s resol!tion s!spending 3!dgment on t e motion for demolition ma" be erroneo!s( t e error can at most amo!nt onl" to an error of 3!risdiction P w at in C!le E7( 6 of t e C!les of Co!rt is termed ,gra#e ab!se of discretion$, To warrant a finding of ignorance of t e law and ab!se of a!t orit"( t e error m!st be ,so gross and patent as to prod!ce an inference of ignorance or bad fait or t at t e 3!dge 'nowingl" rendered an !n3!st decision$, Ot erwise( to old a 3!dge administrati#el" acco!ntable for e#er" erroneo!s r!ling or decision e renders( ass!ming t at t e 3!dge erred( wo!ld be not ing s ort of arassment and t at wo!ld be intolerable$ Antonio P. C=in v. Tito G. G&sti'o) et a'. A. 2. No. RT%5$,5#2,". A&;. ##) #$$*. 2,3 SCRA #3* PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: 2o n :irao( a sec!rit" g!ard at t e *loilo Central Commercial %ig Sc ool( tr"ing to pre#ent Antonio C in from entering t e sc ool( accidentall" s ot C in$ %e s!rrendered to t e police and was bro!g t to t e sala of respondent 2!dge Tito :$ :!stilo$ Hpon :irao&s motion( respondent 3!dge granted im bail in t e amo!nt of P@(???$ and ordered im released on t e same da"$ %ELD: A notice of application for bail to t e prosec!tor is re9!ired e#en t o!g no c arge as "et been filed in co!rt and e#en t o!g !nder t e circ!mstances bail is a matter of rig t$ + ile respondent was in error in belie#ing t at notice to t e prosec!tor is re9!ired onl" w ere bail is a matter of discretion( nonet eless( t e SC fo!nd t at is error was not d!e to an" conscio!s and deliberate intent to commit an in3!stice$ *n cases s!c as t is( it as been t e #iew t at( as a matter of p!blic polic"( in t e absence of fra!d( dis onest"( or corr!ption( t e acts of a 3!dge in is 3!dicial capacit" are not s!b3ect to disciplinar"

<

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES action e#en t o!g s!c acts are erroneo!s$ Nonet eless( t e SC a#e stressed t e importance of t e d!t" of members of t e 3!diciar" to 'eep abreast of t e laws( r!lings and 3!rispr!dence affecting t eir 3!risdiction$ Cespondent 3!dge&s fail!re to compl" wit t is d!t" res!lting in t e fail!re to gi#e notice to t e prosec!tion of pending application for bail merits a reprimand$ Teresita :. T&!ay vs. %&.;e Ro;er A. Do/a;as A. 2. No. RT%5$*5#2(-. 2ar. 2) #$$*. 2,2 SCRA ##0 PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: A complaint was filed( protesting t e grant of bail wit o!t earing and wit o!t notice to trial fiscal( Att"$ =illarin( of t e Pro#incial Prosec!tor&s recommendation for appro#al of t e bond$ %ELD: *n failing to obser#e t ese r!dimentar" re9!irements( t e respondent 3!dge s owed gross ignorance of t e law for w ic e s o!ld be fined$ A4o'inario 2&>e6 vs. %&.;e Ciria!o Ari>o A. 2. No. 2T%5$,5$(*. 1e+. 2#) #$$*. 2,# SCRA ,3( PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: T is is an administrati#e complaint against 2!dge AriLo for 'nowingl" rendering an !n3!st 3!dgment as defined and penali/ed !nder Article 1?; of t e CPC$ %ELD: %e s owed poor 3!dgment and gross ignorance of basic legal principles$ + ile 3!dges s o!ld not be disciplined for inefficienc" on acco!nt merel" of occasional mista'es or errors of 3!dgment( "et( it is ig l" imperati#e t at t e" s o!ld be con#ersant wit basic legal principles$ *n e#er" case( a 3!dge s o!ld endea#or diligentl" to ascertain t e facts and t e applicable law !nswa"ed b" partisan or personal interests( p!blic opinion or fear of criticism$ A 3!dge owes it to t e p!blic and t e administration of 3!stice to 'now t e law e is s!pposed to appl" to a gi#en contro#ers"$ Cespondent 3!dge s owed lac' of capacit" for independent 3!dgment$ b. %e-uirements for liability to attac) to gross ignorance of t)e law Ra''os vs. Go?o) %r. A.2. No. RT%5$$5#,(,@AA. O!t. 2,) 2000. ",, SCRA #3( PONENTE: Panganiban FACTS: Complainant alleged t at t e respondent 3!dge ordered t e release of 17(??? sac's of rice to claimants( notwit standing t e pendenc" of sei/!re and forfeit!re proceedings before t e B!rea! of C!stoms$ *t is alleged t at respondent is g!ilt" of gross ignorance of law$ %ELD: T is act constit!tes gross ignorance of t e law$ %owe#er( we a#e eld t at to be p!nis able as s!c ( it m!st not onl" be contradictor" to e-isting law and 3!rispr!dence( b!t m!st also be moti#ated b" bad fait ( fra!d( dis onest" or corr!ption$ Cespondent was in bad fait w en respondent did not appear for earing on t e dates set for t e earing of w ic e ad 'nowledge of$ Dara!an vs. Nativi.a. A2 RT%5$$5#,,3. Se4t. 23) 2000. ",# SCRA #-# PONENTE: Inares Santiago

6?

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES FACTS: T is case deals wit ow to old a 3!dge administrati#el" liable for ignorance of t e law andNor 'nowingl" rendering an !n3!st 3!dgment$ %ELD: For liabilit" to attac for ignorance of law( t e assailed order or decision of t e 3!dge in t e performance of official d!ties m!st not onl" be fo!nd erroneo!s b!t( more importantl"( it m!st also be establis ed t at e was mo#ed b" bad fait ) dis onest"( atred( or some ot er li'e moti#es$ Similarl"( a 3!dge will be eld liable for rendering an !n3!st 3!dgment w en e acts in bad fait ( malice( re#enge or some ot er similar moti#e$ *n fine( bad fait is t e gro!nd for liabilit" in eit er or bot offenses$ Bad fait does not simpl" connote bad 3!dgment or negligence) it imp!tes a dis onest p!rpose or some moral obli9!it" and conscio!s doing of a wrong) a breac of a sworn d!t" t ro!g some moti#e or intent or ill0 will) it parta'es of t e nat!re of fra!d$ Bad fait is not pres!med and e w o alleges t e same as t e on!s of pro#ing it$ Os!ar C. 1ernan.e6 v. Li'ia Es4a>o' A. 2. No. 2T%5$(5##*0. A4ri' #*) #$$(. 2($ SCRA # PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS:Complainant filed a motion for e-ec!tion( w ic was granted b" respondent 3!dge$ Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration( alleging t at complainant&s brot ers( w o are co0owners of t e propert"( ad renewed is lease contract$ Cespondent 3!dge granted t e defendant&s motion for reconsideration( deferring e-ec!tion$ *n comment( respondent 3!dge e-plained t at s e granted t e defendant&s motion in #iew of a s!per#ening e#ent$ %ELD: Cespondent 3!dge as s own ignorance of law b" failing to order e-ec!tion despite t e fact t at defendant ad not gi#en a s!persedeas bond( paid t e rents as t e" fell d!e or paid t e doc'et fees$ T e co!rt&s d!t" was simpl" to order s!c e-ec!tion$ Also( t ere was no s!per#ening e#ent$ %owe#er( to 3!stif" t e ta'ing of drastic disciplinar" action( t e law re9!ires t at t e error or mista'e of t e 3!dge m!st be gross or patent( malicio!s( deliberate or in bad fait $ T ese are not present in t e instant case$ c. "ross Ignorance of law. Im!artiality. A.an vs. A+&!e9o5L&6ano A.2. No. 2T%5005#2$(. ""3 SCRA #*( PONENTE: :on/aga0 Ce"es FACTS:A caref!l reading of t e order of ac9!ittal s ows t at respondent 3!dge cond!cted an oc!lar inspection of t e place of t e incident Don er wa" omeF at w ic t e acc!sed was present and w erein respondent 2!dge was informed b" t e acc!sed t at Dt e area was fenced b" t e .SHF$ *t is not disp!ted t at complainant or is co!nsel was not informed of s!c oc!lar inspection$ Complainant c arged respondent 2!dge wit ab!se of a!t orit"( partiall" and rendering an !n3!st 3!dgment relati#e to t e aforesaid criminal cases$ %ELD: Cespondent 2!dge s o!ld a#e 'nown t at an e5 !arte oc!lar inspection wit o!t notice to nor presence of t e parties and after t e case ad alread" been decided was ig l" improper$ *f respondent 3!dge ad entertained do!bts t at s e wis ed to clarif" after t e trial ad alread" terminated( s e s o!ld a#e ordered motu !ro!rio t e reopening of t e trial for t e p!rpose( wit d!e notice to t e parties( w ose participation t erein is essential to d!e process$ T !s( it is error for t e 3!dge to go alone to t e place w ere t e crime was committed and ma'e an inspection wit o!t pre#io!s 'nowledge or consent of t e parties$ Cespondent as opened erself to c arges of partialit" and bias b" meeting wit t e acc!sed pri#atel"$ Cespondent 2!dge as not onl" s own gross ignorance of t e law and proced!re b!t failed to

66

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES li#e !p to t e norm t at D3!dges s o!ld not onl" be impartial b!t s o!ld also appear impartial$F S e t !s #iolated Canon 1 of t e Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct w ic pro#ides t at Da 3!dge s o!ld a#oid impropriet" and t e appearance of impropriet" in all acti#ities$F L& vs. Sia4no A.2. No. 2T%5$$5##$$. %&'y -) 2000. ""* SCRA #22 PONENTE: :on/aga0Ce"es FACTS: On appeal( .TC03!dgment was modified b" deleting t e paragrap ,4*8n accordance wit t e C!les( let a +rit of E-ec!tion be iss!ed$, L! filed a petition for re#iew wit t e Co!rt of Appeals( w ile petitioner&s co!nsel filed a .otion for E-ec!tion w ic was granted b" respondent 3!dge$ +rit was iss!ed wit o!t notice and earing$ An e-0parte .otion to +it draw deposit was filed and granted$ A .otion for Special Demolition was li'ewise granted wit o!t notice and earing$ %ence( t is complaint for gross incompetence( gross ignorance of t e law( abdication of official f!nction and gross miscond!ct$ %ELD: Cespondent is g!ilt" of gross ignorance of t e law w en e rendered 3!dgment pro#iding( in t e dispositi#e portion( for its immediate e-ec!tion$ *t s o!ld be noted t at t e CTC modified t e .TC0 decision to t e effect t at it s o!ld not be immediatel" e-ec!ted$ Basic is t e r!le t at a 3!dge ma" not order t e e-ec!tion of 3!dgment in t e decision itself$ Section 16 of t e C!les of S!mmar" Proced!re li'ewise pro#ides t at t e decision of t e CTC is immediatel" e-ec!tor"$ E#en if immediatel" e-ec!tor"( t ere m!st be notice and earing$ Also( mere s!spicion t at t e 3!dge is partial to a part" is not eno!g ) t ere s o!ld be ade9!ate e#idence to pro#e t e c arge$ %e4son Di!=aves vs. Bi''y A4a'it A.2. 2T%5005#23,. %&ne () 2000. """ SCRA *, PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: *n a criminal case for #iolation of BP 11( respondent 2!dge iss!ed 5 orders: 468 s!spension of t e criminal case d!e to t e principle of pre3!dicial 9!estion w en t e complainant was not a part" to t e ci#il case 4no 3!stification for t e r!ling was made8) 418 dis9!alification of co!nsel of complainant for ta'ing part in t e prosec!tion of t e criminal case allegedl" d!e to t e fact t at t e ci#il aspect of t e case was being litigated) and 458 ac9!itting t e acc!sed beca!se t e c ec's were allegedl" iss!ed as a g!arantee$ %ELD: 2!dge Apalit is g!ilt" of gross ignorance of t e law$ An isolated error of 3!dgment wo!ld normall" not ma'e a 3!dge s!sceptible to administrati#e liabilit"$ *n t is case( t e 3!dgeJs partialit" for a part" to a case before im is e#ident in se#eral orders( fa#oring t e acc!sed in t e criminal case( e#en going to t e e-tent of disregarding settled r!lings$ 2a. I/e'.a 2ar!os52anoto! vs. E/erito 2. A;!aoi'i A.2. No. RT%5$(5#,0*. A4r. #2) 2000. ""0 SCRA 2-( PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: On 2!ne 6@( 6<<@( P!erto A/!l Land( *nc$ filed a ci#il case for in3!nction and for t e iss!ance of a writ of preliminar" in3!nction and TCO against complainants .arcos0.anotoc( et al$ On t e same da"( 3!dge iss!ed a TCO( stating t at s!c Dis good !ntil s!c time t at t e writ of preliminar" in3!nction s all a#e been resol#edF$ T e earing for t e application for a preliminar" in3!nction was sc ed!led on 2!ne 1; b!t on t at da"( instead of cond!cting a earing( 3!dge iss!ed an order e-tending t e effecti#it" of t e TCO for 7 more da"s$ On 2!ne 1@( 3!dge again e-tended t e TCO$ %ELD: 2!dge failed to obser#e C!les 5$?6 and 5$?7 of t e Code of 2!dicial cond!ct( en3oining 3!dges to be fait f!l to t e law and to maintain professional competence and to dispose of t e b!siness of t eir

61

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES co!rts promptl" and wit in t e applicable periods$ 2!dgeJs act of f!rt er e-tending t e TCOs( 'nowing f!ll" well t at e as not cond!cted a s!mmar" earing and t at e wo!ld not be able to cond!ct one in t e s!cceeding da"s beca!se of is ot er commitments( s!ggests partialit" to a part" in t e case$ %e disregarded t e time0 onored in3!nction on 3!dges to be impartial bot in fact and in appearance$ Ro+erto Es4irit& vs. vs. E.&ar.o %ove''anos A.2. No. 2T%5$35##"$. O!to+er #-) #$$3. 2(0 SCRA *3$ PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: Espirit! c arged respondent 3!dge wit wit ignorance of t e law( gra#e ab!se of a!t orit"( and gross partialit" alleging irreg!larities committed b" respondent 3!dge in t e cond!ct of t e preliminar" in#estigation of is complaint against D!mlao$ %ELD: T e respondent 3!dge is g!ilt" of ignorance of t e law( bias( and partialit" for D!mlao as s own b" t e respondent 3!dge granting bail and later red!cing its amo!nt w en t e fact was t at( at t at time( D!mlao was not in t e c!stod" of t e co!rt( and no notice and earing for t e red!ction were eld$ Alt o!g t en not in legal c!stod"( D!mlao s!bse9!entl" s!bmitted imself to t e 3!risdiction of t e co!rt w en on September G( 6<<; e personall" as'ed respondent 3!dge to admit im to bail and red!ce its amo!nt$ Cespondent 3!dge t !s correctl" granted bail to D!mlao$ Cespondent 3!dge erred( owe#er( in fi-ing t e amo!nt of bail at P1?(???$?? and red!cing it to P6?(???$?? and in doing so wit o!t a earing$ Eit er respondent 3!dge was grossl" ignorant of t e law or e deliberatel" disregarded it to fa#or t e acc!sed$ F!rt er demonstrating eit er deliberate disregard of t e law or gross ignorance of t e same( respondent 3!dge granted bail to +en" D!mlao wit o!t notice to t e prosec!tion( in #iolation of C!le 66;( O6@$ T e fail!re to obser#e t e abo#e re9!irement constit!tes ignorance or incompetence w ic cannot be e-c!sed b" an" protestation of good fait $ + at respondent 3!dge s o!ld a#e done was to a#e D!mlao p!t is re9!est in writing and t en sc ed!le t e incident for earing wit notice to t e prosec!tion$ *nstead( e readil" granted t e re9!est( w ic indicates rat er clearl" respondent 3!dge&s partialit"$ T is partialit" was now ere more e#ident t an in t e pri#ate conference w ic e ad wit t e D!mlaos in is c ambers wit o!t t e presence of t e opposing part"( t e complainant in t is case$ Time and again we a#e admonis ed 3!dges not onl" to be impartial b!t also to appear to be so$

D. "ross Ignorance of Law and Im!ro!riety E/eterio Ga''o vs. %&.;e %ose Cor.ero A. 2. No. 2T%5$*5#0"* %&ne 2#) #$$*. 2,* SCRA 2#$ PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: :allo c arges t at 4a8 in #iolation of art$ 1?G and art$ 1?@ of t e CPC( respondent 3!dge ordered t e arrest of t e acc!sed) 4b8 t at respondent pri#atel" conferred wit t e acc!sed in is office w ic ,logicall" and nat!rall" aro!ses s!spicion of graft and ran' fa#oritism), and 4c8 t at e acted wit bias and ignorance of t e law(, and t at e#en if t e acc!sed were not tenants( ,nobod" can e3ect t em$, %ELD: Cordero opened imself to c arges of partialit" and bias b" meeting pri#atel" wit t e fo!r acc!sed$ *t was improper for im to meet t em wit o!t t e presence of complainant$ %e not onl" as s own gross ignorance of law and proced!re b!t as also failed to li#e !p to t e norm t at ,3!dges s o!ld not onl" be impartial b!t s o!ld also appear impartial$, %e #iolated Canon 1 of t e Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct w ic pro#ides t at ,a 3!dge s o!ld a#oid impropriet" and t e appearance of impropriet" in all acti#ities$, C!le 1$?6 pro#ides t at ,A 3!dge s o!ld so be a#e at all times as to promote p!blic confidence in t e integrit" and impartialit" of t e 3!diciar"$,

65

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES E. alfeasance6 isfeasance in %endering 7n&ust 0udgment8 "ross Ignorance

Heirs o %&an an. Nativi.a. Ger/inan.a vs. Sa'vanera A.2. No. 2T%5005#2,-. %an. 2() 2000. "2" SCRA *-# PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: An !nlawf!l detainer case was p!rs!ed b" t e :erminandas in one ci#il case and t e owners ip of t e land in anot er case$ T e 3!dge s!spended t e resol!tion in t e !nlawf!l detainer case !ntil t e owners ip case as been terminated$ T e iss!e is w et er or not t ere as been malfeasance or misfeasance in t e s!spension$ %ELD: *t is settled t at t e pendenc" of an action 9!estioning t e owners ip of t e propert" does not bar t e filing or t e consideration of an e3ectment s!it nor t e e-ec!tion of t e 3!dgment t erein$ T e reason for t is r!le is t at e3ectment s!its in#ol#e onl" t e iss!e of material possession and does not decide t e iss!e of owners ip$ Considering t e differences in ca!ses of action( it was wrong for t e 3!dge to r!le t e complainants g!ilt" of for!m s opping in filing t eir complaints for !nlawf!l detainer despite pendenc" of t e owners ip case$ 2!dge was reprimanded$ +. Ignorance of t)e Law6 'onfeasance Or'an.o La4e>a vs. %ovito Pa/aran; A.2. No. P5005#"-2. 1e+. #*) 2000. "2* SCRA ,,0 PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: Parmarang( S eriff *= of CTC Hrdaneta( Pampanga( recei#ed a writ of e-ec!tion on A!g!st 5( 6<<7$ %owe#er( it was onl" on October 7( 6<<7 w en e made a ret!rn$ %ELD: *t is well settled t at to sta" t e immediate e-ec!tion of 3!dgment in an e3ectment case w ile appeal is pending( t e defendant m!st: 4a8 perfect is appeal) 4b8 file a s!persedeas bond) and 4c8 periodicall" deposit t e rentals w ic become d!e d!ring t e pendenc" of t e appeal$ T ese circ!mstances were not present to 3!stif" t e s eriff from desisting from t e implementation of t e writ of e-ec!tion$ Considering t at t e losing part" onl" ad 67 da"s from receipt of t e decision 4or !ntil A!g!st 6@( 6<<78 to a#ert e-ec!tion( t ere was no reason for t e s eriff to wait !ntil October 7$ Ass!ming t at t e writ was not enforced d!e to t e aforementioned circ!mstances( t e respondent s eriff still ad a d!t" to ma'e a timel" ret!rn to t e co!rt$ S eriff is g!ilt" of nonfeasance$ ". "ross Ignorance of t)e Law9 :artiality9 Incom!etence9 ;nowingly %endering 7n&ust 0udgment C'o.&a'.o .e %es&s vs. Ro.o' o O+na/ia A.2. No. 2T%5005#"#,. Se4t. 3) 2000. ",0 SCRA # PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: Complainants erein allege t at respondent 2!dge amended t e order of 2!dge Nantes and acted wit gross ignorance of t e law and incompetence and 'nowingl" rendered an !n3!st 3!dgment$ Cespondent 2!dge claims t at e was not aware of t e decision as s!c was not attac ed to t e records w en e prepared t e 9!estioned resol!tion$ %ELD: E#en if t e decision of t e CA was not in t e records of t e e3ectment case( t e same were bro!g t to respondent 3!dgeJs attention b" complainant in t e s!pplemental opposition e filed to t e plaintiffJs motion for reconsideration of 2!dge NanteJs order den"ing t e plaintiffJs motion for writ of

6;

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES demolition$ T e e-ec!tion of t e decision t erefore is a contentio!s matter$ *t was t !s necessar" for respondent 3!dge to ens!re compliance wit t e t ree0da" notice r!le for t e earing w erein e co!ld t en confirm t e e-istence of t e decision and resol!tion of t e CA$ CespondentJs fail!re to do so constit!tes cens!rable cond!ct$ Go6&n vs. Lian;!o A.2. No. 2T%5$35##"-. A&;. "0) 2000. ""$ SCRA 2*" PEC CHC*A. FACTS: :o/!n was in open and ad#erse possession of s!b3ect land for a period of 5? "ears$ T e m!nicipalit" of San L!is( Pampanga claimed to own t e same lot and iss!ed a resol!tion declaring t at t e lot w ere :o/!n and famil" were s9!atting as t e new site of t e %ealt Center$ 2!dge iss!ed a resol!tion( reasoning in fa#or of t e m!nicipalit" and !p olding t e resol!tion$ Note t at :o/!n was not ser#ed wit s!mmons or gi#en notice of t e petition$ Complainant a#ers t at respondent&s iss!ance of t e resol!tion amo!nts to gross miscond!ct( gross inefficienc"( and incompetence( and f!rt er acc!sed t e ma"or of a#ing bribed respondent$ %ELD: 2!dge not onl" acted wit o!t 3!risdiction( b!t in so acting ignored blatantl" t e basic r!les of fair pla"$ Complainant was not notified of nor made a part" to t e petition$ A member of t e benc m!st 'eep imself constantl" abreast of legal and 3!rispr!dential de#elopments( bearing in mind t at t is learning process ne#er ceases e#en as it is so indispensable in t e correct dispensation of 3!stice$ + en t e law #iolated is elementar"( t e fail!re to 'now or obser#e it constit!tes gross ignorance of t e law$ Also( 3!dges are pro ibited from engaging in t e pri#ate practice of law or from gi#ing professional ad#ice to clients$ T e" are re9!ired to be ob3ecti#e and cannot inno#ate at pleas!re and 3!stif" s!c b" t eir own perception of w at is ideal or good$ <. "ross Ignorance of Law. 'o 0urisdiction. i. )old de!arture order Ho'. De4art&re Or.er +y %&.;e Ani!eto 2a.ronio A.2. No. $$5#25#$2. %an. 2-) 2000. "2" SCRA ",* PONENTE: .endo/a %ELD: S!preme Co!rt Circ!lar No$ 5<0<G dated 2!ne 6<( 6<<G limits t e a!t orit" to iss!e old depart!re orders to CTCs in Criminal Cases wit in t eir e-cl!si#e 3!risdiction$ 2!dge .adronio e#en admits is o#ersig t$ Cespondent is s!spended$ Ho'. De4art&re Or.er Iss&e. By %&.;e E&se+io Barot) 2CTC Br. 2 A4arrie) Ca'ayan) Ca;ayan A.2. $$5(5#0(52CTC. A&;. 2*) #$$$. "#" SCRA ,, PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: 2!dge Barot iss!ed on Febr!ar" 6?( 6<<<( in People #s$ de 2es!s an order to pre#ent t e depart!re of t e acc!sed from t e P ilippines$ T e Secretar" of 2!stice calls attention to t e fact t at t e order is contrar" to Co!rt Circ!lar 5<05G w ic limits t e a!t orit" to iss!e old depart!re orders to CTCs in criminal cases wit in its e-cl!si#e 3!risdiction$ %ELD: 2!dge Barot is reprimanded wit warning$ T e Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct en3oins 3!dges to be fait f!l to t e law and maintain professional competence$

67

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES ii. %egular Courts )a#e no 0urisdiction to %estrain E5ecution of +inal Decisions of t)e Labor Arbiter Gor;onio Nova vs. %&.;e San!=o Da/es A.2. No. RT%5005#*3,. 2ar. 2() 200# PONENTE: Pardo FACTS: No#a filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and ot er mone" claims against Station DQC.$ T e Labor Arbiter r!led in is fa#or and t e NLCC dismissed t e appeal$ T e decision a#ing become final( t e NLCC iss!ed an alias writ of e-ec!tion$ %owe#er( respondent 2!dge iss!ed a TCO restraining t e NLCC S eriff from cond!cting t e sc ed!led p!blic a!ction$ %ELD: Ceg!lar co!rts a#e no 3!risdiction to ear and decide 9!estions w ic arise and are incidental to t e enforcement of decisions( orders or awards rendered in labor cases b" appropriate officers and trib!nals of t e DOLE$ T e" owe it to t e p!blic to be legall" 'nowledgeable wit basic laws and principles( for ignorance of t e law is t e bane of in3!stice$ Ro.ri;&e6 vs. Boni a!io A.2. No. RT%5$$5#*#0 Nov. -) 2000. ",, SCRA *-* PONENTE: Inares0Santiago FACTS: Cespondent allegedl" granted impro#identl" a petition for %abeas Corp!s t !s( e was c arged wit gross ignorance of t e law( gross incompetence and 'nowingl" rendering an !n3!st 3!dgment$ %ELD: + ere t e B!rea! of *mmigration and Deportation ad not "et completed its earing and in#estigation proceedings wit respect to an alien and t ere is no s owing t at it is !nd!l" dela"ing its decision( abeas corp!s proceedings are premat!re$ *t was grie#io!s error for t e 3!dge to gi#e d!e co!rse to t e abeas corp!s petition$ *t is imperati#e t at 3!dges be con#ersant wit basic legal principles and aware of well0settled a!t oritati#e doctrines$ %e s o!ld stri#e for e-cellence e-ceeded onl" b" is passion for tr!t ( to t e end t at e be t e personification of 3!stice and t e C!le of Law$ iii. Election Law Ro/eo G&sti'o vs. Hon. Ri!ar.o S. Rea' A.2. No. 2T%500#2*0. 1e+. 2() 200# PONENTE: R!is!mbing FACTS: Complainant :!stilo was a candidate for p!nong baranga" wit +edd" Libo0on as is lone opponent$ T e can#assing "ielded a tie( t e brea'ing of w ic was in fa#or of :!stilo 4w o was d!l" proclaimed8$ Libo0on filed an election protest wit t e .CTC$ Cespondent 3!dge granted Libo0onJs motion to ad#ance t e earing wit o!t gi#ing d!e notice to :!stilo$ Cespondent t en iss!ed a TCO and ann!lled t e proclamation of Ceal$ Complainant a#ers t at CealJs errors were not onest mista'es and were prod!ct of bias in fa#or of Libo0on$ %ELD: A 3!dge is e-pected to 'now t e 3!risdictional bo!ndaries of co!rts and 9!asi03!dicial bodies li'e t e CO.ELEC and to act onl" wit in said limits$ A 3!dge w o wantonl" arrogates !nto imself t e a!t orit" and power #ested in ot er agencies not onl" acts in oppressi#e disregard of t e basic re9!irements of d!e process( b!t also creates c aos and contrib!tes to conf!sion in t e administration of 3!stice$ Cespondent displa"ed a mar'ed ignorance of basic laws and principles$ Co//ission on E'e!tions vs. %&.;e B&!o R. Dat&5i/an

6E

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES A.2. No. 2T%5$$5##3(. 2ar!= ") #$$$. "0, SCRA #0PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: On .arc 1< and 56( 6<<;( Comelec sent telegrams to election officials in Lanao del S!r ordering t em to delete Baranga" S!mbago from t e list of baranga"s in t e .!nicipalit" of Ba"ang on t e gro!nd t at it ad not been legall" created$ %owe#er( baranga" officials see'ing reelection bro!g t s!it against Comelec in 2!dge Dat!0*manJs co!rt to stop implementation of t e CO.ELEC directi#e$ 2!dge Dat!0*man iss!ed a temporar" restraining order on April <( 6<<; and( after earing( rendered a decision on .a" 1( 6<<; granting in3!nction$ Comelec filed a case for appropriate disciplinar" action amo!nting to gross ignorance of t e law$ %ELD: Beca!se of t e s!bordinate stat!s and ran' of co!rts #is0a0#is t e CO.ELEC( t e lower co!rts cannot iss!e writs of in3!nction enforceable against t e CO.ELEC$ .ore importantl"( 2!dge Dat!0*man o!g t to a#e 'nown t at( since its creation( t e CO.ELEC as been accorded f!ll discretion gi#en its constit!tional mandate to enforce and administer all laws relati#e to t e cond!ct of election( plebiscite( initiati#e( referend!m( and recall$ T is was stressed in t e decision of t is Co!rt in Qaldi#ar #$ Esten/o$ i#. %TC interference wit) t)e business of t)e CA 2artin Bri6&e'a vs. R&+en 2en.io'a A.2. No. RT%5005#*-0. %&'y *) 2000. ""* SCRA 2" PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: After defa!lting on is loan and after t e forclos!re on is real estate mortgage and t e lapse of t e period of redemption( mortgagor Bri/!ela files an action to ann!l t e a!ction sale wit CTC Branc EE$ *t is dismissed( b!t on appeal to t e CA( Bri/!ela is able to ca!se t e annotation of a notice of lis pendens on t e propert"$ .eanw ile( t e winning bidder files a motion to cancell t e notice of lis pendens wit 2!dge .endiola of CTC Branc E5 w o grants it$ %ELD: T e cancellation of a notice of lis pendens is merel" incidental to a pending action$ T !s( .endiola ad no power to entertain s!c motion beca!se t e annotation of t e notice was made in relation to t e ann!lment case filed in Branc EE( w ic case fell !nder t e 3!risdiction of t e CA at t e moment t e decision of t e former was appealed to t e latter$ .endiola is g!ilt" of gross ignorance of t e law and gra#e miscond!ct) fined P7(???( to be d!dected from t e balance of is retirement benefits$ #. Interference of court wit) anot)er court of e-ual ran= Ro/eo De'a Cr&6 vs. Car'ito Eis/a A.2. No. RT%5005#*,,. 2ar. #*) 2000. "2( SCRA #*# PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: LedesmaJs land was ta'en b" e-propriation proceedings$ After 11 "ears( eirs of Ledesma enter and occ!p" t e e-propriated portion( prompting Sol:en Dela Cr!/ to file a case of forcible entr"$ *t was dismissed b" t e .TC b!t re#ersed b" CTC Branc 6G( attaining finalit" w en no appeal was filed$ S!bse9!entl"( t e eirs were able to file an accion p!bliciana wit 2!dge Eisma of CTC Branc 65( w o iss!ed a TCO and preliminar" in3!nction against t e .TC$ %ELD T e principle t at a co!rt cannot pre#ent t e e-ec!tion of a decision of a ig er co!rt applies to salas of co0e9!al 3!risdiction$ Alt o!g EismaJs orders were directed to t e .TC( its effect was to pre#ent t e e-ec!tion of a final order of anot er CTC of e9!al ran' and 3!risdiction$ Eisma is g!ilt" of gross ignorance of t e law and ab!se of a!t orit") fined P7(???$

6G

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES 3. "ross 'egligence. "ross Ignorance. Im!artiality. Ro/&'o To'entino vs. A' re.o Ca+ra' A.2. No. RT%5005#*2(. 2ar. 2() 2000. "2$ SCRA # PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: Prosec!tor Tolentino files a petition for certiorari assailing t e order of CTC 2!dge Cabral granting bail to a rape s!spect$ Tolentino also files an administrati#e complaint against Cabral for t e loss of pertinent records on t e case and for s owing partialit" for t e acc!sed$ Cabral brings co!nter c arges against Tolentino w en t e latter 9!estioned certain orders of t e co!rt b" distorting and misrepresenting t e act!al contents of s!c orders) and for t reatening Cabral t at if t e prosec!tionJs motions are not granted( an administrati#e complaint wo!ld be bro!g t against im$ %ELD Acting on t e petition for certiorari( t e S!preme Co!rt fo!nd t at Cabral 'nowingl" iss!ed a manifestl" !n3!st order granting bail despite strong e#idence of g!ilt$ Acting on t e administrati#e complaint( t e S!preme Co!rt finds Cabral g!ilt" of gross negligence and inefficienc" for t e loss of important records on t e case$ %e is also g!ilt" of partialit" in den"ing t e prosec!tion t e c ance to file an opposition w en Cabral fi-ed t e date of a earing close to t e date of its ser#ice to t e prosec!tion$ Tolentino is also fo!nd g!ilt" of t e co!nterc arges$ For gra#e ab!se of a!t orit"( gross ignorance of t e law( gross negligence and inefficienc"( rendering !n3!st 3!dgment and for #iolations of t e Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct( 2!dge Cabral is s!spended for E mont s wit o!t pa"$ Tolentino is reprimanded for breac of Canon 6?( C!les 6?$?6 and 6?$?1 as well as Canon 66( C!le 66$?5 of t e Code of Professional Cesponsibilit"$ $. Continuance of admin. case a$ Com!lainant>s Desistance does not ?ar %&anito A;&'an vs. %&.;e 1ernan.e6 A.2. No. 2T% 0#5#"*,. A4r. , 200# PONENTE: :on/aga0Ce"es FACTS: Cespondent 2!dgeJs fail!re to compl" wit t e r!les regarding t e proced!re for acceptance and disposition of cas bail bonds placed is integrit" in serio!s do!bt partic!larl" w en e replaced part of t e cas bond wit is personal c ec' wit o!t an" acceptable e-planation$ %ELD: A 3!dgeJs official cond!ct s o!ld be free from an" appearance of impropriet"$ %e m!st not act in a wa" t at wo!ld cast s!spicion in order to preser#e t e fait in t e administration of 3!stice$ *n t e case of p!blic ser#ants in t e 3!diciar"( t eir cond!ct and be a#ior( from t e presiding 3!dge to t e lowliest cler'( m!st not onl" be c aracteri/ed b" propriet" and decor!m b!t abo#e all else m!st be abo#e s!spicion$ T e mere fact t at complainant sent a letter re9!esting t e wit drawal of t e instant administrati#e case does not warrant t e dismissal t ereof) t e co!rt ma" proceed wit its in#estigation and mete o!t appropriate penalt" against erring officers of t e co!rt$ Sevi''a vs. Sa'&+re A.2. 2T%5005#""-) De!. #$) 2000) ",( SCRA *$2. PONENTE: De Leon( 2r$ FACTS: Cespondent 3!dge misappropriated is clientJs f!nds w en e was still a law"er and did not repa" e same despite n!mero!s demands$ + en e became a 3!dge( e iss!ed two c ec's as pa"ment

6@

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES b!t bot bo!nced$ T e client filed an estafa case b!t later on e-ec!ted an Affida#it of Desistance$ T e iss!e is w et er t e Affida#it of Desistance di#ested t e SC of its 3!risdiction to impose administrati#e sanctions !pon respondent$ %ELD: No$ + ile t e complaint for estafa ad been dismissed( t e dismissal was on acco!nt of complainantJs #ol!ntar" desistance and not !pon a finding of innocence$ T e primar" ob3ect of administrati#e cases against law"ers is not onl" to p!nis and discipline t e erring indi#id!al law"ers b!t also to safeg!ard t e administration of 3!stice b" protecting t e co!rts and t e p!blic from t e miscond!ct of law"ers( and to remo#e from t e legal profession persons w ose !tter disregard of t eir law"erJs oat a#e pro#en t em !nfit to contin!e disc arging t e tr!st reposed in t em as members of t e bar$ Administrati#e cases against law"ers can still proceed despite t e dismissal of ci#il andNor criminal complaints against t em$ b. %etirement Does 'ot Effect Dismissal Ca+ar'o! vs. Ca+&sora A.2. No. 2T%5005#2*-) De!. #*) 2000. ",( SCRA 2#3. PONENTE: Map!nan FACTS: 2!dge Cab!sora downgraded t e crime to %omicide and e-onerated Cadano$ *t was also fo!nd t at t e 3!dge committed error in cond!cting anot er preliminar" in#estigation( re#ersing is own findings mot! propio and ordering t e release of t e two acc!sed wit o!t a!t orit"$ %ELD: 2!dge Cab!sora e-ceeded is a!t orit" in ma'ing a determination of t e crime committed as t is is t e f!nction of t e prosec!tion and not of t e in#estigating 3!dge$ Cessation from office beca!se of retirement does not warrant t e dismissal of t e administrati#e complaint filed against a 3!dge w ile e was still in ser#ice$ Per'ito D. 1'ores) et a'. v. Antonio C. S&/a'ia; A. 2. No. 2T%5$35###*. %&ne *) #$$(. 2$0 SCRA *-( PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: T e complainants instit!ted t is administrati#e case against respondent 3!dge for gross ignorance of t e law in connection wit t e preliminar" in#estigation of t ree criminal cases and t e arrest of complainants$ Cespondent as alread" retired$ *t is contended t at respondent ordered t e arrest of complainants wit o!t t e 3!stification of doing so ,in order not to fr!strate t e ends of 3!stice(, as pro#ided in C!le 661( OE4b8$ %ELD: T e arrest of t e acc!sed can be ordered onl" in t e e#ent t e prosec!tor files t e case and t e 3!dge of t e CTC finds probable ca!se for t e iss!ance of a warrant$ Cespondent ordered t e iss!ance of a warrant solel" on is finding of probable ca!se( totall" omitting to consider w et er it was necessar" to do so in order not to fr!strate t e ends of 3!stice$ Cespondent as since retired$ %owe#er( t is does not render t is case moot and academic$ T e 3!risdiction at t e time of t e filing of t e administrati#e complaint is not lost b" t e mere fact t at t e respondent p!blic official as ceased in office d!ring t e pendenc" of is case$ T e Co!rt retains its 3!risdiction eit er to prono!nce t e respondent official innocent of t e c arges or declare im g!ilt" t ereof$ c. %esignation Carino vs. Biten; A.2. No. 2T%5$$5#2#". O!t. 2) 2000. ",# SCRA *"$.

6<

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES PONENTE: R!is!mbing FACTS: Carino was cited and ordered arrested and detained for indirect contempt wit o!t earing b" respondent 3!dge$ T e E-ec!ti#e 2!dge recommended dismissal of t e complaint beca!se Biteng ad retired and co!ld no longer be eld liable$ T e OCA disagreed( pointing o!t t at according to 3!rispr!dence( an administrati#e case against a 3!dge does not become moot and academic simpl" beca!se e ad retired or resigned$ Also of note is t at P17(??? was wit eld from BitengJs retirement benefits pending t e o!tcome of t e instant complaint$ %ELD: T e SC agreed wit t e OCA and fo!nd t at respondent 3!dge was g!ilt" of gross ignorance of t e law and incompetence$ Biteng was con#enientl" fined P17(???( same amo!nt set aside from is retirement benefits$ @. In)ibition of a 0udge Ino!en!io Siawan vs. A8&i'ino Ino4i8&e6 A.2. No. 2T%5$*5#0*-. 2ay 2#) 200#. PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: Complainant Siawan alleged t at respondent 2!dge is g!ilt" of grossl" ab!sing is a!t orit"$ *n t e first contro#ers"( a criminal case was pending in t e sale of respondent$ Despite motions of complainant for t e 3!dge to in ibit imself( respondent did not do so notwit standing t at is 4respondentJs8 fat er0in0law was directl" participating in t e case$ %owe#er( respondent was forced to in ibit imself w en se#eral ot er relati#es became in#ol#ed in t e case$ *n t e second contro#ers"( respondent 3!dge tried election cases w ile is relati#es were candidates for #ario!s positions in t e m!nicipalit"$ %ELD: At o!g t e dis9!alification of 3!dges is limited onl" to cases w ere t e 3!dge is related to co!nsel wit in t e fo!rt degree of consang!init" or affinit"( t e C!les nonet eless pro#ide t at a 3!dge ma"( in t e e-ercise of is discretion( dis9!alif" imself from sitting in a case for ot er 3!st and #alid reasons$ A 3!dge s o!ld not andle a case w ere e mig t be percei#ed( rig tl" or wrongl"( to be s!sceptible to bias and impartialit"( w ic a-iom is intended to preser#e and promote p!blic confidence in t e integrit" and respect for t e 3!diciar"$ *n t is case( t e ref!sal of respondent to in ibit imself from t e cond!ct of t e case and is doing so onl" after being t reatened wit an administrati#e case co!ld not b!t create t e impression t at e ad !lterior moti#es in wanting to tr" t e case$ T e p!rpose of t e pro ibition is to pre#ent not onl" a conflict of interest b!t also t e appearance of impropriet" on t e part of a 3!dge$ A 3!dge s o!ld ta'e no part in a proceeding w ere is impartialit" mig t reasonabl" be 9!estioned and e s o!ld administer 3!stice impartiall" and wit o!t dela"$ T e fail!re of respondent 3!dge to in ibit imself constit!tes an ab!se of is a!t orit" and !ndermines p!blic confidence in t e impartialit" of 3!dges$ Ger/an A;&n.ay vs. Nieto Tresva''es A2 2T%5$$5#2"-. Nov. 2*) #$$$. "#$ SCRA #", PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: Cespondent 2!dge was c arged wit gross inefficienc"( gross ignorance of t e law and impropriet" on t e part of respondent 3!dge$ Cespondent failed to in ibit imself e#en if e was related to t e acc!sed$ %ELD: Cespondent was t e fat er0in0law of acc!sedJs son$ T e relations ip in o!r c!lt!re 'nown as magbalaes s o!ld a#e prompted respondent 3!dge to in ibit imself from t e case$ A 3!dge s o!ld not onl" be impartial b!t m!st appear impartial as well$

1?

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES Re7 In=i+ition o %&.;e E..ie R. Ro9as A. 2. No. $(5-5#(*5RTC. O!t. "0) #$$(. 2$( SCRA "0PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: A criminal case was initiall" tried in t e CTC( wit 2!dge Co3as as p!blic prosec!tor$ + ile t e case was pending( 2!dge Co3as was appointed 3!dge of t e trial co!rt on No#ember 61( 6<<E$ As t e original co!nsel for t e acc!sed did not interpose an" ob3ection( 2!dge Co3as tried t e case$ On April 65( 6<<@( owe#er( 2!dge Co3as decided to in ibit imself from t e case$ On 2!l" G( 6<<@( t e Co!rt re9!ired 2!dge Co3as to s ow ca!se w " no disciplinar" action s o!ld be ta'en against im for sitting in a case in w ic e ad pre#io!sl" acted as co!nsel for one of t e parties$ 2!dge Co3as tried to 3!stif" is fail!re to in ibit imself from t e beginning b" stating t at it was onl" after a close scr!tin" of t e case records t at e disco#ered and remembered t at e ad andled t e criminal case as p!blic prosec!tor "ears ago and also tried to minimi/e t e serio!sness of is breac of 3!dicial et ics b" claiming t at an"wa" e did not cond!ct a f!ll0blown trial$ .oreo#er( 2!dge Co3as stated t at e ad not in ibited imself beca!se t e pre#io!s co!nsel of t e acc!sed( Att"$ Cosalie CariLo( did not ob3ect to is sitting in t e case as t e 3!dge$ %ELD: Ies$ 2!dge Co3as is s!b3ect to disciplinar" action$ C!le 65G( O6 of t e C!les of Co!rt e-pressl" states( owe#er( t at ,no 3!dge or 3!dicial officer s all sit in an" case in w ic e $ $ $ as been co!nsel Afor a part"B wit o!t t e written consent of all parties in interest( signed b" t em and entered !pon t e record$&& T e pro ibition is not limited to cases in w ic a 3!dge ears t e e#idence of t e parties b!t incl!des as well cases w ere e acts b" resol#ing motions( iss!ing orders and t e li'e as 2!dge Co3as as done in t e criminal case$ T e p!rpose of t e r!le is to pre#ent not onl" a conflict of interest b!t also t e appearance of impropriet" on t e part of t e 3!dge$ In re7 In=i+ition o Bienveni.o R. Estra.a A. 2. No. $(5#5"25RTC. %&'y 2$) #$$(. 2$" SCRA "#" PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: Circ!lar No$ E dated April 6?( 6<@G strictl" en3oins all 2!dges( Cler's of Co!rt and S eriffs not to accept t e position of director or an" ot er position in an" electric cooperati#e or ot er enterprises( or to resign immediatel" from s!c position if t e" are alread" olding t e same so as not to pre3!dice t e e-peditio!s and proper administration of 3!stice$ *n #iolation of t is circ!lar( 2!dge Estrada( w o was appointed to t e 3!diciar" on .a" 6G( 6<<;( did not resign from t e Board of Directors of t e C!ral Ban' of Labrador !ntil .a" 56( 6<<G$ %ELD: 2!dge Estrada failed to compl" wit t e directi#e of Circ!lar No$ E dated April 6?( 6<@G$ T e fact t at e as alread" resigned as a .ember from t e Directors ip of t e C!ral Ban' of Labrador does not e-c!se im from an" administrati#e liabilit"$ As a 2!dge e s o!ld be fait f!l to t e law and maintain professional competence$ Leovi;i'.o U. 2antarin; vs. %&.;e 2an&e' A. Ro/an) %r. et. a' A. 2. No. RT%5$"5$-,. 1e+. 2() #$$-. 2*, SCRA #*( PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: *n a S!pplemental Complaint filed b" .antaring( Sr$ against 2!dge .olato( it c arges respondent wit arassment$ *t is alleged t at beca!se of t e filing of t e first complaint against im( respondent 2!dge .olato s o!ld a#e in ibited imself from cond!cting t e preliminar" in#estigation of a criminal case considering t at t e respondents in t at case were complainant and is son$ *nstead( it is alleged( e too' cogni/ance of t e case and ordered t e arrest of complainant and is son( .antaring( 2r$( o!t of atred and re#enge for t em beca!se of t e filing of t e first case b" t e complainant$

16

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES %ELD: T e mere filing of an administrati#e case against a 3!dge b" one of t e parties before im is not a gro!nd for dis9!alif"ing im from earing a case$ As t is Co!rt eld( if on e#er" occasion t e part" apparentl" aggrie#ed were allowed to stop t e proceedings in order to await t e final decision on t e desired dis9!alification( or demand t e immediate in ibition of t e 3!dge on t e basis alone of is being so c arged( man" cases wo!ld a#e to be 'ept pending or per aps t ere wo!ld not be eno!g 3!dges left to andle all t e cases pending in all t e co!rts$ B!t( in t e case at bar( an administrati#e complaint against respondent and 2!dge .an!el A$ Coman( 2r$ ad pre#io!sl" been filed and it was paramo!nt t at respondent was free from an" appearance of bias against( or ostilit" toward( t e complainant$ T e impression co!ld not be elped t at is action in t e case was dictated b" a spirit of re#enge against complainant for t e latter&s a#ing filed an administrati#e disciplinar" action against t e 3!dge$ T e sit!ation called for sed!lo!s regard on is part t an t at of t e cold ne!tralit" of an impartial 3!dge$ .oreo#er( it was improper for respondent 3!dge to a#e iss!ed t e warrants of arrest against complainant and is son wit o!t an" finding t at it was necessar" to place t em in immediate c!stod" in order to pre#ent a fr!stration of 3!stice$ A. "ra#e Abuse of Discretion Letter .ate. A&;&st 2*) #$$" o Se!retary 1ran?'in Dri'on on t=e a''e;e. 4arti!i4ation o %&.;e Geroni/o Ba'.o) 2TC) Ca'a&an) La;&na in t=e Go/e65Sar/ienta !ase A.2. No. $"5$53,#50. Nov. 3) #$$3. 2(# SCRA *2" PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: Fran'lin N$ Drilon referred t is case to t e Co!rt for possible disciplinar" action against 2!dge Baldo for a#ing committed gra#e ab!se of discretion in #iew of a sworn statement gi#en b" L!is Corcolon( one of t e acc!sed in t e rape and m!rder of Eileen Sarmenta and t e m!rder of Allan :ome/( t at 2!dge Baldo ad ordered t e cleaning of a #e icle in w ic t e bodies of t e #ictims were fo!nd( in order to destro" e#idence of t e crime$ %ELD: T ere is no direct e#idence t at 2!dge Baldo ad ordered t e cleaning of t e Tamaraw #an$ B!t t e following circ!mstances tend to s ow t at( at t e #er" least( e was present w en t e #an was cleaned and t at is presence wittingl" or !nwittingl" con#e"ed is appro#al to t ose w o cleaned t e #e icle$ *ndeed( it wo!ld appear t at( contrar" to is assertion( 2!dge Baldo did not e#en ta'e t e tro!ble to ascertain w o ad ordered t e #an was ed$ Be''y R. Ci!?er et. a' vs. =on. Pa&' T. Ar!an;e' G.R. No. ##2(-$. %an. 2$) #$$-. 2*2 SCRA ,,, PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: *t appears t at on No# 6@( 6<<5( +ic'er&s co!nsel( Att"$ Ca"os( filed a motion see'ing t e in ibition of t e respondent 2!dge Arcangel from t e case$ Cespondent 3!dge fo!nd offense in t e allegations on t e motion for in ibition filed b" complainants( and in an order( eld t em g!ilt" of direct contempt and sentenced eac to s!ffer imprisonment for fi#e 478 da"s and to pa" a fine of P6??$??$ Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration( w ic respondent 3!dge denied for lac' of merit in is order of Dec 6G( 6<<5$ %ELD: T e power to p!nis for contempt is to be e-ercised on t e preser#ati#e and not on t e #indicti#e principle$ Onl" occasionall" s o!ld it be in#o'ed to preser#e t at respect wit o!t w ic t e administration of 3!stice will fail$ Consistent wit t e foregoing principles and based on t e abo#ementioned facts( t e Co!rt s!stains 2!dge Arcangel&s finding t at petitioners are g!ilt" of contempt$

11

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES Att"$ Ca"os( owe#er( cannot e#ade responsibilit" for t e allegations in 9!estion$ As a law"er( e is not 3!st an instr!ment of is client$ %is client came to im for professional assistance in t e representation of a ca!se( and w ile e owed im w ole0so!led de#otion( t ere were bo!nds set b" is responsibilit" as a law"er w ic e co!ld not o#erstep$ Based on Canon 66 of t e Code of Professional Cesponsibilit"( Att"$ Ca"os bears as m!c responsibilit" for t e contempt!o!s allegations in t e motion for in ibition as is client$ Att"$ Ca"os& d!t" to t e co!rts is not secondar" to t at of is client$ T e Code of Professional Cesponsibilit" en3oins im to ,obser#e and maintain t e respect d!e to t e co!rts and to 3!dicial officers and AtoB insist on similar cond!ct b" ot ers, and ,not AtoB attrib!te to a 2!dge moti#es not s!pported b" t e record or a#e materialit" to t e case$, *. Delay in Deciding Cases Patria 2a8&iran vs. Li'ia Lo4e6 A.2. No. RT%5005#-0-. %&ne 20) 200#. PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: Fi#e "ears after a s!it for damages was s!bmitted for 3!dgment( respondent 3!dge still ad to decide t e case$ An administrati#e complaint against respondent for gross negligence$ Cespondent claimed first t at s e ad decided t e case and ad gi#en copies to t e parties$ T ereafter( s e e-plained t at s e ad s!rger"( t at er parents passed awa"( etc$ %ELD: T e Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct en3oins 3!dges to dispose of t eir b!siness promptl" and decide cases wit in t e re9!ired period$ T is co!rt as constantl" impressed !pon 3!dges t e need to decide cases e-peditio!sl" for 3!stice dela"ed is 3!stice denied$ Fail!re of 3!dges to render 3!dgment wit in t e period constit!tes gross inefficienc" warranting t e imposition of administrati#e sanctions$ T e reasons add!ced b" respondent are !nsatisfactor"$ Alt o!g t e Co!rt is inclined to be compassionate( respondent m!st reali/e t at compassion as its limits$ Finall"( t is is t e t ird time t at respondent as failed to decide cases wit in t e period$ C!rio!sl"( t e reasons s e ad#anced erein are t e same as in t e pre#io!s two instances$ An;e' Gi' vs. Leon!io %ano'o A.2. No. RT%5005#-02. De!. *) 2000. ",3 SCRA PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: Cespondent iss!ed an order admitting defendantJs Formal Offer of E#idence and directed bot parties to s!bmit t eir respecti#e memoranda$ %owe#er( bot parties failed to s!bmit so respondent iss!ed anot er order reiterating is pre#io!s directi#e$ O#er 7 mont s later( a complainant was filed alleging t at it too' respondent more t an ; mont s to act on is Formal Offer of E#idence and t at it is also e#ident from t e records t at 5 mont s ad elapsed and t e case as still remained !ndecided$ Cespondent ac'nowledges t e dela"( w ic e claims( is a res!lt of tec nical problems wit t e office comp!ters$ %ELD: CespondentJs e-c!se is !nsatisfactor"$ T e Constit!tion mandates t at lower co!rts a#e 5 mont s wit in w ic to decide cases or resol#e matters s!bmitted to t em for resol!tion$ Canon 5( C!le 5$?7 of t e Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct en3oins 3!dges to dispose of t eir b!siness promptl" and decide cases wit in t e re9!ired period$ Dela" in t e disposition of cases !ndermines t e peopleJs fait and confidence in t e 3!diciar"$ %ence( 3!dges are en3oined to decide cases wit dispatc $ Fail!re to do so constit!tes gross inefficienc" and warrants t e imposition of administrati#e sanctions$ 0ia9e vs. Hernan.e6 A.2. No. RT%5005#*"- Nov. 2() 2000. ",- SCRA #-2

15

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES PONENTE: De Leon FACTS: Cespondent 3!dge ref!sed to set for earing =ia3eJs application for preliminar" in3!nction and to add ins!lt to in3!r"( set instead for earing defendant .a"orJs .otion to Dismiss( w ic was dela"ed se#eral times$ T e 3!dge claims t at e was onl" tr"ing to pre#ent t e impro#ident iss!ance of a writ of preliminar" in3!nction andNor to a#ert t e improper denial of t e same$ %e also points o!t t at t e iss!ance of t e writ did not appear to be !rgent$ %ELD: Alt o!g t e 3!dge cannot be eld liable for ignorance of C!le 7@ of Ci#pro( e s o!ld ne#ert eless be sanctioned for !nd!e dela" in acting on t e pra"er for iss!ance of said writ$ Cegardless of w et er t e iss!ance of t e writ was !rgent or not( it was inc!mbent !pon t e 3!dge to immediatel" act on plaintiffJs pra"er eit er b" e-pressl" granting( den"ing or deferring its resol!tion$ Hnd!e dela" !ndermines p!blic fait and confidence in t e 3!dges to w om aggrie#ed part"Js t!rn for t e speed" resol!tion of t eir cases$ 4Fine was P6(???8 Es;&erra vs. %&.;e Lo9a A.2. No. RT%5005#*2". A&;. #*) 2000. ""( SCRA # PONENTE: P!risima FACTS: Complainant c arged t at respondent failed to decide t e case for falsification of p!blic doc!ments wit in <? da"s after it was s!bmitted for decision and t eori/ed t at t ere is a possibilit" t at respondent mig t a#e falsified is certificate of ser#ice sent to t is co!rt( to ma'e it appear t at e ad no case t en pending( so as to enable im to recei#e is salar"$ 2!dge denied t e allegations and maintained t at e#en ass!ming arg!endo t at t ere was a slig t dela" in t e prom!lgation of t e decision( it was b" reason of mere inad#ertence as respondent ad an a#erage case load of @?? cases$ %ELD: Cespondent is onl" g!ilt" of simple negligence$ T ere is no clear e#idence t at respondent intentionall" falsified is mont l" certificate of ser#ice simpl" on t e basis t at is deciison was !ndated$ Also( respondent&s abo#e0a#erage disposal of cases( being consistentl" in t e top t ree in t e .anila CTC for t e last fo!r s!ccessi#e "ears wo!ld seem to arg!e against t e allegation of incompetence( ab!se of a!t orit" and falsification against im$ To'entino v. 2a'anyoan A.2. No. RT%5$$5#,,,. A&;. ") 2000. ""3 SCRA #-2 PONENTE: Map!nan FACTS: Cespondent 3!dge iss!ed an order dismissing certain criminal cases( olding t at probable ca!se ad not been establis ed b" t e prosec!tion and ma'ing it constit!tionall" impermissible to iss!e a warrant of arrest$ One of t e cases was dismissed for t e reason t at complainantJs non0appearance and is fail!re to add!ce e#idence #iolated acc!sedJs rig t to a speed" trial$ T ereafter( a letter0complaint was filed against respondent for: 'nowingl" iss!ing !n3!st orders for t e dismissal of t ese cases wit o!t serio!sl" determining t e operati#e facts and t e applicable law in ca#alier disregard of d!e process and moti#ated b" bad fait ( partialit"( false ood( and intentionall" to ca!se !nd!e in3!r" to t e state and t e pri#ate complainant b" gi#ing !nwarranted benefits to t e acc!sed( all in e-cess of is 3!risdiction and in gra#e ab!se of discretion and #iolati#e of Canons 6( 1( and 5 of t e Canons of 2!dicial Cond!ct$ %ELD: T e respondent is not liable for dismissing t e 7 criminal cases d!e to is onest belief t at t ere was no probable ca!se$ :ood fait and t e absence of malice( corr!pt moti#es or improper consideration are s!fficient defenses protecting a 3!dicial officer c arged wit ignorance of t e law and prom!lgation of an !n3!st decision from being eld acco!ntable for errors of 3!dgment on t e premise t at no one called !pon to tr" t e facts or interpret t e law in t e administration of 3!stice can be infallible$ *t is settled t at it is t e 3!dge w o m!st be satisfied t at t ere is a probable ca!se for t e iss!ance of t e warrant of arrest$

1;

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES %owe#er( on t e matter of t e pending motions and ot er incidents( w ic respondent ad long been pending wit o!t respondent a#ing acted t ereon or resol#ed t e same( t e SC fo!nd respondent remiss in is d!t"$ T e 7 motionsNincidents were left !nacted !pon from 5 to 7 mont s and were still pending w en t e administrati#e complaint was filed against im$ Hnder C!le 5$?7 of t e Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct( a 3!dge s all dispose of t e co!rtJs b!siness promptl" and decide t e cases wit in t e re9!ired periods$ + ile t e prosec!tor in t is case is not wit o!t fa!lt( t e respondent cannot escape responsibilit" for is inaction of t e pending motions before im$ E#en ass!ming arguendo t at t e #ario!s motions filed b" t e prosec!tor were considered to be mere scraps of paper or wit o!t merit( t e 3!dge m!st ne#ert eless resol#e on t ose matters promptl" b" granting or den"ing t em$ De'a Cr&6 vs. Bersa/ira A.2. No. RT%500#*-3. %&'y 2,) 2000. ""- SCRA "*" PONENTE: Inares0Santiago FACTS: Cespondent was c arged wit t e #iolation of t e Anti0:raft and Corr!pt Practices Act( Code of Cond!ct and Et ical Standards for P!blic Officials( and t e Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct$T e complainant alleges t at respondent gra#el" ab!sed is discretion b" iss!ing !nreasonable orders for postponement to !n3!stl" dela" t e administration of 3!stice$ %ELD: T e !nreasonable dela" of a 3!dge in resol#ing a pending incident is a #iolation of t e norms of 3!dicial cond!ct and constit!tes a gro!nd for administrati#e sanction against t e defa!lting magistrate$ *ndeed( t e Co!rt as consistentl" impressed !pon t e 3!dges t e need to decide cases promptl" and e-peditio!sl" on t e principle t at 3!stice dela"ed is 3!stice denied$ 1e'i/on C&evas vs. Isa&ro Ba'.erian A.2. No. 2T%5005#23-. %&ne 2") 2000. "", SCRA 2,2 PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: A complaint of e3ectment was filed in t e sala of .TC 2!dge Balderian$ + en t e last re9!ired paper was filed on 56 .arc 6<<G( t e case was deemed s!bmitted for decision( to be rendered not later t an April 5?$ After t e lapse of 6? mont s from t e time t e last paper was filed( and despite t e filing of t ree .otions for Earl" Decision( said case remained !ndecided$ %ELD T e C!le on S!mmar" Proced!re pro#ides t at t e co!rt s all render 3!dgement wit in 5? da"s from t e time t e case is s!bmitted for 3!dgement$ C!le 5$?7 of Canon 5 of t e Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct en3oins 3!dges to decide cases wit in t e re9!ired periods$ Cespondent as miserabl" failed to li#e !p to t is standard$ Nor was t ere an" e-planation gi#en b" respondent for t e dela"$ 2!dge Balderian is g!ilt" of gross negligence and inefficienc") fined P7(???$??$ Re8&est o %&.;e Ir/a Dita v. 2asa/ayor A. 2. No. $$5#5#-5RTC %&ne 2#) #$$$. "#- SCRA 2#$ PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: CTC 2!dge .asama"or as'ed for an e-tension of time wit in w ic to decide a Criminal Case on t e gro!nd t at ,t e case in#ol#es legal 9!estions w ic re9!ire caref!l st!d" for w ic As eB as not eno!g time considering t e #er" ea#" caseload of t e single0sala co!rt o#er w ic s e presides$, T e re9!est was made after t e original period ad e-pired$ As .asama"or did not specif" t e period of e-tension s e was see'ing( s e was directed to inform t e Co!rt w et er or not s e ad alread" rendered er decision in t e s!b3ect criminal case and( in an" e#ent( to e-plain w " no disciplinar" action

17

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES s o!ld be ta'en against er for ma'ing er re9!est for e-tension after t e e-piration of t e reglementar" period for deciding cases$ %ELD: .asama"or is g!ilt" of gross inefficienc" and t e Co!rt ordered er to pa" a fine in t e amo!nt of P7(???$?? wit warning t at a repetition of t e same or similar act or omission will be dealt wit more se#erel"$ A ea#" caseload ma" e-c!se a 3!dge&s fail!re to decide cases wit in t e reglementar" period( b!t not isN er fail!re to re9!est an e-tension of time wit in w ic to decide t e same on time( i$e$( before t e e-piration of t e period to be e-tended$ *ndeed( cogni/ant of t e caseload of 3!dges and mindf!l of t e press!re of t eir wor'( t is Co!rt almost alwa"s grants re9!ests for e-tension of time to decide cases$ B!t t e re9!est for e-tension m!st be made on time$ %owe#er( as admitted b" er( t is is not t e first time .asama"or failed to ma'e a re9!est for e-tension before t e lapse of t e period to be e-tended$ Re7 Re4ort on t=e %&.i!ia' A&.it o Cases in t=e RTC) Br. "*) Iri;a City A. 2. No. $35(52-25RTC Nov. 23) #$$(. 2$( SCRA 3#0 PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: *n #iew of t e report s!bmitted b" a 2!dicial A!dit Team( t e Co!rt re9!ired CTC 2!dge :on/ales of *riga Cit" to comment on is fail!re: 468 to decide t ree 458 ci#il cases wit in t ree 458 mont s from t e time t e" ad been s!bmitted to im for decision) 418 to act( for an !nreasonable period of time on eig t 4@8 ot er cases) and 458 to arc i#e ten 46?8 criminal cases$ %ELD: 2!dge :on/ales was satisfactoril" able to e-plain t e dela" of some of t e cases w ile e was !nable to e-plain ot ers$ T !s( a fine of P1?(???$?? was imposed on im$ Art$ =***( O67 468 of t e Constit!tion states: All cases or matters filed after t e effecti#it" of t e Constit!tion m!st be decided or resol#ed wit in twent" fo!r mont s from date of s!bmission for t e SC( and !nless red!ced b" t e SC( twel#e mont s for all lower collegiate co!rts( and t ree mont s for all ot er lower co!rts$ To implement t e constit!tional mandate( Canon 5( C!le 5$?7 of t e Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct pro#ides: A 3!dge s all dispose of t e co!rt&s b!siness promptl" and decide cases wit in t e re9!ired periods$ On t e prompt resol!tion of cases( Art$ ***( O6E of t e Constit!tion states: All persons s all a#e t e rig t to a speed" disposition of t eir cases before all 3!dicial( 9!asi03!dicial( or administrati#e bodies$ Canon 5( C!le 5$?< of t e Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct pro#ides: A 3!dge s o!ld organi/e and s!per#ise t e co!rt personnel to ens!re t e prompt and efficient dispatc of b!siness( and re9!ire at all times t e obser#ance of ig standards of p!blic ser#ice and fidelit"$ Ne'son E. N; v. Leti!ia :. U'i+ari A. 2. No. 2T%5$(5##*(. %&'y "0) #$$(. 2$" SCRA ",2 PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: Complaint b" Att"$ Ng on t e alleged inaction and fail!re of respondent 2!dge Hlibari to resol#e pending motions in er sala was filed$ %e also alleges t at respondent is ,a la/" 3!dge, w o calls er cases late at <:5? in t e morning in er c ambers instead of in open co!rt and w o ,repeatedl" neglects or fails to disc arge er d!ties$F %ELD: T is is a reflection on respondent 3!dge&s management of er doc'et and indicates fail!re on er part to abide b" t e Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct( Canon 5$ C!le 5$?@ re9!ires 3!dges to diligentl" disc arge administrati#e responsibilities( maintain professional competence in co!rt management( and facilitate t e performance of administrati#e f!nctions of ot er 3!dges and co!rt personnel$ C!le 5$?< re9!ires 3!dges to organi/e and s!per#ise t e co!rt personnel to ens!re t e prompt and efficient dispatc of b!siness( and re9!ire at all times t e obser#ance of ig standards of p!blic ser#ice and fidelit"$ C!le 5$?7 re9!ires 3!dges to dispose of t eir co!rt&s b!siness promptl" and wit in t e periods prescribed b" law or r!les$ *t needs ardl" to be said t at dela"s in co!rt !ndermine t e people&s fait and confidence in t e 3!diciar" and bring it into disrep!te$ T is admonition as special application to respondent 3!dge w o( as an .eTC 3!dge( is a frontline official of t e 3!diciar"$ S e s o!ld at all times act wit efficienc" and wit probit"$

1E

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES T e fact t at respondent as no permanentl" assigned stenograp er cannot completel" e-c!se er fail!re to timel" resol#e se#eral motions$ Ro/eo Sta. Ana v. Gra!iano H. Arin.ay) %r. A. 2. No. RT%5$35#"$,. De!. #3) #$$3. 2(" SCRA "$2 PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: Complaint against 2!dge Arinda" for dela" in resol#ing 1 Criminal Cases was filed$ %e admits t at t e cases were s!bmitted for resol!tion w en t e prosec!tion rested and acc!sed was considered to a#e wai#ed er rig t to introd!ce e#idence b" er fail!re to do so$ T ree "ears ad gone b" wit o!t a decision$ *n is comment( e alleges t at t e aforesaid cases were among 1?? transferred to is sala w en e ass!med office and t at e decided to wait( rel"ing on t e possibilit" of an amicable settlement b" t e parties$ %ELD: Hnder t e law( e is re9!ired to decide cases wit in <? da"s$ *ndeed( a 3!dge cannot wait indefinitel" for t e parties to come to a settlement wit o!t opening imself to s!spicion of partialit" and bias$ As t is Co!rt as eld: ,Dela" in t e disposition of cases erodes t e fait and confidence of o!r people in t e 3!diciar"( lowers its standards( and brings it into disrep!te$, O i!e o t=e Co&rt A./inistrator vs. Pan;ani+an A.2. No. RT%5$-5#"*0. A&;&st #() #$$3. 233 SCRA ,$$ PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: Cespondent is c arged wit reglementar" period$ gross negligence in failing to decide t e cases wit in t e

%ELD: Cespondent&s fail!re to decide cases constit!tes a #iolation of Canon 5( C!le 5$?7 of t e Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct w ic re9!ires 3!dges to dispose of t eir co!rt&s b!siness promptl" and decide cases wit in t e period specified in t e Constit!tion( i$e$( t ree 458 mont s or ninet" 4<?8 da"s from t e filing of t e last pleading( brief( or memorand!m$ T is canon is intended to implement t e Constit!tion w ic ma'es it t e d!t" of trial co!rts to decide cases wit in t ree mont s( e#en as it gi#es parties to a s!it t e rig t to t e speed" disposition of t eir cases$ Cespondent 3!dge 'new of t e cases pending resol!tion$ Re4ort on t=e %&.i!ia' A&.it an. P=ysi!a' Inventory o t=e Re!or.s o !ases in 2TCC5Br. 2) Batan;as City. A. 2. No. $,5#05$-52TCC. Se4t. *) #$$*. 2,( SCRA "PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS:T is concerns t e recommendation of t e Office of t e Co!rt Administrator to ta'e disciplinar" action against 2!dge Francisco D$ S!lit of t e .TC in t e Cities 4Branc 18 at Batangas Cit" and certain emplo"ees of is co!rt( t e 3!dge for is fail!re to decide nineteen 46<8 cases wit in ninet" 4<?8 da"s as re9!ired b" law( and t e emplo"ees for t eir fail!re to obser#e office o!rs$ + en t e a!dit team re9!ested t e Cler' of Co!rt to prod!ce t e records of t e said cases( t e latter was able to acco!nt for onl" si- 4E8 cases wit t e e-planation t at t e ot er t irteen 4658 cases are still wit 2!dge S!lit$ *t s o!ld be noted t at t e aforesaid E cases 4Criminal Cases Nos$ 6EE;G( 6G117( 6GEE?( 6@6GG( 6@1?; and 6<5?58 were still !ndecided at t e time of t e a!dit$ %ELD: 2!dge S!lit claims t at is caseload is appreciabl" lower t an t at of t e ot er sala( beca!se e as been doing is best to dispose of cases on time$ *ndeed( is R!arterl" Ceport dated .arc 6<<; s ows t at e ad onl" 5?? pending$ *n t e same report( owe#er( and in is mont l" reports s!bmitted in 6<<5( e omitted to mention t e nineteen 46<8 cases in 9!estion$ No reason as been gi#en b" 2!dge

1G

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES S!lit w " e failed to report t ese cases to t e Co!rt$ T e fail!re of 2!dge S!lit to disclose t is fact constit!tes serio!s miscond!ct and warrants t e imposition of a penalt" ig er t an t at recommended b" t e OCA$ *ndeed( t e admonition t at a 3!dge&s cond!ct s o!ld be abo#e reproac 4Canon 56( Canons of 2!dicial Et ics8 applies wit greater force to is dealings wit t e Co!rt !nder w ose s!per#ision e is$ Re4ort on t=e %&.i!ia' A&.it Con.&!te. in t=e RTC) Bran!= #-) o Laoa; City) Presi.e. +y %&.;e L&is B. Be''o) %r. A. 2. No. $*5"5($5RTC. A&;. 2") #$$*. 2-0 SCRA """ PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS:*n #iew of t e comp!lsor" retirement on 2an!ar" 6<( 6<<7 of 2!dge L!is Bello( 2r$ of t e Cegional Trial Co!rt 4Branc 6E8 of Laoag Cit"( t e Office of t e Co!rt Administrator 4OCA8 sent a team to cond!ct an in#entor" and a!dit of pending cases in is co!rt$ *n its report( dated .arc @( 6<<7( t e OCA fo!nd t at Branc 6E ad ninet"0nine 4<<8 pending cases( of w ic fift"0se#en 47G8 were criminal cases( w ile fort"0two 4;18 were ci#il cases$ Of t e fift"0se#en 47G8 criminal cases( fo!r 4;8 ad been s!bmitted for decision b!t( as of t e date of t e a!dit( t e <?0da" period for deciding t em ad not "et e-pired$ On t e ot er and( of t e ;1 ci#il cases( twel#e 4618 ad been s!bmitted for decision$ Of t ese( se#en 4G8 were cases in w ic ( on t e date of t e a!dit( t e <?0da" period ad not "et e-pired according to t e a!dit team$ T e report s ows t at t ere are onl" fo!r 4;8 cases w ic 2!dge Bello failed to decide wit in <? da"s 4Ci#il case Nos$ <??G( <<7<( 6?;7@( S <6E5$8$ *t appeared t at in t ese ; cases( t e stenograp ic notes were not "et transcribed$ %ELD: Cespondent 3!dge failed to compl" to decide wit in <? da"s fo!r 4;8 cases as mandated b" Art$ =***( O67 of t e Constit!tion: All cases or matters filed after t e effecti#it" of t is Constit!tion m!st be decided or resol#ed wit in twent"0fo!r mont s from date of s!bmission for t e S!preme Co!rt( twel#e mont s for all lower collegiate co!rts( and t ree mont s for all ot er lower co!rts$ Cannon 5( C!le 5$?7 of t e Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct also en3oins t e same r!le: A 3!dge s all dispose of t e co!rt&s b!siness promptl" and decide cases wit in t e re9!ired periods$ T e S!preme Co!rt as consistentl" impressed !pon 3!dges t e need to decide cases promptl" and e-peditio!sl" on t e principle t at 3!stice dela"ed is 3!stice denied$ Dela" in t e disposition of cases erodes t e fait and confidence of o!r people in t e 3!diciar"( lowers its standards( and brings it into disrep!te$ i. Duty to Decide Cases wit) Dis!atc) Es!ecially T)ose Co#ered by t)e %ule on Summary :rocedure 2on ort Her/anos A;ri!&'t&ra' DevFt vs. %&.;e Ro'an.o Ra/ire6 A.2. 2T%50#5#"*3. 2ar. 2() 200# PONENTE: .elo FACTS: *n a forcible entr" case( respondent 2!dge r!led in fa#or of defendants$ On appeal( t e CTC re#ersed and remanded t e case$ Complainants alleged t at t e .TC decision was rendered fo!r mont s after t e last pleading was filed( in #iolation of t e C!les on S!mmar" Proced!re$ Complainants also allege t at defendantJs defense on t e administrati#e case( t at is fail!re to decide wit in t e period was d!e to n!mero!s pleadings filed b" t e parties and ot er statements on t e iss!e of prior p "sical possession was s!b3!dice$ %ELD: S!b3!dice is defined as D!nder or before a 3!dge or co!rt) !nder 3!dicial considerationF$ T e trial of t e merits of t e forcible entr" case are still on going and besides t e 9!estion posed b" t ese iss!es are 3!dicial in c aracter as t ese go to t e assessment of e#idence$ *n s!c case t e remed" of complainants are t ose fo!nd in t e C!les of Co!rt and not an administrati#e case$ %owe#er( respondent decided t e case be"ond t e period$ T e Co!rt as constantl" impressed !pon 3!dges t e need to

1@

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES deicde cases promptl" and e-peditio!sl"( for it cannot be gainsaid t at 3!stice dela"ed is 3!stice denied$ Dela" in t e disposition of cases !ndermines t e peopleJs fait and confidence in t e 3!diciar"$ ii. %e-uest for E5tension of Time to Decide Cases Re8&est o %&.;e Ir/a Dita 2asa/ayor vs. RTC A.2. No. $$5253$5RTC. 2ar. 2#) 2000. "2( SCRA *(, PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: CTC 2!dge .asama"or was twice fo!nd g!ilt" of gross inefficienc" for re9!esting an e-tension of time to decide cases e#en after t e lapse of t e period so!g t to be e-tended$ *n anot er case( .asama"or re9!ested for an e-tension of <? da"s to decide( b!t was onl" granted ;7 da"s$ Still !nable to decide( .asama"or re9!ested anot er e-tension( b!t filed it be"ond t e ;7t da"( t in'ing t at er initial re9!est of <? da"s was granted$ HELD While the Code of Judicial Ethics enjoins judges to decide cases within the period prescribed by law, an extension of time to decide cases is allowed pro ided the re!uest is made before the lapse of the period sought to be extended" #asamayor$s occasional re!uests for extension to decide cases filed out of time shows serious neglect in the performance of her obligation to the parties and to the speedy and orderly administration of justice% she is guilty of gross inefficiency% fined &'(,)))" iii. +ailure to Decide Case /it)in %eglementary :eriod9 Administrati#e Com!laint is not Dismissed by /it)drawal of Com!lainant 2os8&era vs. %&.;e Le;as4i A.2. No. RT%5$$5#*##. %&'y #0) 2000. ""* SCRA "2PONENTE: :on/aga0Ce"es FACTS: A case for reco#er" of possession was deemed s!bmitted for decision wit CTC 2!dge Legaspi$ %e rendered 3!dgement onl" after t ree "ears on t e e-c!se t at e ad to act as pairing 3!dge in t ree ot er Branc es and t at e allowed t e parties s!c period to find an amicable settlement$ Plaintiff in t e original case filed t is administrati#e complaint against Legaspi for dereliction of d!t"$ Legaspi now claims t at e ad tal'ed wit co!nsel of plaintiff( w o agreed to wit draw t e administrati#e case$ %ELD Lower co!rts m!st decide cases wit in 5 mont s from t e date of s!bmission( wit o!t pre3!dice to see'ing an e-tension wit t e SC$ Non0obser#ance constit!tes a gro!nd for administrati#e sanction$ E#en ass!ming t e e-c!ses were tr!e( t e" co!ld onl" mitigate t e 3!dgeJs liabilit" beca!se a 3!dge s o!ld not be at t e merc" of t e w ims of law"ers and parties for it is not t eir con#enience w ic s o!ld be t e primordial consideration( b!t t e administration of 3!stice$ .oreo#er( an administrati#e complaint is not a!tomaticall" dismissed b" wit drawal of complainant$ T e need to maintain t e fait and confidence of t e people in t e go#ernment and its agencies and instr!mentalities s o!ld not be made to depend on t e w ims and caprices of t e complainants w o are( in a real sense( onl" witnesses t erein$ 2!dge Legaspi is administrati#el" liable for is fail!re to render t e decision wit in t e prescribed period of ninet" da"s from t e time t e case was s!bmitted for decision) fined P1(???$ i#. 4iolation of Constitution Di6on vs. Lo4e6 A. 2. No. RT%5$-5#""(. Se4t. *) #$$3. 23( SCRA ,(" PONENTE: .endo/a

1<

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES FACTS: Complainant alleges t at t e fail!re of respondent 3!dge to f!rnis im a cop" of t e decision !ntil almost one "ear and eig t mont s after t e prom!lgation of its dispositi#e portion constit!tes a #iolation of Art$ =***( O6; of t e Constit!tion w ic pro ibits co!rts from rendering decisions wit o!t e-pressing t erein clearl" and distinctl" t e facts and law on w ic t e" are based and O67 of t e same Art$ =***( w ic pro#ides t at in all cases lower co!rts m!st render t eir decisions wit in t ree mont s from t e date of t eir s!bmission$ %e alleges f!rt er t at e was denied t e rig t to a speed" trial in #iolation of Art$ ***( O6;418 of t e Constit!tion and t at 2!dge Lope/ falsified er decision b" antedating it and incl!ding t erein( as additional penalt"( a fine of P7(???$??$ %ELD: Ies$ T e fact is t at it too' a "ear and eig t mont s more before t is was done and a cop" of t e complete decision f!rnis ed t e complainant on December 6E( 6<<;$ *t is clear t at merel" reading t e dispositi#e portion of t e decision to t e acc!sed is not s!fficient$ *t is t e 3!dgment t at m!st be read to im( stating t e facts and t e law on w ic s!c 3!dgment is based$ Cespondent failed to render er decision wit in t ree mont s as re9!ired b" Art$ =***( O67 of t e Constit!tion$ + at respondent did in t is case was to render w at is 'nown as a ,sin per3!icio, 3!dgment( w ic is a 3!dgment wit o!t a statement of t e facts in s!pport of its concl!sion to be later s!pplemented b" t e final 3!dgment$ As earl" as 6<15( t is Co!rt alread" e-pressed its disappro#al of t e practice of rendering ,sin per3!icio, 3!dgments$ + at m!st be prom!lgated m!st be t e complete decision$ ,. Delaying Tactics Eteria T. Tan vs. %&.;e 2a/erto E. Co'i 'ores A./. 2atter No. 2T%5$,5$32 %an. 20) #$$*. 2,0 SCRA "0" PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: Tan c arged 2!dge Coliflores and Cler' of Co!rt Legaspi for ,ob#io!sl" intentional deferment and dela"ing tactics, in t e transmission to t e CTC of t e original records of er Case for conc!binage filed against er !sband and t e latter&s s!pposed paramo!r$ %ELD: 2!dge Coliflores is not liable for t e "ear0long dela" in t e transmission of t e records$ + ile e as s!per#ision of Legaspi( 2!dge cannot be e-pected to constantl" c ec' on t e latter&s performance of is d!ties since Legaspi is pres!med to be a responsible emplo"ee$ T e 2!dge ad a rig t to e-pect t at t e Cler' of Co!rt wo!ld enforce is order$ Legaspi&s e-planation for t e dela" is not pers!asi#e$ As t e Cler' of Co!rt( e is responsible for seeing to it t at t e records of appealed cases are properl" sent to t e appropriate appellate co!rt wit o!t dela"$ %e as failed to set an e-ample of official integrit"( responsibilit" and efficienc" for ot ers( especiall" t ose in is staff$ 8. 'egligence in t)e Duty to Informing t)e :arties of +inal 0udgment and E5ecution 0ent&ra B. Ayo v. L&!ia 0io'a;o5Isnani) et a'. A. 2. No. RT%5$$5#,,* %&ne 2#) #$$$. "0( SCRA *," PONENTE: .endo/a Facts: T is is a complaint filed b" A"o against CTC 2!dge =iolago0*snani( Cler' of Co!rt L!"( S eriff %atab( Cler' of Co!rt Pere/( and Legal Cesearc er Astorga$ Complainant was t e representati#e of A9!ino and er minor c ildren in Ci#il Case No$ <6057;$ *n an amended decision rendered b" 2!dge *snani( A9!ino and er c ildren were awarded indemnit" for t e deat of er !sband( for loss of is earning capacit"( act!al damages( and moral damages$ A"o alleged t at it too' respondents an !nreasonabl" long time( from 2!l" 67( 6<<G( w en t e writ was iss!ed( to December 6G( 6<<G( to enforce t e writ of e-ec!tion$ A"o claimed t at t e two did not e#en send t e writ of e-ec!tion t ro!g registered

5?

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES mail to t e appropriate Cler' of Co!rt andNor t e S eriff and 3!risdiction to enforce said writ$ is dep!t" w o a#e administrati#e

%ELD: %atab correctl" arg!ed t at e cannot be blamed for t e dela" since e ad not ing to do wit t e s!b3ect writ considering t at e was not t e addressee t ereof$ T e case against im is dismissed$ Pere/ cannot be eld liable for Ab!se of Discretion and Non0feasance merel" beca!se s e ref!sed to recei#e and implement t e s!b3ect writ$ T e reasons s e ga#e in s!pport of er defense are legal and #alid$ *n so far as s e is concerned( t is case s o!ld be dismissed$ Astorga was legall" pres!med to a#e reg!larl" performed is d!t" as t e writ was alread" endorsed to t e s eriff$ 2!dge *snani is not liable for gra#e ab!se of discretion and partialit"$ %er actions clearl" s owed t at s e was scr!p!lo!s in seeing to it t at t e re9!irements of fair pla" and d!e process were satisfied$ Onl" L!" m!st ta'e responsibilit" for t e dela" in t e implementation of t e writ of e-ec!tion$ %e ga#e no reason w "( considering t at t e writ of e-ec!tion was iss!ed as earl" as 2!l" 67( 6<<G( e ga#e t e same to complainant for deli#er" to t e CTC of Dinal!pi an onl" on December 6G( 6<<G$ +orse( w en e finall" iss!ed t e writ( L!" endorsed it to t e Balanga branc w ic does not a#e t e territorial 3!risdiction to enforce t e writ$ %e was finall" able to endorse an alias writ of e-ec!tion to t e Cler' of Co!rt and E-0Officio S eriff of t e appropriate co!rt( t e CTC of Dinal!pi an onl" on 2!ne <( 6<<@$ As an officer of t e co!rt( respondent was d!t"0bo!nd to !se reasonable s'ill and diligence in t e performance of is officiall" designated d!ties$ L!" is g!ilt" of simple neglect of d!t" w ic ( p!rs!ant to t e Ci#il Ser#ice Law( is a less gra#e offense p!nis able b" s!spension for one mont and one da" to si- mont s for t e first infraction$ 1. Immorality and 7nbecoming Conduct 0.C. Pon!e Co.) In!. 0. E.&arte A.2. No. RT%5$$5#,$*. O!t. #() 2000. "," SCRA ,,* PONENTE: Inares0Santiago FACTS: Complaint alleges t at respondent 3!dge ref!sed to correct an ob#io!sl" erroneo!s comp!tation in a mone" 3!dgment$ *t is alleged t at respondent is g!ilt" of gross neglect of d!t"$ %ELD: Celati#e imm!nit" is not a license to be negligent or ab!si#e and arbitrar" in performing ad3!dicator" prerogati#es$ *t does not relie#e a 3!dge of is obligation to obser#e propriet"( discreetness and d!e care in t e performance of is 3!dicial f!nctions$ Ra.9aie v. A'overa A.C. No. ,3,(. A&;. ,) 2000. ""3 SCRA 2,, PEC CHC*A. FACTS: Att"$ Alo#era( former CTC 2!dge( faces disbarment for a#ing penned a Decision long after is retirement from t e 2!diciar"( w ic !ltimatel" di#ested complainant of er propert"$ T e gist of t e anomalies committed b" t e respondent 3!dge are: 468 T e case was not tried$ + at transpired was a moc' or sim!lated trial inside is c ambers w ere onl" t e law"er of t e plaintiffs and a co!rt stenograp er from anot er co!rt were present$ No 2!dge or co!rt personnel were present as t ere was act!al Co!rt session in open co!rt going on at t at time) 418 T e records of t e case were wit 2!dge Alo#era and remained wit im e#en after is retirement$ %e did not ret!rn t e record to t e Co!rt Cler' in C arge of Ci#il Cases) 458 T e record of t e case t!rned !p on t e table of t e Co!rt Cler' toget er wit t e DOffer of E- ibitsF of t e law"er of t e plaintiffs and t e DOrderF( after t e retirement of 2!dge Alo#era$ Bot t e Offer and t e Order admitting t e e- ibits were not properl" filed and do not bear mar'ings of a#ing been recei#ed b" t e co!rt) 4;8 T e DdecisionF of 2!dge Alo#era was filed wit t e co!rt b" 2!dge Alo#era imself and beca!se e was no longer a 3!dge is s!bmission was ref!sed$ %ELD: Disbarred$ Cespondent as t !s s!fficientl" demonstrated t at e is morall" and legall" !nfit to remain in t e e-cl!si#e and onorable fraternit" of t e legal profession$ T e e#idence against respondent

56

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES were all 9!ite telling on ow t e latter acted in a grossl" repre ensible manner in a#ing t e 9!estioned decision come to fore( leading !ltimatel" to its e-ec!tion di#esting t e complainant of er propert"$ Cespondent gra#el" ab!sed is relations ip wit is former staff( pompo!sl" fla!nting is erstw ile standing as a 3!dge$ %e disregarded is primar" d!t" as an officer of t e co!rt( w o is sworn to assist t e co!rts and not to impede or per#ert t e administration of 3!stice to all and s!ndr"$ *n so doing( e made a moc'er" of t e 3!diciar" and eroded p!blic confidence in co!rts and law"ers$ Do'ores Go/e6 v. %&.;e Ro.o' o A. Gat.&'a 2$" SCRA ,"" PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: :ome/ is t e complainant in 1 different criminal cases before 2!dge :atd!la$ + en s e petitioned t e SC to c ange t e #en!e of 6 of t e cases( Cespondent s!spended t e sc ed!led earings in bot cases$ + en re9!ired b" t e SC to s ow ca!se w " disciplinar" action s o!ld not be ta'en against im( e dela"ed is comment b!t e#ent!all" e-plained t at t e s!spension of earing was made beca!se of t e pending re9!est for c ange of #en!e$ %ELD: 2!dge :atd!la acted #indicti#el" S oppressi#el"( apparentl" ir'ed b" t e re9!est of petitioner$ %e need not a#e s!spended bot earings as t e c ange of #en!e onl" in#ol#ed one case$ %is dela" in commenting on t e c ange of #en!e also effecti#el" dela"ed bot cases b" 7 mont s$ %is acts are not free from t e appearance of impropriet"( let alone be"ond reproac ( as re9!ired b" Canon 5 of t e Canons of 2!dicial Et ics$ E!&+e5Ba.e' vs. De 'a Pe>a Ba.e' A.2. No. P5$35#2,(. %&ne #") #$$3. 23" SCRA "20 PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: A complaint for immoralit" c arged respondent Co!rt Stenograp er for a#ing illicit relations wit Dalida b" w om e ad begot a c ild( and failing to ma'e good a promissor" note e ad made to pa" is wife as s!pport for t eir da!g ter and is promise to pa" P7??$?? a mont from 2an!ar" 6<<7( p!rs!ant to t e decision in a s!pport case filed b" complainant$ Cespondent denied all of t ese and claimed to a#e been li#ing alone since t e separation from is wife$ T ereafter( respondent admitted t e c arges b!t claimed t at e fo!nd solace in t e arms of Dalida w ic is own wife co!ld not offer im and t at t e separation wit is wife as alread" made t em strangers to eac ot er$ %ELD: %e is g!ilt" of immoralit" and per3!r" and recommended is s!spension wit o!t pa" for one 468 "ear$ Hnder C!le >*=( O154o8 of t e Ci#il Ser#ice C!les and applicable r!lings( immoralit" is considered a gra#e offense and is p!nis ed b" s!spension for E mont s and 6 da" to 6 "ear for t e first offense and( for t e second offense( b" dismissal$ As alread" noted( respondent declares t at it is ,t is new0fo!nd famil"(, w ic as gi#en im ,solace and comfort and e#en a reason to contin!e li#ing$, *nstead of e-pressing remorse or e#en regret for a#ing left is wife( e anno!nces t at e as in fact bro!g t an action for ann!lment of is marriage$ E//a %. Casti''o vs. %&.;e 2an&e' 2. Ca'ano;) %r. A. 2. No. RT%5$05,,3. De!. #-) #$$,. #$$ SCRA 3* PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: 2!dge Calanog was acc!sed of cond!ct !nbecoming a p!blic official and immoralit"$ Castillo alleged t at e 4Calanog8 establis ed an intimate( albeit immoral( relations ip wit complainant alt o!g e is a married man$

51

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES %ELD: :!ilt"$ Canon *( C!le 6$?6 P A 3!dge s o!ld be t e embodiment of competence( integrit"( probit" and independence$ T e integrit" and independence of t e 3!diciar" can be red!ced to one common denominator: t e 3!dge P t e indi#id!al w o dispenses 3!stice( and !pon w ose attrib!tes depend t e p!blic perception of t e 3!diciar"$ T ere is no dic otom" of moralit": a p!blic official is also 3!dged b" is pri#ate morals$ T e Code dictates t at a 3!dge( in order to promote p!blic confidence in t e integrit" and impartialit" of t e 3!diciar"( m!st be a#e wit propriet" at all times$ As t e SC as #er" recentl" e-plained( a 3!dge&s official life cannot simpl" be detac ed or separated from is personal e-istence$ 12. :ro!riety of Conduct6Ta=ing Interest in atter ?efore )is Court BIm!artialityC

IN RE7 Dero;atory News Ite/s C=ar;in; CA %&sti!e De/etrio De/etria wit= Inter eren!e on Be=a' o a S&s4e!te. Dr&; :&een A.2. No. 0050350$5CA. 2ar. 23) 200# Per C!riam FACTS: Se#eral newspaper articles collecti#el" reported t at CA Associate 2!stice Demetria tried to intercede on be alf of s!spected C inese dr!g R!een I! I!' Lai( w o went in and o!t of prison to pla" in a .anila casino$ T e C ief State Prosec!tor ad recei#ed a p one call from Demetria as'ing im for t e wit drawal of se#eral motions filed wit t e CTC$ T e DO2 was also recei#ing press!re from Demetria to Dgo slow in prosec!ting I! I!' LaiF$ %ELD: T e cond!ct and be a#ior of e#er"one connected wit an office c arged wit t e dispensation of 3!stice is circ!mscribed wit t e ea#" b!rden of responsibilit"$ %is at all times m!st be c aracteri/ed wit propriet" and m!st be abo#e s!spicion$ %is m!st be free of e#en a w iff of impropriet"( not onl" wit respect to t e performance of is 3!dicial d!ties( b!t also is be a#ior o!tside t e co!rtroom and as a pri#ate indi#id!al$ T e mere mention of is name as allegedl" law"ering for a s!spected dr!g 9!een and interfering wit er prosec!tion serio!sl" !ndermined t e integrit" of t e entire 2!diciar"$ %ig et ical principles and a sense of propriet" s o!ld be maintained( wit o!t w ic t e fait of t e people in t e 2!diciar" so indispensable in an orderl" societ" cannot be preser#ed$ T ere is simpl" no place in t e 2!diciar" for t ose w o cannot meet t e e-acting standards of 3!dicial cond!ct and integrit"$ Hi'ario .e G&6/an vs. %&.;e Deo.oro Sison A.2. No. RT%50#5#-2$. 2ar. 2-) 200#. Per C!riam FACTS: A complaint was filed c arging respondent 2!dge wit gross ignorance of t e law and irreg!larities in connection wit an Election Case$ Complainant alleges t at respondent acted wit manifest partialit" in declaring t e case s!bmitted for decision alt o!g complainant ad not "et finis ed presenting is e#idence( scaring complainantJs witnesses and stopping co!nsel from as'ing 9!estions( accepting pleadings of t e ot er part" e#en after deadline( conferring personall" wit t e ad#erse part"( and n!llif"ing #otes in complainantJs fa#or$ Cespondent 3!dge also applied laws applicable onl" to baranga" officials$ %ELD: 2!dges s o!ld be diligent in 'eeping abreast wit de#elopments in law and 3!rispr!dence( and regard t e st!d" of law as a ne#er0ending and ceaseless process$ Elementar" is t e r!le t at w en laws or r!les are clear( it is inc!mbent !pon 3!dges to appl" t em regardless of personal belief or predilections$ A 3!dge m!st not onl" be impartial( e m!st also appear to be impartial$ %ence( t e 3!dge m!st( at all times( maintain t e appearance of fairness and impartialit"$ %is lang!age( bot written and spo'en( m!st be g!arded and meas!red lest t e best of intentions be misconstr!ed$ Fraterni/ing wit litigants tarnis es a 3!dgeJs appearance$ *t is improper for a 3!dge to meet wit t e acc!sed wit o!t t e presence of co!nsel$ Cespondent 2!dge is D*S.*SSED from ser#ice$

55

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES Pe.ro A. San %&an v. Lore 0. Ba;a'as!a A. 2. No. RT%5$35#"$*. %&ne *) #$$3. 2(" SCRA ,#PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS:One of t e properties in#ol#ed in t e intestate proceedings before 2!dge BagalacsaJs sala was a parcel of land w ic t e administrator of t e intestate estate sold !nder an emancipation patent to Pontillas o#er t e ob3ection of t e oppositors$ Pontillas in t!rn sold t e land to t e Newreac Corporation$ Complainant alleges t at respondent 3!dge s owed interest in t e sale of propert" t at is s!b3ect of litigation in er sala b" presenting for registration t e deed of sale e-ec!ted in fa#or of Newreac Corp( wit a note to facilitate t e registration$ %ELD: Canon 1 of t e Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct en3oins 3!dges to a#oid not 3!st impropriet" in t eir cond!ct b!t e#en t e mere appearance of impropriet"$ T is is tr!e not onl" in t e performance of t eir 3!dicial d!ties b!t in all t eir acti#ities( incl!ding t eir pri#ate life$ T e" m!st cond!ct t emsel#es in s!c a manner t at t e" gi#e no gro!nd for reproac $ *n t is case( respondent 3!dge&s note to t e register of deeds( re9!esting t at t e iss!ance of t e TCT be e-pedited gi#es gro!nd for s!spicion t at s e is !tili/ing t e power or prestige of er office to promote t e interest of ot ers$ *ndeed( t e cler' of t e register of deeds t o!g t it was respondent 3!dge w o was t e one w o was ca!sing t e transfer of t e emancipation patent$ 11. Duantum of :roof in S)owing Im!artiality of 0udge L&!ita Bi+oso vs. Os/&n.o 0i''an&eva A.2. No. 2T%50#5#"*-. A4r. #-) 200#. PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: Biboso filed an administrati#e case for se-!al arassment against 2!dge =illan!e#a$ Biboso allegedl" went to see =illan!e#a to Dfollow !pF t e ci#il case s e ad pending in =illan!e#aJs co!rt and cons!lt =illan!e#a regarding a complaint for estafa s e wanted to file against Na#arra$ T e SC fo!nd t at beca!se of material inconsistencies between BibosoJs affida#it and er statements d!ring t e cross0 e-amination( t e c arges for se-!al arassment were !ncorroborated$ %owe#er( t e SC also fo!nd t at respondent =illan!e#a prepared t e affida#it of BibosoJs fat er0in0law( s!c affida#it was !sed in t e case against Na#arra$ %ELD: Cespondent s o!ld be eld liable for is cond!ct in t e Criminal case$ Cespondent acted as a law"er for complainant and er fat er0in0law w en e drafted complainant&s affida#it t at became t e basis of a complaint for estafa filed against %eidi Na#arra$ B" acting as co!nsel for complainant and t e latter&s fat er0in0law in a case filed in is co!rt( respondent compromised is ne!tralit" and independence$ %ow co!ld e t en be e-pected to decide wit ob3ecti#it" and fairness t e cases in w ic e as acted as a law"er for t e plaintiff or complainantT Cespondent&s miscond!ct in t is case is f!rt er compo!nded b" t e fact t at e rendered t e legal ser#ices in 9!estion !sing go#ernment facilities d!ring office o!rs$ San;;&nian; Bayan vs. %&.;e Estre''a A.2. No. 0#5#-0( RT%. %an. #-) 200#. ",$ SCRA ,PONENTE: .elo FACTS: CTC 2!dge Estrella so!g t t e elp of NB* andwriting e-perts to e-amine aro!nd 6E(??? ballots( p!rs!ant to t e election protest of Papa against winning candidate :arcia$ Estrella r!led in fa#or of Papa( based solel" on t e concl!sions of t e NB*( wit o!t e-amining t e 9!estioned ballots despite t e mista'es in t e NB* Ceport( and despite t e res!lting margin of onl" 6E< #otes$ EstrellaJs ob#io!s bias was also e#ident in ot er instances: e did not set t e NB* report for earing) e did not allow :arcia to

5;

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES see t e report onl" !ntil immediatel" before t e prom!lgation of 3!dgement) PapaJs .otion for E-ec!tion Pending Appeal was dated one da" before t e da" of prom!lgation( indicating e ad prior 'nowledge of t e fa#orable decision$ %ELD Notwit standing t e errors in t e NB* report and t e res!lting margin of 6E< #otes( Estella based is decision solel" on t e concl!sions of t e NB* wit o!t e-amining t e ballots in co!rt0contrar" to Section 177 of t e Election Code$ T e foregoing a#e also raised t e s!spicion of partialit" on t e part of Estrella$ A 3!dge m!st promote p!blic confidence in t e integrit" and impartialit" of t e 3!diciar"$ T ese stringent standards are intended to ass!re parties of 3!st and e9!itable decisions and of a 3!diciar" t at is capable of dispensing impartial 3!stice in e#er" iss!e in e#er" trial$ %e is of serio!s miscond!ct( partialit"( and ine-c!sable negligence) fined P1?(???$ An; Be? C=en vs. A/a'ia An.ra.e A.2. No. RT%5$$5#*0,. Nov. #-) #$$$. "#( SCRA ## PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: Ang Me' C en filed administrati#e cases against 2!dge Andrade for 468 e-treme bias and ostilit" w en an order den"ing is motion for dis9!alification was not mailed to defendant( 418 Ds abb" record 'eepingF as t e complainant fo!nd t e record of is case in dis e#eledNdilapidated condition( and 458 contin!o!sl" mailing orders and notices despite oral manifestation of t e co!nsel of co0defendant of t e deat of is client$ %ELD: Alt o!g t e cler' of co!rt is tas'ed to maintain t e records( t e 3!dge a#ing s!per#ision o#er t e cler' of co!rt m!st see to it t at t e records are in order$ %owe#er( t e C!les on Ci#il Proced!re pro#ide t at it is t e attorne" of t e deceased w o s all notif" t e 3!dge of t e deat of t e part" on t e ass!mption t at t e attorne" is in a better position to notif" t e co!rt of t e deat of t e part"$ T e 3!dge cannot be fa!lted for contin!o!sl" sending t e deceased orders and notices$ Car'ito D. La6o v. %&.;e Antonio 0. Tion; A. 2. No. 2T%5$(5##3". De!. #*) #$$(. "00 SCRA 2#, PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: 2!dge Tiong was acc!sed of failing to in ibit imself in a criminal case beca!se e was related wit in t e fo!rt degree of affinit" to t e acc!sed$ T e 3!dge claims e did so in t e opes t at is presence wo!ld allow t e parties to settle amicabl"$ %ELD: 2!dge reprimanded$ A 3!dge s o!ld ta'e no part in a proceeding w ere is impartialit" mig t reasonabl" be 9!estioned$ Also( C!le 65G( C!les of Co!rt( pro#ides t at no 3!dge or 3!dicial officer s all sit in an" case in w ic e( inter alia( is related to eit er part" wit in t e si-t degree pf consang!init" or affinit"( or to co!nsel wit in t e fo!rt degree comp!ted according to t e r!les of t e ci#il law$ Hnder t is pro#ision( t e Presiding 2!dge is mandated to dis9!alif" imself from sitting in a case$ %e cannot e-ercise is discretion w et er to in ibit imself or not$ E'/a T. 1errer v. Genoveva C. 2ara/+a) et a'. A. 2. No. 2T%5$"53$*. 2ay #,) #$$(. 2$0 SCRA ,, PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: Complainant alleged t at respondent 3!dge forced er to sign an affida#it of desistance as basis for t e dismissal of t e criminal complaint for gra#e oral defamation against PO5 Eden( and dragged er from t e Cegional Office of t e Department of Agric!lt!re to respondentJs c ambers to settle er

57

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES differences wit PO5 Eden$ Complainant&s rig t slee#e was torn and er gold nec'lace was damaged as a res!lt of t e force !sed b" t e 3!dge$ %ELD: Slapping is a sign of contempt and not self0defense$ %er acts constit!tes gra#e miscond!ct and amo!nts to serio!s #iolation of t e canons of 2!dicial Et ics t at re9!ire t at a 2!dge&s acts w ile in office s o!ld be free from t e appearance of impropriet" and er personal be a#ior w ile in office and also in er e#er"da" life( s o!ld be be"ond reproac $ S e s owed a predisposition to !se p "sical #iolence and intemperate lang!age in p!blic w ic re#eals a mar'ed lac' of 3!dicial temperament and self0restraint( traits w ic ( besides t e basic e9!ipment of learning in t e law( are indispensable 9!alities of e#er" 3!dge$ *n ta'ing !nd!e interest in t e settlement of t e case( s e se#erel" compromised t e integrit" and impartialit" of er office$ Alt o!g t e initiati#e for t e settlement came from t e complainant( respondent 3!dge went o!t of er wa" to ins!re its s!ccess$ S e failed to obser#e pr!dence so necessar" if 3!dges are to be percei#ed to be impartial$ *ndeed( as e-emplars of law and 3!stice( 3!dges m!st a#oid not onl" impropriet" b!t e#en t e appearance of impropriet" in all t eir actions$ 0eroni!a Gon6a'es vs. %&.;e L&!as P. Bersa/in A. 2. No. RT%5$-5#",, 2ar. #") #$$-. 2*, SCRA -*2 PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: To satisf" 3!dgments in two cases in fa#or of :on/ales( two notices of le#" were presented on real propert" of Cr!/( w ic was preliminaril" attac ed w ile t e case was pending and s!bse9!entl" pro#isionall" registered in t e Cegister of Deeds$ %owe#er( t e same land was sold to C an prior to le#"$ C an claims t at s!c annotations pertaining to t e le#" be cancelled since Cr!/ no longer owned t e land$ Cespondent 3!dge ordered t e cancellation$ %ELD: T ere is no e#idence on record to pro#e t e c arge t at respondent 3!dge !nd!l" fa#ored spo!ses C an$ No proof of partialit" as been s own b" complainant$ .ere s!spicion t at a 3!dge is partial to one of t e parties is not eno!g $ Nor is t ere an" s owing t at respondent 3!dge 'nowingl" rendered an !n3!st interloc!tor" orders and an !n3!st 3!dgment$ it as not been s own( in t e first place( t at t e 3!dgment is !n3!st or t at it is contrar" to law or not s!pported b" e#idence( and( in t e second place( t at it was made wit conscio!s and deliberate intent to do an in3!stice$ %owe#er( respondent 3!dge s o!ld a#e ordered notice to be gi#en to complainant and petitioner to implead complainant since it appears t at s e ad an ad#erse interest annotated on t e bac' of t eir certificate title$ Section 6?@ of P$D$ No$ 671< re9!ires t is notice$ T !s( t e 3!dge is admonis ed$ 13. +ailure to "i#e Due 'otice ?efore an Order of E5ecution. A'i!ia T. Baw vs. %&.;e Casiano P. An&n!ia!ion) %r. A. 2. No. 2T%5$"5(##. 2ar. #) #$$*. 2,2 SCRA 2,$ PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: Maw complains t at *.C&s ,E- Parte .otion for E-ec!tion, was granted b" respondent 3!dge on t e same da" t at it was filed wit o!t notice to er and er !sband$ S e also claims t at S eriff Arib!abo was not a!t ori/ed to enforce t e writ of e-ec!tion beca!se e was not t e dep!t" or branc s eriff nor was e d!l" designated or appointed s eriff b" respondent 3!dge$ %ELD: 2!dge is liable for iss!ing an order of e-ec!tion w en no prior notice of t e motion for e-ec!tion ad been gi#en to complainant&s !sband$ S eriff is also liable for not gi#ing d!e notice to complainants$ Co!rt ereb" imposes a F*NE of P6?(???$?? eac on respondent 2!dge S eriff *** Sam!el A$ Arib!abo and +ACNS t em t at a repetition of t e same or similar acts in t e f!t!re will be dealt wit more se#erel"$

5E

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES 1$. +ait)ful to t)e Law and aintain :rofessional Com!etence

Iss&an!e o Ho'. De4art&re or.er o %&.;e L&isito T. A.aoa;) 2TC) Ca/i'in;) Tar'a! A.2. No. $$5(5#2-52TC. Se4t. 22) #$$$. "#* SCRA $ PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: A old0depart!re order was iss!ed b" .TC 2!dge Adaoag in a Criminal Case$ T e Secretar" of 2!stice calls attention to t e fact t at t e order in 9!estion is contrar" to Circ!lar No$ 5<0<G of t e SC$ Said circ!lar limits t e a!t orit" to iss!e old0depart!re orders to t e CTC in criminal cases wit in t eir e-cl!si#e 3!risdiction$ 2!dge Adaoag admits is mista'e and pleads ignorance of t e circ!lar( e-plaining t at e ad no cop" of t e circ!lar and it was onl" later on( after researc ( t at e fo!nd o!t t at said orders co!ld onl" be iss!ed b" t e CTCs$ %ELD: T e Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct en3oins 3!dges to be Dfait f!l to t e law and maintain professional competence$F T e" can li#e !p to t eir d!ties onl" b" diligent effort to 'eep t emsel#es abreast of de#elopments in o!r legal s"stem$ T e process of learning law is a ne#er ending and ceaseless one$ 2!dge Adaoag was reprimanded wit t e warning t at a repetition of t e same or similar act will be dealt wit more se#erel"$ 1@. +ull Control of t)e :roceedings in )is Sala and S)ould Ado!t a +irm :olicy Against Im!ro#ident :ost!onements. 1'aviano Ar8&ero vs. Tert&'o 2en.o6a A.2. No. 2T%5$$5#20$. Se4t. "0) #$$$. "#* SCRA *0" PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: Arraignment of t e acc!sed was postponed nine times before it was finall" eld$ T e acc!sed failed to appear t ree times wit o!t notif"ing t e trial co!rt$ Twice s e appeared wit new law"ers w o ad as'ed for postponement on t e gro!nd t at t eir ser#ices ad 3!st been engaged and t e" needed time to st!d" t e case$ S e also failed to appear beca!se of an alleged illness$ T e complainant claims t at t e 3!dge as Dliberall" tolerated t e series of postponementsF and t e Office of t e Co!rt Administrator recommends a fine of P7(??? for t e !nreasonable dela" in t e arraignment$ %ELD: T e 3!dge failed to ta'e t e proper meas!res w en t e acc!sed did not appear for arraignment wit o!t notif"ing t e trial co!rt$ As s e was o!t on bail( s e was bo!nd to appear before t e trial co!rt w ene#er so re9!ired$ %er fail!re to do so 3!stified t e forfeit!re of er bond$ %owe#er( t e 3!dge tolerated t e !ne-plained absences of t e acc!sed$ As regards t e postponement beca!se of t e iring of new law"ers( t ere was no absol!te reason w " co!nsel co!ld not a#e been re9!ired to confer wit t e acc!sed wit in a s orter period to prepare er for t e arraignment$ T ere was also no doc!mentar" e#idence presented to s!pport t e claim t at acc!sed was too ill to attend t e arraignment$ T e postponement was t erefore granted wit o!t s!fficient basis$ 1A. isconduct a. ?ribery. isconduct. Due :rocess. 0urisdiction.

Ca'i'&n; vs. S&ria;a A.2. No. 2T%5$$5##$#. A&;. "#) 2000. ""$ SCRA ",0 PEC CHC*A.

5G

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES FACTS: NB* cond!cted an entrapment operation w ic led to t e filing of an information alleging t at 2!dge S!riaga willf!ll"( !nlawf!ll" and felonio!sl" demand and recei#e P17?(??? from spo!ses Calil!ng for t e p!rpose of mediating( ind!cing and infl!encing 2!dge *t!ralde into rendering a fa#orable decision for said spo!ses$ %ELD: T e c!lpabilit" of respondent 3!dge for serio!s miscond!ct as been establis ed not 3!st b" s!bstantial e#idence b!t b" an o#erw elming preponderance t ereof$ A 3!dge s o!ld so be a#e at all times to promote p!blic confidence in t e integrit" and impartialit" of t e 3!diciar"$ *t is e#ident from t e pro#ision t at bot realit" and appearance m!st conc!r$ Case law repeatedl" teac es t at 3!dicial office circ!mscribes t e personal cond!ct of a 3!dge and imposes a n!mber of restrictions t ereon( w ic e as to pa" for accepting and occ!p"ing an e-alted position in t e administration of 3!stice$ *t is t !s( t e d!t" of members of te benc to a#oid an" impression of impropriet" to protect t e image and integrit" of t e 3!diciar"$ Co v. Ca'i/a;) %r. A.2. No. RT%5$$5#,((. %&ne 20)2000. "", SCRA 20 PONENTE: .elo FACTS: T e Co!rt designated respondent CTC 3!dge of Santiago Cit" as Acting Presiding CTC 2!dge of Ec ag!e( *sabela( in addition to is reg!lar d!ties$ Later owe#er( 2!dge Ong too' o#er as t e reg!lar 3!dge of t e latter co!rt$ S!bse9!entl"( a complaint for legal separation was filed b" Co wit a pra"er for a TCO wit t e Ec ag!e co!rt against er !sband$ Despite 2!dge OngJs a#ing alread" ass!med office as presiding 3!dge t ereof( respondent immediatel" too' cogni/ance of t e case$ Considering t at t e pra"er for t e TCO was one of e-treme !rgenc"( respondent in e5 !arte proceedings temporaril" en3oined complainant$ Cespondent t ereafter set t e s!mmar" earing of t e application for t e TCO for t e ne-t da"( owe#er complainant failed to appear( t !s t e operation of t e TCO was e-tended$ %ELD: + ile it is tr!e t at 2!dge Ong formall" ass!med office on No#$ <( 6<<@( 2!dge Ong did not ear andNor tr" cases from No#$ < to Dec 6<<@ beca!se e was still !ndergoing orientation and immersion$ T !s( respondent still ad t e a!t orit" to ta'e cogni/ance of old and newl" filed cases in t e Ec ag!e co!rt d!ring t at period( notwit standing t e appointment of a new 3!dge to said sala. As to t e iss!e of e-tortion( complainantJs allegation is s!pported onl" b" t e affida#it and testimon" of a witness to t e effect t at s e deli#ered an en#elope containing mone" to respondent$ *nasm!c as w at is imp!ted against t e respondent 3!dge connotes a miscond!ct so gra#e t at( if pro#en( it wo!ld entail dismissal from t e benc ( t e 9!ant!m of proof re9!ired s o!ld be more t an s!bstantial$ %owe#er( respondent is fined for is fail!re to obser#e proper co!rt proced!re in t e iss!ance of t e order of in3!nction$ CespondentJs action is ig l" irreg!lar( gi#ing rise to t e s!spicion t at t e 3!dge is partial to one of t e parties in t e case pending before im$ Canon 1 of t e Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct en3oins 3!dges to a#oid not 3!st impropriet" in t eir cond!ct b!t e#en t e mere appearance of impropriet"$ T e" m!st cond!ct t emsel#es in s!c a manner t at t e" gi#e no gro!nd for reproac $ b. "ra#e Abuse of Aut)ority and "ra#e isconduct

Antonio Ban;ayan vs. %i//y B&ta!an A.2. No. 2T%5005#"20. Nov. 22) 2000. ",* SCRA "0# PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: B" #irt!e of 1 warrants of arrest( t e acc!sed were arrested$ Bot were s!bse9!entl" ordered released b" respondent 2!dge$ Complainant a#ers t at respondent appro#ed t e Order of Celease wit o!t t e s!bmission of t e re9!ired bond w ic was s!pposed to precede t e order of release( b!t t e bond was s!bmitted onl" after t e appro#al of t e red!ction of bail$ Cespondent arg!es t at e e-ercised

5@

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES is discretion !nder t e r!les in granting a red!ction of bail and pra"s t at t e complaint against im be dismissed$ %ELD: Cespondent 2!dge granted t e motion for red!ction of bail wit o!t gi#ing prosec!tion t e c ance to be eard$ %e also ordered t e release of Ca!ilan( Sr$ despite is fail!re to post bail$ T is is gra#e miscond!ct w ic cannot be allowed to go !np!nis ed$ *t is also a gross #iolation of C!le 5$?6( Canon 5 of t e code of 2!dicial Cond!ct w ic re9!ires 3!dges to Dbe fait f!l to t e law and maintain professional competenceF$ %e not onl" failed to li#e !p to is d!ties !nder t e law( e as also acted in bad fait for tr"ing to co#er !p w at e did K ordering t e release of persons lawf!ll" arrested e#en before t e" ad posted bail$ Sa'va.or R&i6 vs. A;e'io Brin;as A.2. No. 2T%5005#2--. A4r. -) 2000. ""0 SCRA -2 PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: 2!dge Bringas was c arged wit serio!s miscond!ct and inefficienc" for allegedl" !sing intemperate lang!age against law"ers appearing before is co!rt b" being fond of ins!lting and maligning bot "o!ng and old law"ers incl!ding t e prosec!tors w o appear before im in t e presence of part" litigants and law"ers$ T e incidents were 3!st left !nnoticed b" t e ot er law"ers lest t e" wo!ld lose t eir cases pending before respondent 2!dge$ %ELD: T e d!t" to maintain respect for t e dignit" of t e co!rt applies to members of t e bar and benc ali'e$ A 3!dge s o!ld be co!rteo!s bot in is cond!ct and in is lang!age especiall" to t ose appearing before im$ %e can old co!nsels to a proper appreciation of t eir d!ties to t e co!rt( t eir clients( and t e p!blic wit o!t being pett"( arbitrar"( o#erbearing( or t"rannical$ %e s o!ld remain from cond!ct t at demeans is office and remember alwa"s t at co!rtes" begets co!rtes"$ Abo#e all( e m!st cond!ct imself in s!c manner t at e gi#es no reason for reproac $ As stated in Canon 1 of t e Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct( a 3!dge s o!ld a#oid impropriet" and t e appearance of impropriet" in all is acti#ities$ Geroni/o Goros4e vs. La&ro San.ova' A.2. No. RT%5005#*",. 1e+. #*) 2000. PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: Spo!ses :orospe filed a complaint against respondent 2!dge Sando#al and O*C Cler' of Co!rt Pac eco beca!se t e" s!stained Uirreparable damage( p!blic ridic!le( and !miliationJ as a res!lt of t eir imprisonment for contempt of co!rt$ A warrant of arrest ad been iss!ed for repeated absence d!ring t e earing$ + en t e earings were s!bse9!entl" reset( 2!dge Sando#al was on lea#e$ T e spo!ses manifested to t e E-ec!ti#e 2!dge t at t e" were not absent d!ring t e pre#io!s earings( ence t e warrant of arrest was cancelled$ T ereafter( 2!dge Sando#al ordered t e spo!ses to e-plain in writing w " t e" s o!ld not be cited for contempt for misrepresenting facts to t e E-ec!ti#e 2!dge$ T e spo!ses were t en eld in contempt$ T e spo!ses :orospe paid t e fine imposed on t e same da" t e penalt" was imposed$ %owe#er( t e O*C Cler' of Co!rt still ordered t eir commitment$ T e iss!e is w et er or not Sando#al and Pac eco committed gra#e ab!se of a!t orit"$ %ELD: T e S!preme Co!rt eld t at 2!dge Sando#al and Pac eco did not commit gra#e ab!se of a!t orit"$ As for t e 3!dge( records will s ow t at t e spo!ses were indeed absent on t e disp!ted date$ F!rt ermore( t e spo!ses accepted t e decision b" not appealing$ As for t e O*C Cler' of Co!rt( t ere is tr!t to Pac ecoJs claim t at e was merel" performing a ministerial f!nction$ *t s o!ld be stressed t at t e spo!ses paid t e fine at 7:??P. on t e date t e 3!dgment was rendered$ *t was b!t proper for Pac eco to wait for t e order of release from t e 3!dge$ .eanw ile( it was correct for Pac eco to order t eir commitment$

5<

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES 1*. +ailure to Su!er#ise Court :ersonnel Re4ort on t=e 1inan!ia' A&.it A. 2. No. $$5##5#*352TC. A&;. 3) 2000. ""3 SCRA ",3 PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: *t was fo!nd t at Co!rt *nterpreter Deseo( former O*C of t e .TC( ad !sed er cas collections to encas personal c ec's$ S e admitted t e allegations and claims t at s e did so in good fait and t at s e ad seen to it t at t e amo!nts s e ad ta'en from er collections were e9!al to t e amo!nts of c ec's s e deposited in t e sa#ings acco!nt of t e .TC( and t at s e did so wit o!t a!t orit" of 2!dge Castigador$ OCA recommended among ot ers t at 2!dge Castigador be admonis ed for fail!re to closel" monitor t e andling of cas collections$ %ELD: 2!dge Castigador cannot entirel" was is ands of responsibilit" b" disclaiming 'nowledge of DeseoJs acti#ities$ As DeseoJs s!perior e s o!ld a#e e-ercised direct and immediate s!per#ision o#er er to ens!re t at s e obser#ed t e pro#isions of Circ No$ 7?0<7$ 1,. :er&ury Bis=o4 Criso'o;o Ea'&n; vs. Enri8&e Pas!&a A.2. No. 2T%50#5#",2. %&ne 2#) 200#. PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: A complaint was filed against respondent 2!dge alleging t at in is application for transferNpromotion wit t e 2BC( e stated t at e ad not been c arged wit an" criminal andNor administrati#e case or complaint w en in fact e ad been c arged wit briber"Ne-tortion and wit administrati#e offenses in t e SC$ %ELD: T e 9!estion was: ,%a#e "o! e#er been c arged $ $ $ for #iolating an" law( decree( ordinance( or reg!lationT, *n answering t e 9!estion( respondent made it appear t at e ad ne#er been c arged wit an" #iolation of law( decree( ordinance( or reg!lation w en t e fact is t at( as alread" stated( e was$ %is e-planation t at e saw no need to indicate t is fact in is personal data s eet beca!se a certain congressman ad allegedl" alread" informed t e 2BC of is case before t e Omb!dsman is flims"$ As a 3!dge( respondent o!g t to 'now better$ 1.. Intem!erate S!eec). De'a Cr&6 vs. Bersa/ira A.2. No. RT%5005#*-3. 2otion or Re!onsi.eration. %an. #$) 200# $ PONENTE: Inares0Santiago FACTS: *n a resol!tion( 3!dge was fined and was gi#en a stern warning t at a repetition of similar acts complained of will be dealt wit more se#erel"$ %e filed a motion for reconsideration( insisting on is innocence and arg!ing at lengt t at t e recital of t e ,.agtolis Ceport, of t e ,fact!al millie!, of t e administrati#e complaint at and( was dis onest and distorted$ %ELD: Cespondent 3!dge&s c arges of dis onest" and distortion of facts against an associate 3!stice of t e second ig est co!rt in t e land( w o was tas'ed to loo' into t e administrati#e indictments for wrongdoing against im( ring ollow in t e absence of an" e#idence w atsoe#er s owing t at t e in#estigator arbored an" ill0feelings or malice toward im$ D!c c arges not onl" re#eal a deplorable deficienc" in t at degree of co!rteo!sness respondent is s!pposed to obser#e and e-tend towards ot er

;?

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES magistrates li'e im( it also betra"s a c aracter flaw w ic lea#es t e co!rt e#en more con#inced t at e deser#es t e administrati#e sanctions imposed on im$ A 3!dge wit o!t being offensi#e in speec ma" endea#or to call attention to w at e percei#es to be erroneo!s findings against im$ %e ma" critici/e t e pooints e feels are incorrect b!t e ma" not do so in an ins!lting manner$ A firm and temperate remonstrance is all e s o!ld e#er allow imself$ *ntemperate speec detracts from t e e9!animit" and 3!discio!sness t at s o!ld be t e constant allmar's of a dispenser of 3!stice$ 11. Duty to :ractice Discretion of 0udge Si/4'i!io A'i+ vs. %&.;e La+ayan A.2. No. RT% 005#*3-. %&ne 2() 200# PONENTE: :on/aga0Ce"es %ELD: 2!dges are d!t" bo!nd to be e-tra solicito!s and e9!all" alert to t e possibilit" t at t e prosec!tor co!ld be in error$ *t is not eno!g t at t ere be diligence on t e part of t e trial co!rt as well as ac9!aintance wit t e applicable law and 3!rispr!dence$ + en t e iss!es are so simple and t e facts are so e#ident as to be be"ond permissible margins of error( to still err t ereon amo!nts to ignorance of t e law$ *ss!ance of a warrant of arrest is not a ministerial f!nction of t e co!rt$ Before iss!ing a warrant of arrest( a 3!dge m!st not rel" solel" on t e report or resol!tion of t e prosec!tor( e m!st e#al!ate t e report and t e s!pporting doc!ments w ic will assist im to ma'e is determination of probable ca!se$ *t calls for t e e-ercise of 3!dicial discretion on t e part of t e iss!ing magistrate$ C. Notary P&+'i! 1. %e-uisites for an TC 0udge to !erform 'otarial +unctions

Re;ino Bar+arona vs. A'e9an.ro Can.a A.2. No. 2T%50#5#"**. A4r. 20) 200#. PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: Complainants were t e defendants in a ci#il case pending before respondent .TC 2!dge Canda$ Cespondent declared t e defendants in defa!lt and conse9!entl" rendered 3!dgment against t em$ Complainants filed an administrati#e complaint against im for 'nowingl" rendering an !n3!st 3!dgment( ignorance of t e law( etc$ One of t e iss!es raised t erein was t at respondent was performing notarial f!nctions$ T e" presented as e#idence a Deed of Sale notari/ed b" Canda$ T e respondent admitted notari/ing t e said doc!ment b!t raised as is defense t e absence of an" ot er notar" p!blic in t e area$ %ELD: T e 6<@< Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct not onl" en3oins 3!dges to reg!late t eir e-tra03!dicial acti#ities in order to minimi/e t e ris' of conflict wit t eir 3!dicial d!ties( b!t also pro ibits t em from engaging in t e pri#ate practice of law$ T e Co!rt( ta'ing 3!dicial notice of t e fact t at t ere are still m!nicipalities w ic a#e neit er law"ers nor notaries p!blic( r!les t at .TC and .CTC 3!dges assigned to m!nicipalities or circ!its wit no law"ers or notaries p!blic ma"( in t e capacit" as notaries p!blic eoficio( perform an" act wit in t e competenc" of a reg!lar notar" p!blic( pro#ided t at: 468 all notarial fees c arged be for t e acco!nt of t e :o#ernment and t!rned o#er to t e m!nicipal treas!rer and 418 certification be made in t e notari/ed doc!ments attesting to t e lac' of an" law"er or notar" p!blic in s!c m!nicipalit" or circ!it$ E#en if in tr!t t ere was no notar" p!blic in t e m!nicipalit"( respondent 3!dge failed to certif" t is fact in t e doc!ment itself$ .oreo#er( respondent 3!dge failed to remit t e fees e recei#ed to t e m!nicipal treas!rer as re9!ired b" Circ!lar No$ 60<?$ *nstead( e remitted t e mone" to t e 2!diciar" De#elopment F!nd$ Corona.o v. 1e'on;!o A.C. No. 2-##. Nov. #*) 2000. ",, SCRA *-*

;6

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES PONENTE: P!no FACTS: Coronado alleged t at Att"$ Felongco notari/ed a deed of promise to sell p!rportedl" signed b" er deceased mot er$ *t is alleged t at Att"$ Felongco #iolated t e notarial law %ELD: T e part" ac'nowledging m!st appear before t e notar" p!blic or an" ot er person a!t ori/ed to ta'e ac'nowledgments of instr!ments or doc!ments$ *n t e case at bar( t e ac'nowledgment of t e Deed stated t at on t e 6?t of September( 6<@1 at So!t Cotabato personall" appeared: FE ESTE=A and FLOCENDA FACAON before t e respondent$ Este#a died on Sept$ E( 6<@1( ence( it is clear t at t e ac'nowledgment was made in #iolation of t e notarial law$ Notari/ation is not an empt" ro!tine K it con#erts a pri#ate doc!ment into a p!blic one and renders it admissible in co!rt wit o!t f!rt er proof of its a!t enticit"$ 3. 'otaries as /itnesses So'arte vs. P&;e.a A.C. No. ,3*#. %&'y "#) 2000. ""- SCRA *-#. PONENTE: R!is!mbing FACTS: Solarte c arged Att"$ P!geda wit gross miscond!ct$ P!geda allegedl" notari/ed certain doc!ments in#ol#ing t e sale of land$ Solarte claimed an interest in t e lots sold$ Complainant a#ers t at respondent co!ld not a#e legall" notari/ed a doc!ment to w ic e also acted as witness and alleges in partic!lar t at respondent participated in t e fra!d!lent paartition and sale of t e propert"$ Cespondent co!ntered t at not ing in t e law pro ibits t e notar" p!blic from signing as witness t e same doc!ments e notari/ed$ %ELD: Not ing in t e law pro ibits a notar" p!blic from acting at t e same time as witness in t e doc!ment e notari/ed$ T e onl" e-ception is if t e doc!ment is a will$ Complainant offered no proof( b!t onl" mere allegations$ S!c a gra#e c arge against a member of t e bar and former m!nicipal 3!dge needs concrete s!bstantiation to gain credence$ *t co!ld not prosper wit o!t ade9!ate proof$ D. Co&rt Personne' 1. Cler= a. Delay O i!e o t=e Co&rt A./inistrator vs. I/e'.a S. Per'e6 A.2. P5005#,2(. %an. #() 200#. ",$ SCRA ,#3 PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: .TC 2!dge Agl!g!b filed a complaint against Cler' of Co!rt Perle/ for failing to s!bmit t e transcripts and stenograp ic notes in some of t e 2!dgeJs cases w ic res!lted in t e fail!re of t e 2!dge to decide 6< cases assigned to er wit in t e prescribed time$ Perle/ answered t at it was t e fa!lt of stenograp er Lancion( w o ref!sed to deli#er t e records transcribed despite orders of t e 2!dge and reminders from Perle/$ Cespondent claims t at since t e 2!dge co!ld not control t e stenograp er( ow co!ld s eT %ELD: Perle/ is t e administrati#e officer of t e co!rt$ As s!c ( s e is c arged wit t e control and s!per#ision of all s!bordinate personnel of t e co!rt( incl!ding t e stenograp ers$ *t is inc!mbent !pon er to ens!re t at t e" perform t eir d!ties well$ As administrati#e officer( t e d!t" of t e Cler' of Co!rt is to ens!re t at stenograp ers compl" wit t eir d!t" to s!bmit t e transcripts not later t an 1? da"s from

;1

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES t e time t e notes were ta'en$ *f indeed Lancion did not s!bmit t e notes( Perle/ s o!ld a#e reported t e matter to t e 2!dge and recommended t e imposition of administrati#e sanctions$ S!per#ision is not a meaningless t ing$ Perle/ as s own passi#it"( if not indifference( to t e fail!re of t ose !nder er s!per#ision to perform t eir d!ties well$ 2a;'eo vs. Taya; A. 2. No. P5$35#2,2. %&ne #$) #$$3. 23, SCRA 2PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: Hnion Cefiner" Corporation 4HCC8 was plaintiff in Ci#il Case 77?0.0@G of t e CTC in .alolos$ TC 3!dgment was rendered against it$ HCC filed a notice of appeal$ T e presiding 3!dge( 2!dge Demetrio B$ .acapagal( Sr$ ordered respondent branc cler' of co!rt to forward ,t e complete records, of t e case to t e CA$ After repeated in9!iries wit t e CA( HCC&s co!nsel was informed t at t e records were not "et wit t e Co!rt$ Complainant( as #ice president of HCC( t en filed t e instant complaint$ %ELD: T e respondent be fined P7(???$?? and warned t at repetition of t is infraction in t e f!t!re will be dealt wit more se#erel"$ T e reason gi#en b" respondent for is fail!re to transmit t e records of t e case are ins!bstantial$ T e Administrati#e f!nctions of t e Branc Cler's of Co!rt are #ital to t e prompt and proper administration of 3!stice$ *t is t e d!t" of t e Branc Cler' of Co!rt to deli#er t e complete record of t e case to t e Cler' of Co!rt so t at it co!ld be transmitted to t e appellate co!rt wit in fi#e 478 da"s after t e acc!sed ga#e notice of is appeal$ T is d!t" co!ld not be e-c!sed simpl" beca!se copies of t e stenograp ic notes as not been made b" t e stenograp ers$ + at is re9!ired to be transmitted wit in fi#e 478 da"s from t e filing of a notice of appeal is t e complete record( not t e TSN$ 2ari'es I. 0i''an&eva vs. Atty. Ro.o' o B. Po''entes OCA I.P.I. No. $*5#25P. A&;. ") #$$*. 2,3 SCRA 2, PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: T is relates to an administrati#e complaint filed b" against Att"$ Pollentes( Cler' of Co!rt of t e CTC of *loilo Cit"( for dela" in t e transmittal of t e record of a criminal case to t e Co!rt of Appeals$ %ELD: Pollentes is g!ilt" of ,some degree of negligence, in failing to transmit t e record of t e case on time$ Strict compliance wit t e d!t" to transmit t e record of cases wit in fi#e 478 da"s from t e filing of a notice of appeal was especiall" re9!ired beca!se t e case is a criminal case$ b. 7sur!ation of 0udicial +unction Lorena Co''a.o vs. Teresita Bravo A.2. No. 0#5#50#5SC. A4r. #0) 200# PONENTE: R!is!mbing FACTS: Cespondent Cler' of Co!rtJs act of iss!ing s!bpoena to complainant was e#identl" not directl" or remotel" connected wit respondentJs 3!dicial or administrati#e d!ties) s e merel" wanted to act as mediator between 1 disp!ting parties !pon t e re9!est of one part"$ %ELD: Per!sal of t e s!bpoena s e iss!ed to complainant s ows t at t e form !sed was t e one !sed in criminal cases( gi#ing t e complainant t e impression t at er fail!re to appear wo!ld s!b3ect er to t e penalt" of law$ Iet neit er ad a complaint been commenced to s!pport t e iss!ance of said s!bpoena$ T e respondent was !sing( wit o!t a!t orit"( some element of state coercion against complainant w o was !nderstandabl" compelled to eed t e contents of t e s!bpoena res!lting in er !miliation$

;5

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES %&.;e P'a!i.o 0a''arta vs. Eo'an.a Lo4e6 0DA .e Batoon A.2. No. P5$$5#"02. 1e+. 2() 200#. PONENTE: R!is!mbing FACTS: 2!dge =allarta alleged t at w ile e was on lea#e( respondent Cler' of Co!rt ca!sed t e preparation of an Order of Celease in connection wit a t en0pending Criminal Case$ Batoon signed and iss!ed t e d!plicate original of t e order aware t at t e 3!dge was on lea#e and co!ld not sign t e original order of release( and wit o!t t e cas bond for t e release$ On t e basis of said d!plicate order( t e acc!sed was released from c!stod"$ %ELD: T e appro#al of t e bail of an acc!sed person and t e a!t orit" to order t e release of a detained person is a p!rel" 3!dicial f!nction$ T e Cler' of Co!rt( !nli'e a 3!dicial a!t orit"( as no power to order eit er t e commitment or t e release on bail of person c arged wit penal offenses$ T e Cler' of Co!rt ma" release an order D!pon t e order of t e 2!dgeF or Db" a!t orit" of t e 2!dgeF b!t !nder no circ!mstance s o!ld t e cler' ma'e it appear t at t e 3!dge signed t e order w en in fact( t e 3!dge did not$ %&.;e Es!anan vs. C'er? o Co&rt 2ontero'a A.2. No. P5$$5#",3. 1e+. -) 200# Per C!riam FACTS: 2amero was con#icted for slig t p "sical in3!ries from w ic an appeal was made in open co!rt$ *mmediatel" after prom!lgation of sentence( cler' of co!rt .onterola iss!ed a warrant of arrest against 2amero w o( on t e basis t ereof( was detained for 5 da"s$ %ELD + ile a cler' of co!rt as t e a!t orit" to iss!e writs incident to pending cases( s!c iss!ance m!st not in#ol#e t e e-ercise of f!nction appertaining to t e co!rt or 3!dge onl"$ T e iss!ance of a warrant of arrest and matters relating t ereto is p!rel" a 3!dicial f!nction$ *n ordering t e arrest and confinement of 2amero in police c!stod"( .onterola !nd!l" !s!rped t e 3!dicial prerogati#e of t e 3!dge$ .onterola is g!ilt" of gra#e miscond!ct and !s!rpation of 3!dicial f!nction) dismissed from t e ser#ice wit forfeit!re of benefits( wit pre3!dice to re0emplo"ment in t e go#ernment$ Santos vs. %&.;e Si'va A.2. No. RT%5005#*3$. %an. #() 200#. ",$ SCRA ,2-. PONENTE: Panganiban FACTS: P!rs!ant to a 3!dgement in a case for accion p!bliciana( 2!dge Sil#a iss!ed a writ of demolition$ Complainants now 9!estion t e act of Cler' of Co!rt Soriano in e-panding t e co#erage of t e demotion order w ic res!lted in t e destr!ction of t eir properties e#en if t e" were not t e defendants in t e case$ Soriano admitted inserting t e words Dt ird partiesF in t e demolition order$ 2!dge Sil#a denies gi#ing an" a!t ori/ation to ca!se s!c amendment$ %ELD A cler' of co!rt s o!ld be g!ided b" t e e-press directi#e of t e co!rt or 3!dge and refrain from e-ercising f!nctions t at are e-cl!si#e t ereto$ Before e can amend a writ( t e co!rtJs order granting its iss!ance s o!ld first be amended$ B" amending t e +rit on is own initiati#e( Soriano !s!rped a 3!dicial f!nction0contrar" to C!le 65E( Section; of t e C!les of Co!rt$ %e is fined P7(???$ .oreo#er( 2!dge Sil#a failed to e-ercise diligence in s!per#ising t e acts of is acting cler' of co!rt$ Hnder Canon 5 of t e Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct( a 3!dge s o!ld organi/e and s!per#ise t e Co!rt personnel to ens!re t e prompt and efficient dispatc of b!siness( and re9!ire at all times t e obser#ance of ig standards of p!blic ser#ice and fidelit"$ %e is onl" reprimanded for fail!re to s!per#ise is s!bordinate diligentl"$

;;

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES c. 'egligence in ;ee!ing Court %ecords by Court :ersonnel Danie' Cr&6 v. C'er? o Co&rt) et a'. A. 2. No. P5$$5#2$- 2ar. 2*) #$$$. "0* SCRA #2( PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: Cr!/ filed a notice of appeal$ %owe#er( is appeal co!ld not be acted !pon beca!se t e records of t e case were allegedl" missing$ %ence( t is administrati#e complaint against bot Branc Cler' of Co!rt and Staff Assistant for gross negligence$ B!t t ree 458 da"s after e-erting effort to locate said records( it was fo!nd toget er wit ot er records s!pposed to be eard on said date$ Said records was transmitted to t e CTC for t e p!rpose of appeal$ %ELD: T e Co!rt ordered t at t e cler' and staff assistant be reprimanded wit stern warning t at a repetition of t e same will be dealt wit more se#erel"$ As officers of t e Co!rt( t e" are e-pected to disc arge t eir d!t" of safe'eeping co!rt records wit diligence( efficienc" and professionalism$ C apter ** of t e .an!al for Cler's of Co!rt pro#ides t e general f!nctions and d!ties of Cler's of Co!rt( one of w ic is t e safe'eeping of co!rt records( to wit: 5$ D!ties$ a$ safe'eeping of Propert"$ P T e Cler's of Co!rt s all safel" 'eep all records( papers( files( e- ibits and p!blic propert" committed to t eir c arge( incl!ding t e librar" of t e Co!rt( and t e seals and f!rnit!re belonging to t eir office$ Section G( C!le 65E of t e C!les of Co!rt imposes same responsibilit" !pon t e cler's of co!rt$ d. Court :ersonnel B:ublic OfficersC Act wit) Self(%estraint and Ci#ility Atty. Roe' Paras vs. 2yrna Lo ran!o A.2. No. P50#5#,-$. 2ar. 2-) 200#. PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: Paras filed an administrati#e complaint against respondent cler' of t e CTC for disco!rtes" and cond!ct !nbecoming a co!rt emplo"ee$ Paras tried to as' for t e wit drawal of a cas bond in a case e was andling$ *t seems t at e did not a#e all necessar" doc!ments$ Cespondent( in a gest!re of disrespect and in a sarcastic manner told im to come bac' anot er$ Cespondent claims t at s e was pro#o'ed b" t e complainant$ %ELD: *t is t e polic" of t e state to promote a ig standard of et ics in p!blic ser#ice$ P!blic officials and emplo"ees are !nder obligation to perform t e d!ties of t eir offices onestl"( fait f!ll"( and to t e best of t eir abilit"$ T e"( as recipients of t e p!blic tr!st( s o!ld demonstrate co!rtes"( ci#ilit"( and self0 restraint in t eir official act!ation to t e p!blic at all times e#en w en confronted wit r!deness and ins!lting be a#ior$ Losing oneJs temper and !ttering !nsa#or" remar's e- ibits a fail!re to act wit self0 restraint and ci#ilit"$ T e co!rt is loo'ed !pon wit ig respect and is regarded as a sacred place$ .isbe a#ior wit in and aro!nd its #icinit" diminis es its sanctit" and dignit"$ e. :ro)ibition on !ublic officials from Engaging in :ri#ate :ractice of Law O i!e o t=e Co&rt A./inistrator vs. C'er? o Co&rt La.a;a A.2. No. P5$$5#2(3. %an. 2-) 200#. "*0 SCRA "2PONENTE: Map!nan FACTS: .TC Cler' of Co!rt Ladaga( w ile on official lea#e and wit permission from is presiding 3!dge( appeared as pro bono co!nsel for a close relati#e in a .TC criminal case$ An administrati#e complaint was bro!g t against Ladaga for #iolation of t e Code of Cond!ct and Et ical Standards for P!blic

;7

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES Officials and Emplo"ees( w ic pro ibits t em from engaging in t e pri#ate practice of t eir profession$ C!le 655 of t e C!les of Co!rt li'ewise pro ibits emplo"ees of t e s!perior co!rts from engaging in pri#ate practice as a member of t e bar$ %ELD: LadagaJs appearance did not amo!nt to Dpri#ate practice of law(F as it was merel" an isolated co!rt appearance( wit o!t t e elements of c!stom or abit!alit" and pa"ment for s!c ser#ices$ %owe#er( e still failed to obtain written permission p!rs!ant to Sec$ 61( C!le >=*** of t e Ce#ised Ci#il Ser#ice C!les: DNo officer or emplo"ee s all engage directl" in an" V professionVwit o!t a written permission from t e ead of t e Department$F T e presiding 3!dge of t e co!rt to w ic Ladaga is assigned is not t e ead of t e Department contemplated b" law( w ic in t is case is t e S!preme Co!rt$ Alt o!g e filed lea#e applications corresponding to t e dates e appeared in co!rt( e failed to obtain prior permission from t e ead of t is Department) e is reprimanded$ f. Sim!le isconductE Lea#ing :ost

Loyao) %r. v. Ar/e!in A.2. No. P5$$5#"2$. A&;. #) 2000. ""3 SCRA ,3 PONENTE: Inares0Santiago FACTS: Cespondents were c arged wit Simple .iscond!ct and cens!red in a Ceport b" complainant e-ec!ti#e 2!dge for lea#ing t eir posts at t e Office of t e Cler' of Co!rt of t e CTC wit o!t permission for personal p!rposes$ T eir absence allegedl" left t e entire office !ndermanned$ *t wo!ld appear t at t e respondents left t eir posts beca!se a certain S eriff re9!ested t em to b!" food at t e p!blic mar'et for t e latterJs birt da" part"$ %ELD: T e SC fo!nd t at indeed respondents were remiss in t eir obligations as 3!dicial emplo"ees w en t e" went o!t d!ring office o!rs wit o!t as'ing t e permission of t eir s!perior$ T eir e-planations t at t e" went to b!" and prepare food for t e birt da" celebration of t eir officemate and t at t e" did t e same o!t of !a=i=isama is !nsatisfactor" and s o!ld not be co!ntenanced$ + ile !a=i=isama is a #al!e deepl" imbedded in o!r tradition and mores t at often fosters armon" and good wor'ing relations ips in t e wor'place( carr"ing o!t its obser#ance and practice to t e degree w ere it fr!strates or pre3!dices t e administration of 3!stice s o!ld not be tolerated$ A p!blic office is a p!blic tr!st t at en3oins all p!blic officers and emplo"ees( partic!larl" t ose ser#ing in t e 3!diciar"( to respond wit t e ig est degree of dedication often e#en be"ond personal interest$ g. Cler= of court de!osited settlement money in )er !ersonal account Dinna Casti''o vs. Denai.a B&en!i''o A.2. No. P5$35#2,#. 2ar. 20) 200# PONENTE: .elo FACTS: Castillo( as pri#ate complainant in a criminal case( was rel!ctant to recei#e PG?(??? as settlement for t e ci#il aspect$ Cler' of Co!rt B!encillo recei#ed t e mone"$ Fearf!l t at it mig t be lost( B!necillo deposited t e amo!nt in er personal ban' acco!nt$ T ereafter( t e acc!sed ga#e Castillo postdated c ec's as pa"ment( incl!ding t e PG?(??? as pa"ment for t e ci#il obligation$ %owe#er( B!encillo onl" remitted P7?(???( retaining P1?(??? in er possession$ %ELD: E#en if t e deposit was done in good fait ( still it was inappropriate and wit o!t 3!stification$ E#er" p!blic officer is bond to e-ercise pr!dence and ca!tion in t e disc arge of is d!ties( acting primaril" for t e benefit of t e p!blic$ *f t e office cabinet ad no loc'( respondent s o!ld a#e informed t e 3!dge of t e circ!mstance so t at proper arrangements co!ld a#e been made$ P!blic officials and

;E

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES emplo"ees s o!ld alwa"s !p old p!blic interest o#er and abo#e personal interest$ T e" are en3oined to respond to t e call of t eir d!ties wit t e ig est degree of dedication often be"ond t eir own interest$ ). 4iolation of Anti("raft and Corru!t :ractices Act E'iseo Soreno vs. R=o.eri!? 2aGino A.2. No. P5005#"-0. %an. #() 2000. "22 SCRA #2 PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: Att"$ .a-ino( Cler' of Co!rt and e-0officio S eriff of t e .TC and Tambolero( dep!t" s eriff of t e same co!rt( were c arged wit Drobber" wit old0!p and #iolation of CA 5?6<8 for allegedl" pointing a g!n( wit intent to intimidate w ile ta'ing tric"cles of t e complainant$ %ELD: Hpon in#estigation( facts elicited re#eal t at t e ta'ing of t e tric"cles were p!rs!ant to a lawf!l order of t e co!rt and t at t e acts alleged were not emplo"ed$ 3. S)eriff a. +ailure of S)eriff to Im!lement t)e /rit of E5ecution Rosanna Casa'/e vs. 2arvin Rivera A2 P5$$5#*#,. %&ne 2*) #$$$. "0$ SCRA -$ PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: Cespondent Dep!t" S eriff went to complainantJs o!se at fi#e in t e morning and s owed t em a writ of e-ec!tion iss!ed b" stenograp er Cal!ag$ Cespondent t en demanded pa"ment b!t w en t e complainants as'ed for more time( t e Dep!t" S eriff instead iss!ed a Notice of Le#" indicating receipt of complainantJs Tamaraw F>$ T e complainants told t e s eriff t at t e F> was not f!ll" paid for and instead offered anot er #e icle( t e s eriff ref!sed$ %ELD: T e s eriffJs acts were improper$ + ile it was is d!t" to enforce t e writ( e ad not e-plained w " e ad enforced t e writ so earl" in t e morning w en t ere was not e#en an allegation t at t e propert" e wanted to le#" !pon was in danger of being concealed from im$ %is !nseeml" cond!ct gi#es rise to t e s!spicion t at e as !lterior moti#es$ L&.ivina 2aris;a52a;+an&a v. E/i'io T. 0i''a/ar 0 A. 2. No. P5$$5#2$3. 2ar. 2*) #$$$. "0* SCRA #"2 PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: After t e decision in a case of e3ectment ad become final and e-ec!tor"( t e CTC iss!ed a writ of e-ec!tion$ T ereafter( .agban!a mo#ed for t e iss!ance of an alias writ of e-ec!tion and order of demolition( alleging t at t e same was necessar" in #iew of t e s eriffJs report s owing t at t ere was fail!re in implementing t e writ of e-ec!tion and also beca!se s e was in dire need of t e propert"$ T e CTC granted er motion$ %owe#er( t e s eriff still failed to enforceNimplement said e-ec!tion w en it was is ministerial d!t" to do so$ %ence( .agban!a filed a complaint against respondent S eriff for dereliction of d!t"$ %ELD: T e s eriff is g!ilt"$ %e was ordered to pa" a fine of P1(???$?? wit a warning t at repetition of a similar offense will be dealt wit more se#erel"$ A reading of t e decision s ows t at .agban!aJs ca!se of action is based on er claim t at s e is t e owner of t e propert" b" #irt!e of t e Deed of Sale and +ai#er of Cig ts e-ec!ted in er fa#or b" er co0 eirs$ T !s( t e CTC in rendering its decision limited its

;G

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES ad3!dication to complainantJs claim of owners ip and possession o#er t e s!b3ect propert" #is0a0#is t at of defendant spo!ses Canton3os$ T e decision being clear( it is t e s eriffJs ministerial d!t" to implement t e same despite t e claim of t e ot er eirs of .arisga t at t e" own t e s!b3ect propert" in common wit complainant$ S!c a claim in an" case is still !nder litigation in anot er proceeding( and it does not appear t at t e ot er .arisgas a#e obtained and 3!dicial writ of process to sta" e-ec!tion of t e decision$ b. "ra#e Abuse of Aut)ority of S)eriff in Enforcement of /rit of E5ecution PBCO2 v. S=eri Ca!=ero A.2. No. P5005#"$$. 1e+. #$) 200#. PONENTE: Map!nan FACTS: S eriff Cac ero was appointed to enforce a +rit of E-ec!tion Pending Appeal against PBCom0 B!endia ban'( for t e reco#er" of mone" w ic t e ban' !nlawf!ll" wit drew from t e acco!nt of its own depositor( FALCON corporation$ PBCom alleged t at Cac ero emplo"ed irreg!lar means in enforcing t e writ b" torc ing t e #a!lt despite being informed t at a TCO ad been iss!ed( and t at a cop" was on its wa" from t e main office$ %ELD + ile a s eriff is bo!nd to ser#e a writ of e-ec!tion wit dispatc ( e m!st do so in a lawf!l( pr!dent and orderl" manner( obser#ing t e ig degree of diligence and professionalism e-pected of t em as agents of t e law$ T e" co!ld a#e sealed or placed t e #a!lt !nder g!ard and as'ed t e pre#ailing part" to obtain a Dbrea' openF or appropriate 3!dicial order( instead of being emplo"ing e-treme meas!res b" s!mmaril" destro"ing t e #a!lt in order to sei/e t e cas 'ept t erein$ T !s( t e !se of force b" respondents and t e res!lting damage to ban' propert" was clearl" !n3!stified and is !nacceptable$ Cac ero is g!ilt" of gross miscond!ct for irreg!larl" enforcing t e writ of e-ec!tion in a ig 0 anded manner and wit t e !se of !nnecessar" and !nwarranted force) fined P7(???$ Can'as v. Ba'as+as A.2. No. P5$$5#"#3. A&;. #) 2000. ""3 SCRA ,# PONENTE: Panganiban FACTS: T e CTC of Angeles Cit" iss!ed 1 writs of attac ment 4+OA8 in 1 separate Ci#il cases( bot assigned to respondent S eriff for implementation$ *n compliance wit t e +OA iss!ed in t e 6 st case( respondent le#ied on attac ment real and personal properties of t e defendant$ *n compliance wit t e +OA in t e 1nd case( e le#ied on attac ment t e real properties of t e defendant$ *t is t e contention of complainants t at before implementing t e writ( respondent as'ed for mone" for t e latterJs e-penses$ Bot complainants a#er t at alt o!g t e" were able to pinpoint to respondent t e w ereabo!ts of t e two cars owned b" defendant( e still failed to ta'e possession of t em$ T e in#estigating 3!dge fo!nd t at respondent #iolated O < of C!le ;6 beca!se e as accepted s!ms of mone" from complainants p!rportedl" to co#er is e-penses in t e e-ec!tion of t e +OA$ %ELD: CespondentJs d!t" in t e present case is prescribed in O < of C!le ;6 of t e C!les of Co!rt$ *t re9!ires t at t e s eriffJs estimate of t e e-penses to be inc!rred in t e e-ec!tion of a writ s o!ld be appro#ed b" t e 3!dge$ *t f!rt er directs t at t e appro#ed estimate be deposited wit t e cler' of co!rt and e5 oficio s eriff( w o s all t en disb!rse t e same to t e s eriff assigned to implement t e writ$ .oreo#er( an" !nspent amo!nt s all t en be ref!nded to t e part" ma'ing t e deposit$ *n t is case( respondent admits t at e did as' for and recei#e certain amo!nts from t e complainants for gasoline and ot er e-penses necessar" to implement t e 1 +OA$ T e amo!nt was not part of t e appro#ed estimate of e-penses and was not deposited wit t e cler' of co!rt( b!t came directl" from complainants for t e !se of respondent$

;@

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES c. :artiality Tantamount to "ross Inefficiency C=risto4=er 0a'en!ia vs. Ro.o' o 0a'ena A.2. No. P5005#,0$. A&;. #-) 2000. ""( SCRA #*0 PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: Cespondent S eriff =alena was c arged for fail!re to enforce a writ of e-ec!tion$ T e S eriff reasons o!t t at one of t e parties( R!e3ada( ref!sed to deli#er possession of properties beca!se e ad in#ested P1??(??? on t e lands and wanted to cons!lt is law"er first$ T ree alias writs of e-ec!tion were iss!ed( all of w ic were ret!rned !nsatisfied$ Complainants allege t at respondent failed to e-ec!te t e decision beca!se e readil" accepted R!e3adaJs e-c!ses and s!spects t at =alena is secretl" fa#oring R!e3ada$ Cespondent denies allegations and blames complainant for not informing im of R!e3adaJs fail!re to t!rn o#er possession$ %ELD: :ross inefficienc" in t e performance of official d!ties cannot be tolerated$ CespondentJs fail!re to carr" o!t w at is a p!rel" ministerial d!t" cannot be 3!stified$ %is onl" d!t" was to e3ect R!e3ada from t e s!b3ect properties$ R!e3ada as'ed for some time to cons!lt wit is law"er( b!t after reasonable opport!nit" to do so e ma" no longer be allowed to remain in possession of t e s!b3ect properties wit o!t raising s!spicion t at respondent was fa#oring im$ A period of < "ears as lapsed( a period too long a time for t e writ of e-ec!tion not to be enforced$ As an officer of t e co!rt( respondent was tas'ed to enable t e pre#ailing part" to benefit from t e 3!dgment$ Complainant is entitled to reali/e t e lawJs promise t at is rig t to possession wo!ld be #indicated as speedil" as possible to preser#e peace and order$ d. S)eriff>s Conduct Abo#e %e!roac) or :artiality Restit&to Castro vs. Car'os Ba;&e A.2. P5$$5#",-. %&ne 20) 200#. PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: Complainant Castro was t e ig est bidder in a foreclos!re sale cond!cted b" S eriff Bag!e$ Despite CastroJs insistence t at Bag!e iss!e a certificate of sale( Bag!e failed to compl" wit s!c d!t"$ *nstead( Bag!e allowed t e redemptioner to redeem t e propert" e#en after t e lapse of 6@ mont s from t e date of sale$ Cespondent iss!ed a Uresol!tionJ declaring t at redemptionerJs stand olds more weig t( t ereb" granting redemptioner t e rig t to rep!rc ase propert"$ F!rt ermore( respondent iss!ed t e p!rported resol!tion after t e period for redemption as lapsed( ma'ing it appear t at it was iss!ed wit in t e period$ %ELD: T e 3!dicial power #ested in a 3!dge and its e-ercise is strictl" personal to t e 3!dge beca!se of( and b" reason of is ig est 9!alification( and can ne#er be s!b3ect of agenc"$ T at wo!ld not onl" be contrar" to law( b!t also s!b#ersi#e of p!blic order and polic"$ T is Co!rt condemns and wo!ld ne#er co!ntenance an" cond!ct( act or omission on t e part of all t ose in#ol#ed in t e administration of 3!stice w ic wo!ld #iolate t e norm of p!blic acco!ntabilit" and wo!ld diminis or e#en 3!st tend to diminis t e fait of t e people in t e 3!diciar"$ B" t e #er"0nat!re of t eir f!nctions( s eriffs perform a #er" sensiti#e f!nction in t e dispensation of 3!stice$ Accordingl"( t eir cond!ct m!st at all times be abo#e s!spicion$ e. 'onfeasance. 0i!tor E'i4e vs. Honesto 1a+re A. 2. No. P5$,5#0-( 1e+. #") #$$*. 2,# SCRA 2,$ PONENTE: .endo/a

;<

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES FACTS: Fabre was c arged wit nonfeasance and incompetence in t e performance of is d!ties as Dep!t" S eriff$ Fabre allegedl" did not ma'e an" effort to pre#ent t e 3!dgment debtors from remo#ing le#iable properties to implement t e writ( despite t e fact t at e ad been told b" complainant of t e 3!dgment debtors& acti#ities$ %ELD: *f Fabre was dedicated in is wor'( e co!ld a#e c osen to stop t e carting awa" of t e #al!able properties of 3!dgment debtor for t e #er" p!rpose of le#"ing it and for t e p!rpose of compl"ing wit t e Order$ %e was bo!nd to disc arge is d!ties wit pr!dence( ca!tion and attention w ic caref!l men !s!all" e-ercise in t e management of t eir affairs$ T e s eriff( an officer of t e co!rt !pon w om t e e-ec!tion of a final 3!dgment depends( m!st be circ!mspect and proper in is be a#ior$ f. al#ersation and Insubordination

Art&ro :. Ba&tista vs. 2ar;arito C. Casti'o) %r. A. 2. No. P5$,5#0,". 1e+. 2() #$$-. 2*, SCRA #,( PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: An administrati#e complaint was filed b" cler' of co!rt Ba!tista c arging dep!t" s eriff Costelo( 2r$ wit mal#ersation( ins!bordination( gra#e miscond!ct and #iolation of SC Circ!lar 50<1( w ic pro ibits t e !se of %alls of 2!stice for residential or commercial p!rposes$ %ELD: +e find im liable for #iolation of Adm$ Circ!lar No$ 50<1 b!t t e c arges for mal#ersation and ins!bordination is dismissed for lac' of merit$ T ere is no e#idence to s ow t at respondent !sed scrap materials ta'en from t e former P$C$ barrac'$ Nor is t ere an" s owing t at e appropriated fr!its ta'en from cocon!t trees fo!nd in t e co!rt gro!nds$ +it respect to t e c arge t at e made onl" gr!dging compliance wit t e directi#e of t e complainant for im to remo#e t e coop in w ic e 'ept fi#e t!r'e"s( t e record s ows t at e did compl" wit t e directi#e$ T ere is( t erefore( no basis for finding im g!ilt" of ins!bordination$ As to t e allegation t at respondent !sed a room of t e co!rt o!se for is li#ing 9!arters( t e records s ow t at e did not sta" in t e co!rt o!se w ic formerl" ser#ed as enlisted men&s barrac' of t e 57;t P$C$ Compan" in Cal!bian( Le"te$ $. Stenogra!)er A+e'ar.o Santos vs. A&rora Laranan; A.2. No. P5005#"-(. 1e+. 2() 2000. "2- SCRA "3" PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: Hnsatisfied b" co!rt stenograp er LaranangJs e-c!ses of illness( .TC 2!dge Santos filed administrati#e complaints for fail!re to transcribe EE stenograp ic notes wit in t e prescribed period) and for repeated tardiness$ %ELD Administrati#e Circ!lar 1;0<? en3oins stenograp ers to transcribe all notes not later t an 1? da"s from t eir ta'ing$ Laranang transcribed onl" 77 b!t s!bmitted t em o!t of time) t e ot er 66 were ne#er transcribed$ Ass!ming er e-c!se of illness( Laranang s o!ld a#e as'ed for an e-tension$ .oreo#er( records s ow er tardiness 57 times wit in a span of 5 mont s$ S e is g!ilt" of gross neglect of d!t" and abit!al tardiness) s!spended for E mont s$ Ne'ia B. Es/era'.a5Baroy vs. %&vy N. Cos!a A. 2. No. P5$"53$$. %&ne 2#) #$$*. 2,* SCRA 223 PONENTE: .endo/a

7?

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES FACTS: C arge is t at co!rt stenograp er Cosca bro!g t ome wit er t e stenograp ic notes w ic s e ad ta'en in certain cases pending before t e .TC and failed to s!bmit t e corresponding transcript and er notes despite demand b" t e 3!dge of t e .TC$ T !s( Cosca #iolated C!le 65E( SS6; and 6G( of t e C!les of Co!rt$ %ELD: +it t e prom!lgation of Administrati#e Circ!lar No$ 1;0<? on 2!l" 61( 6<<?( t e re9!irements to deli#er t e notes to t e cler' of co!rt immediatel" at t e close of t e session so t at t e" can be attac ed to t e record m!st be !nderstood to a#e been pro tanto modified in t e sense t at stenograp ers are re9!ired to deli#er t eir notes onl" after transcribing t em( w ic m!st be done wit in twent" 41?8 da"s after t e notes a#e been ta'en$ T e transcription of notes m!st be done in office$ +it t e re9!irement in Administrati#e Circ!lar No$ 1;0<? to transcribe notes wit in a s ort time( owe#er( we can accord to t e pres!mption of good fait $ Cosca ad bro!g t ome t e notes in good fait and wit o!t an" !lterior moti#e) prompted onl" b" t e t o!g t of elping more effecti#el" in t e speed" administration of 3!stice$ @. Ot)er Officers a. Summons Officer +alsified %eturn of Summons Gi'+ert Cata'an vs. Reyna'.o U/a'i A.2. P5$$5#"00. %&ne 2") 2000. "", SCRA 2,3 PONENTE: .endo/a FACTS: Hmali was designated b" t e co!rt to ser#e s!mmons to NE:A( an association$ T e s!mmons was ser#ed b" s!bstit!ted ser#ice to .ara#illas( a competent person fo!nd in c arge of t e gi#en address$ As e-ec!ti#e secretar" of NE:A( Catalan claims t at Hmali co!ld not a#e ser#ed t e s!mmons since t e address indicated t erein was not t e address of NE:A$ %ELD T e facts s ow t at t e address in t e s!mmons was not t e address of NE:A$ T e cross0 e-amination of Hmali also s ows inconsistencies wit w at e stated in is s!mmons report$ *n fact( t e person named .ara#illas is a non0e-istent person$ Falsification of t e ret!rn is a gra#e miscond!ct p!nis able b" dismissal$ %owe#er( it does not appear t at t e falsification was dons to fa#or t e plaintiffs in t e case or depri#e NE:A of t e rig t to be eard$ Considering t at t is is respondentJs first administrati#e case( a lesser penalt" is imposed) s!spended for E mont s$ b. +alsification by A!!rentice 7tility /or=er Pi6arro v. 0i''e;as A.2. No. P5$35#2,". Nov. 20) 2000. ",* SCRA ,2 PONENTE: Panganiban FACTS: *n 6<<E( 2!dge Pi/arro( t en assigned to CTC of *loc!s S!r( engaged t e ser#ices of respondent as an apprentice for 1 wee's( in order to determine t e latterJs fitness and aptit!de for possible emplo"ment in said co!rt$ + en as'ed b" respondent to indorse is appointment as !tilit" wor'er( complainant declined$ T e latter t o!g t t at e no longer ad an" a!t orit" to recommend an application for emplo"ment in t e former CTC( in #iew of an en banc Cesol!tion of t e SC detailing im to t e CTC of R!e/on Cit"$ Complainant learned later from is former personnel t at respondent ad been appointed !tilit" wor'er and was alread" reporting for wor' in is former sala$ Complainant t ereafter c arged respondent wit falsif"ing is signat!re in order to sec!re from t e SC is appointment as co!rt aide$

76

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES %ELD: T e appointment of t e respondent is cancelled$ Dis onest" is a male#olent act t at as no place in t e 3!diciar"$ *ndeed( all go#Jt$ personnel are mandated to act wit 3!stice and sincerit" b" t e Code of Cond!ct and Et ical Standards for P!blic Officials and Emplo"ees$ c. Due Diligence O#er Court :ara!)ernalia by Legal %esearc)er 2&tia5Ha;a. vs. Deni'a A.2. No. P5005#,"0. O!t. ") 2000. ",# SCRA "(2. PONENTE: .elo FACTS: T e complainant c arged t e defendant for gross malfeasance for losing certain records of a case t at was entr!sted to im and not caring w et er t e" were reco#ered$ %ELD: B" t e #er" nat!re of is d!ties and responsibilities as legal researc er( e s o!ld a#e borne in mind t at is arrogant and insolent attit!de in ref!sing to elp locate and find t e missing record of a case is #iolati#e of t e norms of p!blic acco!ntabilit"$ %is arg!ment t at it is no longer is 3ob to reco#er t e record is !nwarranted and a clear s owing of is Us!percilio!s comportmentJ$ Again( t e cond!ct and be a#ior of e#er"one connected wit an office c arged wit t e dispensation of 3!stice( from t e presiding 3!dge to t e lowliest cler'( s o!ld be circ!mscribed wit t e ea#" b!rden of responsibilit"$ 4Also notable in t is case( t e SC red!ced t e recommended penalt" beca!se it was a first offense8 d. %e!eated Absences A+sen!e Cit=o&t O i!ia' Leave @ACOLA o E.e'ito A' onso A.2. No. 0052523 2TCC. O!t. #0) 2000. ",2 SCRA "($. PONENTE: P!no FACTS: E-ec!ti#e 2!dge Liga"a iss!ed a Directi#e placing Alfonso on A+OL stat!s$ T e latter claims e was absent beca!se e !nderwent medical treatment for peptic !lcer 4w ic was tr!e8$ T e new E-ec!ti#e 2!dge recommended dismissal$ Before Alfonso co!ld be formall" fired owe#er( Liga"a wrote to t e Office of t e Co!rt Administrator a letter reporting t at Alfonso ad ret!rned and was reg!larl" reporting for wor' and diligentl" performing is d!ties( t at e was a UreformedJ man and e was reall" absent beca!se of illness$ %ELD: Alt o!g Liga"aJs letter mig t a#e seemed to a#e sa#ed t e da" for Alfonso( t e SC too' notice of AlfonsoJs fre9!ent absences wit o!t official lea#e e#en before t e present case$ So e#en t o!g t e SC granted t e lifting of t e A+OL stat!s for !manitarian considerations( it felt it proper to teac Alfonso a lesson b" s!spending im for E mont s wit o!t pa" pl!s t e !s!al Ustern warningJ$ %abit!al absence wit o!t appro#al is inimical to p!blic ser#ice and deser#es to be meted a disciplinar" sanction$ *n t is case( were it not for t e letter and t e illness( Alfonso wo!ld a#e been probabl" dismissed$ e. Su!!ressing +acts9 a=ing +alse Statements9 and Destroying E#idence.

Atty. %oa8&in E&se!o vs. %&anito Berna. A. 2. No. $,5#50-#5SC) 2ar. 2$) #$$*. 2," SCRA #$ PONENTE: .endo/a Facts: T is complaint was filed b" Att"$ I!seco and :ercia against Dep!t" Co!rt Administrator Bernad( c arging im wit s!ppressing facts and ma'ing false statements in is report to t e Co!rt in t e disbarment case against :ercia$

71

LEGAL ETHICS DIGESTS ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002 TOLOSA & ASSOCIATES %eld: Bernad ad no d!t" to f!rnis im a cop" of is report in t e disbarment case$ T at report was s!bmitted to t e co!rt solel" for its !se$ *t was t e decision of t e Co!rt t at :ercia as respondent was entitled to recei#e$ + at complainants c arge as s!ppression in t e report are omissions of facts w ic in t e e-ercise of so!nd 3!dgment were fo!nd to be immaterial$

75