GUTIERREZ VS.

JUDGE SANTOS
G.R. No. L-15824, MAY 30, 1961
DIZON, J.
CANON 3, SEC. 1

Recit Facts: Barrio San Esteban, Macabebe
Facts:
A complaint against Ricardo M. Gutierrez was filed with the Secretary
of Public Works and Communications alleging that the former had illegally
constructed dams, dikes and other obstructions across navigable waters,
waterways, rivers and communal fishing grounds located in Pampanga.
Gutierrez moved for the dismissal of said complaint but was denied. He
went to the CFI and filed a petition for prohibition against said secretary.
The case was assigned to Judge Arsenio Santos.
Thereafter, one of the respondents in said case moved for the
disqualification of Judge Santos on the ground that the latter had acted as
counsel for fishpond owners, like Gutierrez, in an administrative
investigation in involving the same or at least similar issues and properties,
and had expressed views in the course of said investigation prejudicial or
adverse to the contention of the respondents. It was granted. Gutierrez went
to the SC.

Issue:
Whether or not Judge Santos should inhibit himself.

Ruling:
The SC ruled in affirmative. Due process of law requires a hearing
before an impartial and disinterested tribunal, and that every litigant is
entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality of an impartial judge.
Moreover, second only to the duty of rendering a just decision, is the duty of
doing it in a manner that will not arouse any suspicion as to its fairness and
the integrity of the Judge. No judge shall preside in a case in which he is not
wholly free, disinterested, impartial and independent.
In this case, the opinion expressed by Judge Santos in a letter
addressed by him as counsel for Manuel Borja and others to the then
Secretary of the Interior might, some way or another, influence his decision
in the case at bar. Therefore, the SC dismissed the petition and upheld the
disqualification of Judge Santos.

IN RE: JUDGE FLORDELIZA
44 PHIL. 608, MARCH 12, 1923
MALCOLM, J.
CANON 3, SEC. 1

Facts:
Six lawyers from Sorsogon filed a petition before the SC for the
removal from office of the Judge Tomas Flordeliza, Judge of First Instance
of the 16th Judicial District. According to the complainants, respondent
judge is allegedly guilty of delay and lack of diligence in the disposition of
the cases pending before him. They also averred that he falsely certified the
status of the cases pending decision before him in order to secure payment
of his salary.
On his answer, respondent judge said that the time taken by
stenographers in transcribing their notes should not be counted in the
computation of the ninety-day period. He also contended that the vacation
period should be excluded and that the period should begin to run from the
date the clerk reported the case for decision.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent judge is liable administratively.

Ruling:
The SC ruled in affirmative. The law requires that before leave shall be
granted or salary shall be paid to any judge, he shall make a certificate that
all cases and proceedings which have been under submission for
determination or decision for a period of ninety days or more have been
determined and decided on or before the date of making the certificate.
Based from this proviso, vacation months should not be excluded in the
computation of the ninety-day period prescribed by law and that the time
should begin to run from the submission of the case, without awaiting
notification from the clerk of court.
The judge must cultivate a capacity for quick decision. Habits of
indecision must be sedulously overcome. He must not deny by slothfulness
of mind or body the judgment to which a party is entitled.
Therefore, the SC admonished respondent judge.
KILAT VS. JUDGE MACIAS
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1960, OCTOBER 25, 2000
TINGA, J.
CANON 3, SEC. 5

Facts:
Complainant, a 16 year-old working high school student, charged
respondent Judge Mariano S. Macias of rape, immorality and violation of
Anti-Child Abuse Law. Respondent, on other hand, denied the claims of
complainant. According to him, complaint was merely used by his ex-wife
and several other personalities who he believed had selfish and personal
axes to grind against him. Respondent said that complainant was
kidnapped and merely forced to sign the documents used in the instant
administrative complaint.
Meanwhile, complainant filed criminal charges against those accused
of kidnapping her. The Provincial Prosecutor filed the corresponding
information and the case was docketed as Criminal Case No. L-00727 and
was raffled to the RTC branch presided by respondent judge. Respondent
then issued a warrant of arrest. The next day, accused moved for the
inhibition of respondent from the criminal case on the ground that
respondent is directly involved in the said case. Respondent thus issued an
order inhibiting himself from said case.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent judge is liable administratively.

Ruling:
The SC rule in affirmative. The SC dismissed the rape charge against
respondent judge since there was no sufficient evidence to prove the same.
However, respondent judge was found guilty of abuse of authority when he
issued the warrant of arrest.
Rule 137 of the Rules of Court mandatorily disqualifies a judge or
judicial officer to sit in any case in which he, or his wife or child, is
pecuniarily interested as heir, legatee, creditor or otherwise. There is no
dispute that Mrs. Margie Corpus- Macias, accused in Criminal Case No. L-
00727, is the estranged wife of respondent judge. Respondents swift
issuance of the arrest warrant suspiciously smells of vengeance and
vindication.
A judge should administer his office with due regard to the integrity of
the judicial system. He must not be perceived as being a repository of
arbitrary power but as one dispensing justice under the sanction of the rule
of law. That he inhibited himself after they moved for his inhibition cannot
extenuate his culpability. At the outset, he should have inhibited himself
from the case.
Therefore, the SC imposed a P20,000.00 fined against respondent
judge.

SALCEDO VS JUDGE BOLLOZOS
A.M. NO. RTJ-10-2236, JULY 5, 2010
BRION, J.
CANON 3, SEC. 5

Facts:

Complainant Ruben Salcedo was supervising a construction over a
property, when Jose Tanmalack and heavily armed men arrived and forced
themselves inside the property. The complainant averred that Tanmalack
and his companions harassed and threatened to kill and to harm him and
his workers. This prompted complainant to go to the nearest police station
to report the matter. The police promptly responded and arrested
Tanmalack and brought him in for questioning. Tanmalack, represented by
his sister, then filed a verified handwritten petition for the Writ of Habeas
Corpus and the Writ of Amparo. Respondent Judge Gil Bollozos issued the
Writ of Amparo which caused the release of Tanmalack.
Complainant claims that the writ was unusually issued with haste and
that the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion, bias, and
obvious partiality. The complainant also alleges that the respondent judge
accommodated the issuance of the writ because he and Tanmalacks
counsel, Atty. Francis Ku, are members of the Masonic fraternity.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent judges is guilty of impartiality.

Ruling:
The SC ruled in negative. The fact that the respondent judge and Atty.
Francis Ku are members of the Masonic fraternity does not justify or prove
that the former acted with bias and partiality. Bias and partiality can never
be presumed and must be proved with clear and convincing evidence. While
palpable error may be inferred from respondent judges issuance of the Writ
of Amparo, there is no evidence on record that would justify a finding of
partiality or bias. The complainants allegation of partiality will not suffice in
the absence of a clear and convincing proof that will overcome the
presumption that the respondent judge dispensed justice according to law
and evidence, without fear or favor.
Therefore, the SC dismissed the complaint against respondent judge.

BELEN VS. JUDGE BELEN
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2139, August 9, 2010
CARPIO, J.
CANON 4, SEC. 1

Facts:
Respondent Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen filed a case for Estafa
against complainants father but the same was dismissed for lack of
probable cause. Thereafter, respondent judge allegedly started harassing
and threatening complainant with the filing of several cases against the
latter. Respondent judge also wrote several letters addressed to certain
local government authorities and employees, requesting information on
complainants piggery and poultry business; advising them of the alleged
violations by the complainant of the National Building Code and certain
environmental laws; and reminding the local government authorities of their
duty to forestall the issuance of municipal clearance and license to
complainants business establishment.
All of the letters enumerated above bore a letterhead indicating
respondent judges official government position, viz:

From the Chamber of:
Medel Arnaldo B. Belen
Presiding Judge, RTC-Branch 36
4th Judicial region, Calamba City
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent is guilty of impropriety.

Ruling:
The SC ruled in affirmative. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the
appearance of impropriety in all of their activities. Members of the Judiciary
should be beyond reproach and suspicion in their conduct, and should be
free from any appearance of impropriety in the discharge of their official
duties as well as in their personal behavior and everyday life.

In writing the said letters, respondent judges use of his personal
stationery with letterhead indicating that he is the Presiding Judge of RTC of
Calamba City, Branch 36, and stating that the letter was from his
chambers, clearly manifests that respondent judge was trying to use the
prestige of his office to influence said government officials and employees,
and to achieve with prompt and ease the purpose for which those letters
were written. In other words, respondent judge used said letterhead to
promote his personal interest.

Mercado CANON 4, SEC. 1
Macias CANON 4, SEC. 1
Burias CANON 4, SEC. 8