Ateneo materials (2002)

LEGAL ETHICS
A. Lawyers
1. Disbarment of lawyer for grossly immoral conduct
Ui v. Atty. Bonifaio
A.C. !o. ""#$. %&ly '( 2000. """ SC)A "*
PONENTE: De Leon
FACTS: A complaint for disbarment was filed against Bonifacio on te gro!nd of immoralit" for
a#ing illicit relations wit a married man wic res!lted in te birt of two cildren$ %er
defense: Se married complainant&s !sband wito!t 'nowledge( in good fait( of is tr!e
marriage stat!s) tat se parted wa"s !pon 'nowledge of s!c fact$ Se is also carged for
disrespect toward te *BP for willf!ll" attacing to er Answer a falsified cop" of te marriage
certificate$
%ELD +ile a law"er ma" be disbarred for ,grossl" immoral cond!ct(, tere is no fi-ed
standard for s!c cond!ct$ Alto!g circ!mstances e-isted wic so!ld a#e ir'ed Bonifacio&s
s!spicion( er act cannot be considered immoral$ *mmoralit" connotes cond!ct tat sows
indifference to moral norms of societ"$ .oreo#er( ,a member of te bar m!st so bea#e imself
as to a#oid scandali/ing te p!blic b" creating te belief tat e is flo!ting tose moral
standards$, Bonifacio&s act of immediatel" distancing erself from complainant&s !sband !pon
'nowledge of is tr!e ci#il stat!s a#oids te alleged moral indifference00tat se ad no intention
of flo!ting te law and te ig standards of te legal profession$ Te complaint is dismissed b!t
se is reprimanded for attacing to er Answer a falsified cop" of er marriage certificate$
1. Malpractice
+aroy v. A,eia
A.C. !o. "0-.( /t. 2.( #$$'. 2$' SC)A 2"$
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Case of malpractice$ Abecia was co!nsel of Daro" in a case for forcible entr"$ 2!dgment
was for Daro"$ To satisf" te 3!dgment( te seriff sold at p!blic a!ction a parcel of land
belonging to one of te defendants to complainant Daro" as igest bidder$ Daro" alleged tat e
entr!sted te title to te land 4TCT No$ T05678 to Abecia as is co!nsel and allowed im to ta'e
possession of te land !pon te latter&s re9!est$ Daro"( ten( acc!sed Abecia of a#ing( forged is
signat!re in a deed of absol!te sale b" means of wic te latter was able to transfer a parcel of
land first to 2ose :anga" and e#ent!all" to is wife Nena Abecia$ Abecia claimed tat te land
was con#e"ed to im as pa"ment of is legal ser#ices to Daro"$
1
%ELD: Abecia is not g!ilt"$ Te parties were mista'en in tin'ing tat Abecia co!ld not #alidl"
ac9!ire te land$ *n Guevara v. Calalang( on facts similar to tose in tis case( te SC eld tat
te proibition in Art$ 6;<6 does not appl" to te sale of a parcel of land( ac9!ired b" a client to
satisf" a 3!dgment in is fa#or( to is attorne" as long as te propert" was not te s!b3ect of te
litigation$ %owe#er( te parties to!gt tat te transfer of te land to Abecia was proibited and
so te" contri#ed a wa" wereb" te land wo!ld be sold to 2ose :anga"( wose wife Anita is te
sister of .rs$ Nena Abecia( and ten :anga" wo!ld sell te land to .rs$ Abecia$ Te sale of te
land to :anga" ma" be fictitio!s and( terefore( #oid( b!t it is e#ident tat Daro" intended to
con#e" te land !ltimatel" to Abecia$
3. Res judicata
)eynal0o Halimao vs. +aniel 1illan&eva et. al
A.C. !o. "'2*. 2e,. #( #$$.. 2*" SC)A #
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Tis is a complaint for disbarment against Attorne"s =illan!e#a and Ferrer( 2r$( for
serio!s miscond!ct$ %alimao alleged tat respondents( wito!t lawf!l a!torit" and armed wit
armalites and andg!ns( forcibl" entered te Oo >ian Tio' Compo!nd of wic complainant was
careta'er( on April ;( 6<<1 at 66:?? A$$.$ On A!g!st 6;( 6<<1( respondents filed a comment in
wic te" claimed tat te complaint is a mere d!plication of te complaint filed b" Danilo
%ernande/ in Administrati#e Case No$ 5@57( wic tis 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:Te *n#estigating Commissioner properl" dismissed te complaint in tis case on te
gro!nd of res 3!dicata( it appearing tat it in#ol#es te same incident and te same ca!se of
action as tat Administrati#e Case No$ 5@17$ Te resol!tion of tis Co!rt in Administrati#e Case
No$ 5@57 is concl!si#e( it appearing tat te complaint in tis case is noting b!t a d!plication of
te complaint of Danilo %ernande/ in te prior case$ *n dismissing te complaint bro!gt b"
Danilo %ernande/ in te prior case( tis Co!rt categoricall" fo!nd ,want of a prima facie
sowing of professional miscond!ct on te part of te respondents AAttorne"s Daniel =illan!e#a
and *nocencio Ferrer( 2r$B,
;. Misrepresentation and Nonpayment of bar members!ip dues
Soliman 3. Santos( %r. v. Atty. 2raniso ). Llamas
A.C. !o. -4-$. %an. 20( 2000. "22 SC)A *2$
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Complaint for misrepresentation and non0pa"ment of bar membersip d!es$ *t appears
tat Att"$ Llamas( wo for a n!mber of "ears now( as not indicated te 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 tis for at least 5 "ears alread"$ On te oter and( respondent( wo is now of age( a#erred
tat e is onl" engaged in a DlimitedF practice of law and !nder CA G;51( as a senior citi/en( e
2
is e-empted from pa"ment of income ta-es and incl!ded in tis e-emption is te pa"ment of
membersip d!es$
%ELD: :H*LTI$ C!le 65<0A re9!ires tat e#er" member of te *ntegrated Bar sall pa" ann!al
d!es and defa!lt tereof for si- monts sall warrant s!spension of membersip and if
nonpa"ment co#ers a period of 60"ear( defa!lt sall be a gro!nd for remo#al of te delin9!entJs
name from te Coll of Attorne"s$ *t does not matter weter or not respondent is onl" engaged in
DlimitedF practice of law$ .oreo#er( te e-emption in#o'ed b" respondent does not incl!de
e-emption from pa"ment of membersip or association d!es$
*n addition( b" indicating D*BP Ci/al 17<?E?F in is pleadings and tereb"
misprepresenting to te p!blic and te co!rts tat e ad paid is *BP d!es to te Ci/al Cpater(
respondent is g!ilt" of #iolating te Code of Professional Cesponsibilit" tat pro#ides: C!le 6$?6
K A law"er sall not engage in !nlawf!l( disonest( immoral or deceitf!l cond!ct$ %is act is also
a #iolation of C!le 6?$?6 wic pro#ides tat: A law"er sall not do an" falseood( nor consent
to te doing of an" in co!rt) nor mislead or allow te co!rt to be misled b" an" artifice$
7. Diligence
Elsie Aromin vs. 1alentin Bonavil
A. C. !o. *#"*. Se5t. 22( #$$$. "#* SC)A #
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Ballesteros engaged ser#ices of respondent Att"$ Bonca#il in two cadastral cases$ Hpon
receipt of te ad#erse decision in te 1 cases( Bonca#il did not inform te claimants of te
decision( did not file a motion for reconsideration or a notice of appeal( did not file a written
offer of e#idence despite te directi#e of te trial co!rt and onl" filed a motion to s!bstit!te ;
"ears after te complainantJs fater died$
%ELD: Att"$ Bonca#il was s!spended for E monts from notice wit a warning tat repetition of
a similar offense will be dealt wit more se#erel"$ Bonca#il #iolated Canon 6@ of te Code of
Professional Cesponsibilit" pro#iding tat Da law"er so!ld ser#e is client wit competence and
diligenceF and C!le 6@$?5 of te Code of Professional Cesponsibilit" wic states tat Da law"er
m!st not neglect a legal matter entr!sted to im( and is negligence in connection terewit sall
render im liable$F
". Conflicting #nterests $ull Disclosure
Hetor Teo0isio vs. 3ere0es !ava
A. C. !o. -.4". A5r. 24( 200#.
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Cespondent .ercedes Na#a alleged tat petitioner acted as co!nsel for .elanie
Batislaong in se#eral cases as co!nsel for Espinosa and Palma in cases 1 filed b" tem against
Batislaong and Na#a$ Cespondent e-plained tat Na#a was te former manager of Batislaong
3
wo was fired beca!se of mismanagement$ Tereafter( 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 te" wanted to settle teir debts to Batislaong tro!g
Na#a and were !ns!re ow to go abo!t it$ %ence( petitioner impleaded bot Batislaong and
Na#a so tere co!ld be interpleader between te two$ Tis was done wit f!ll disclos!re to all
parties concerned$
%ELD: 0 A law"er sall not represent conflicting interests e-cept b" written consent of all
concerned gi#en after a f!ll disclos!re of te facts$ Hnder Canon E of te pre#io!s Canons of
Professional Etics( a law"er is deemed to represent conflicting interests wen( in bealf of one
client( it is is d!t" to contend for tat wic d!t" to anoter client re9!ires im to oppose$ Te
r!le is designed to remo#e from attorne"s te opport!nit" to ta'e ad#antage of te secrets of
clients obtained d!ring te e-istence of te client0attorne" relation$ E#en granting tat te
interests of Espinosa( Palma( and Batislaong are conflicting( petitioner cannot be eld liable for
acting as teir common co!nsel in #iew of te fact tat( as stated in teir affida#its( petitioner
e-plained to tem te conse9!ences of is representation and tat te" ga#e teir consent to te
same$
%. Disbarment of lawyer re&uires clear and preponderant evidence
+anilo Cone5tion vs. +aniel 2an0ino
A. C. !o. %&ne 2#( 2000. ""- SCA) #".
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 wito!t a#ing been appointed or
commissioned as a notar" p!blic$ Te complaint was dismissed b" te *BP beca!se te
doc!ments s!bmitted b" complainant were mere potocopies$
%ELD Alto!g disciplinar" proceedings against law"ers are not ci#il or criminal nat!re( b!t
rater in#estigations b" te Co!rt into te cond!ct of its officers( te r!les on e#idence cannot be
disregarded considering tat te e-ercise of oneJs profession is at sta'e$ Hnder te Best E#idence
C!le( mere potocopies of te alleged notari/ed doc!ments is inadmissible in e#idence( in te
absence of e#idence to pro#e tat te original copies of te same were lost or destro"ed or cannot
be oterwise prod!ced$ Considering te serio!s conse9!ence of te disbarment or s!spension of
a member of te Bar( clear and preponderant e#idence is necessar" to 3!stif" te imposition of
te administrati#e penalt"( wit te b!rden of proof resting !pon te complainant$
'. (it!drawal of )ervices wit!out *ust cause
2eliisimo 3ontano vs. IB6
A.C. !o. -2#*. 3ay 2#( 200#.
PONENTE: Map!nan
4
FACTS: Att"$ Dealca( co!nsel for Felicisimo .ontano witdrew is ser#ices for is client !pon
te latter&s fail!re to compl" wit teir retainer agreement$
%ELD: +e find Att" DealcaJs cond!ct !nbecoming of a member of te legal profession$ Hnder
Canon 11 of te Code of Professional Cesponsibilit"( a law"er sall witdraw is ser#ices onl"
for good ca!se and !pon notice appropriate in te circ!mstances$ Alto!g e ma" witdraw is
ser#ices wen client deliberatel" fails to pa" te fees for te ser#ices( !nder te circ!mstances of
te present case( Att"$ DealcaJs witdrawal was !n3!stified as complainant did not deliberatel"
fail to pa" im te att"Js fees$ C!le 1?$; of Canon 1<?( mandates tat a law"er sall a#oid
contro#ersies wit clients concerning is compensation and sall resort to 3!dicial action onl" to
pre#ent imposition( in3!stice or fra!d$ Sadl"( for not so large a s!m owed to im b" complainant
4 P 5(7??$??8( respondent law"er failed to act in accordance wit te demands of te Code$ B!t(
onl" in a clear case of miscond!ct tat serio!sl" affects te standing and caracter of te law"er
as an officer of te co!rt and member of te bar will mdisbarment be imposed a s penalt"$
+. #mmorality
6aras vs. 6aras
A.C. !o. *""". /t. #'( 200#. "-" SC)A -#-
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$ Te criminal case for conc!binage was dismissed$
%ELD: :ood moral caracter is not onl" a condition precedent to admission to te practice of
law b!t also its contin!ed possession is also essential for remaining in te practice of law$
Cespondent as fallen below te moral bar wen e forged is wifeJs signat!re in te ban' loan
doc!ments( and sired a da!gter wit a woman oter tan is wife$ Te dismissal of te criminal
cases does not bar te filing of te administrati#e case$ Paras was not disbarred$ Disbarment
so!ld ne#er be decreed were an" lesser penalt"( s!c as temporar" s!spension( co!ld
accomplis te desired end$ S!spended for E monts$
Ansa vs. 3&sa
A.3. !o. SCC7007*. !ov. 2$( 2000. "-. SC)A 2-0
Per C!riam
FACTS: Ansa was a co!rt stenograper assigned to respondentJs 4Saria8 co!rt$ Te latter made
se#eral amoro!s ad#ances towards er$ Ten tat faitf!l da"
came and te poor stenograper finall" reali/ed tat se wo!ld ne#er be an"ting more tan te
Doter womanF$ Ansa carged er e-0lo#er wit :ross *mmoralit"( te latter resorted to te
onorable wa" o!t( strongl" and #eementl" den"ing te wole ting$
%ELD: .!sa #iolated te Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct$ Not onl" did e transgress te norms of
5
decenc" e-pected of e#er" person b!t e failed to li#e !p to te ig moral standard e-pected of
a member of te 2!diciar"$
1,. #ntemperate )peec!
Unite0 B2 Homeowners vs. San0oval7G&tierre8
A.3. !o. CA7$$7"0. /t. #.( 2000. "-" SC)A #.2
PONENTE: Map!nan
FACTS: *n te SC resol!tion dated Sept$1<( 6<<<( te" dismissed te administrati#e complaint
filed against 2!stice Sando#al0:!tierre/ of te CA and Co!rt Administrator Alfredo Benipa"o
and directed te complainants to sow ca!se w" te" so!ld not be p!nised for contempt for(
among oters( !sing intemperate( offensi#e and libelo!s lang!age against 2!stice :!tierre/ and
te oter members of te 65
t
Di#ision of te CA$
+ito!t a!tori/ation from HBF%A*( Bago la!nced a signat!re campaign and filed wit
te Office of te Co!rt Administrator te administrati#e complaint against 2!stice :!tierre/$ %e
!sed te name of te HBF%A* to la!nc is complaint$ Te Board s!bse9!entl" as'ed Bago to
resign$
*t wo!ld appear tat te a!tor of te administrati#e complaint was a certain Bago( a
member of te 6<<< HBF%A* Board and its d!l" elected Secretar"$ +ito!t a!tori/ation from
HBF%A*( Bago la!nced a signat!re campaign and filed wit te Office of te Co!rt
Administrator te administrati#e complaint against 2!stice :!tierre/$ %e !sed te name of te
HBF%A* to la!nc is complaint$ Te Board s!bse9!entl" as'ed Bago to resign$
HEL+9 *n te SC resol!tion of ; Sept$ 6<<<( te" fo!nd totall" bereft of fact!al basis
BagoJs acc!sations and inn!endos against 2!stice :!tierre/$ Te carge of foot0dragging
against tis Co!rt is not onl" malicio!s b!t also false beca!se te Co!rt ad alread" acted on
teir complaint against 2!stices :!tierre/ and Benipa"o and dismissed te same in its
Cesol!tion$ Te Co!rt finds Bago g!ilt" of indirect contempt$
+ile te Co!rt recogni/es a litigantJs rigt to critici/e 3!dges and 3!stices in te
performance of teir f!nctions( Dit is te cardinal condition of all s!c criticism tat it sall be
bona fide and sall not spill o#er te walls of decenc" and propriet"$ *ntemperate and !nfair
criticism is a gross #iolation of te d!t" of respect to co!rts$
Bani:&e0 vs. )o;as
A.3. !o. /CA70070". /t. -( 2000. "-2 SC)A #.
PONENTE: P!risima
FACTS: Complainant 4O*C of te OCAJs Statistical Ceports Di#ision8 carged respondent 4a
Statistician8 wit :ra#e .iscond!ct and Slander$ Basicall"( d!ring office o!rs( te latter called
te former !seless( biased and an idiot in front of e#er"bod"$
%ELD: SC fined Co3as$ DTis Co!rt condemns and wo!ld ne#er co!ntenance an" cond!ct( act or
omission on te part of all tose in#ol#ed in te administration of 3!stice wic wo!ld #iolate te
6
norm of p!blic acco!ntabilit" and wo!ld diminis or e#en 3!st tend to diminis te fait of te
people in te 2!diciar"$ %is cond!ct( at all times( m!st not onl" be caracteri/ed b" propriet" and
decor!m b!t abo#e all else m!st be abo#e s!spicion$F
11. $ormal #nvestigaton Mandatory in an -dmin. Case
Bal0omar vs. 6aras
A.C. !o. -$'0. +e. #*( 2000. "-' SC)A 2#2
PONENTE: =it!g
FACTS: Cespondent allegedl" ga#e Baldomar legal ad#ice and ten( became te co!nsel for
.aana" wo was te opposing part"$ Baldomar alleged tat Paras breaced teir law"er0client
relationsip$ Paras( owe#er( later witdrew is appearance on te gro!nd tat te presiding
3!dge was is former law partner$
%ELD: *t appears tat tere was no formal in#estigation cond!cted b" te *BP pertaining to te
allegations made$ A formal in#estigation is a mandator" re9!irement wic ma" not be done
awa" wit e-cept for #alid and cogent reasons$ Tese reasons do not appear ere to be present$
Te administrati#e case is remanded to *BP for f!rter proceedings$
1.. Misconduct
A:&ilino <. 6imentel( %r. vs. Attys. Antonio 3. Llorente an0 Li=aya 6. Salayon
A.C. !o. -.$0. A&=&st 2$( 2000. ""$ SC)A #*-
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Ten Senatorial candidate A9!ilino Pimentel( 2r$ alleged tat te respondents tampered
wit te #otes recei#ed b" tem b" eiter adding more #otes for partic!lar candidates in teir
Statement of =otes 4So=8 or red!cing te n!mber of #otes of partic!lar candidates in teir So=$
Pimentel filed an administrati#e complaint for teir disbarment$ Cespondents arg!ed tat te
discrepancies were d!e to onest mista'e( o#ersigt and fatig!e$
%ELD: :H*LTI$ A law"er wo olds a go#ernment position ma" not be disciplined as a member
of te bar for miscond!ct in te discarge of is d!ties as a go#ernment official$ %owe#er( if te
miscond!ct also constit!tes a #iolation of te Code of Professional Cesponsibilit" or te law"erJs
oat or is of s!c caracter as to affect is 9!alification as a law"er or sows moral delin9!enc"
on is part( s!c indi#id!al ma" be disciplined as a member of te bar for s!c miscond!ct$
%ere( b" certif"ing as tr!e and correct te So=s in 9!estion( respondents committed a breac of
C!le 6$?6 of te Code wic stip!lates tat a law"er sall not engage in D!nlawf!l( disonest(
immoral or deceitf!l cond!ct$F B" e-press pro#ision of Canon E( tis is made applicable to
law"ers in te go#ernment ser#ice$ *n addition( te" li'ewise #iolated teir oat of office as
law"ers to Ddo no falseood$F Te Co!rt fo!nd te respondents g!ilt" of miscond!ct and fined
tem PP 6?(??? eac and iss!ed a stern warning tat similar cond!ct in te f!t!re will be
se#erel" p!nised$
7
B. %&0=es
1. Gross #gnorance of t!e /aw
a. #n general
S5s. 2ort&na vs. %&0=e 6inao7Sitaa
A.3. !o. )T% 0#7#."". %&ne #$( 200#
PONENTE: Inares0Santiago
FACTS: Cespondent 2!dge was carged wit gra#e miscond!ct for granting bail to te acc!sed
in a criminal complaint filed b" complainant Sps$ Fort!na$ Te respondent granted bail based on
affida#its and not on an" oter personal findings andNor e-amination$
%ELD:*t as been eld tat it is patent error for a 3!dge to base is order of granting bail merel"
on s!pporting affida#its attaced to te information since tose are merel" intended to establis
probable ca!se as basis for te iss!ance of an arrest warrant and not to control is discretion to
den" or grant bail in all sit!ations$ :enerall" te acts of a 3!dge in an official capacit"( in te
absence of fra!d( disonest" or corr!ption( are not s!b3ect to disciplinar" action e#en to!g
s!c act ma" be erroneo!s$ B!t it is igl" imperati#e tat 3!dges so!ld be con#ersant wit
basic legal principles and be aware of well0settled a!toritati#e doctrines0s!c as in te
proced!res for granting bail$
Carlito A=&ilar vs. 1itor +alanao
A.3. !o. 3T%7007#24*. %&ne '( 2000. """ SCA) .2
6/!E!TE9 3en0o8a
FACTS: 2!dge Dalanao re#i#ed a forcible entr" case wic was alread" dismissed b" is
predecessor( claiming tat te decision was not final since a motion for reconsideration was filed$
*n anoter case for malicio!s miscief( Dalanao immediatel" iss!ed a warrant of arrest wito!t
first re9!iring te acc!sed to appear$ *n bot cases( Dalanao disregarded te application of te
C!les on S!mmar" Proced!re$ Hnder te 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 te acc!sed is first
re9!ired to appear b!t fails to do so$
%ELD *n failing to determine weter te cases are go#erned b" te s!mmar" r!les( Dalanao
sowed gross ignorance( albeit wito!t an" malice or corr!pt moti#e$ Hnder te s!mmar" r!les(
Da patentl" erroneo!s determination to a#oid te application of te C!le of S!mmar" Proced!re
is a gro!nd for disciplinar" action$F Te Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct en3oins 3!dges to be faitf!l to
te law and maintain professional competence$ Tis Co!rt as impressed on 3!dges te need to
be diligent in 'eeping abreast wit de#elopments in law and 3!rispr!dence) fined an e9!i#alent to
one0alf of is salar" for one mont$
8
1elai0es 1eri0e vs. 6risilla Hernan0e8
A.3. !o. 3T%7007#2.*. A5r. .( 2000$ ""0 SC)A -$
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: 2!dge %ernande/ dismissed a case for reco#er" of possession of land on te gro!nd tat
it was filed wito!t prior referral to te L!pong Tagapama"apa$ Complainants allege tat
respondent 3!dge committed 4a8 :ra#e ab!se of a!torit" b" 'nowingl" rendering an !n3!st and
!nlawf!l order) 4b8 *gnorance of te law in its igest order( se being a 3!dge) 4c8 :ra#e
disobedience to te 3!rispr!dence laid down b" te S!preme Co!rt$ 2!dge claims se merel"
followed te law in dismissing te case$
%ELD: *n 0avora vs. 1eloso it was alread" r!led tat were parties do not reside in te same cit"
or m!nicipalit" or in ad3oining baranga"s( tere is no re9!irement for tem to s!bmit teir
disp!te in#ol#ing real propert" to te L!pong Tagapama"apa$ S!c r!ling so!ld be familiar to
te benc and te bar$ Tat Dignorance of te law e-c!ses no oneF as special application to
3!dges( wo !nder te in3!nction of Canon 6$?6 of te Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct( Dso!ld be te
embodiment of competence( integrit"( and independence$F Cespondent( in coosing to 3!stif"
instead of correcting er error of 9!oting o!t of conte-t te Matar!ngang Pambaranga" C!les
also #iolated Canon 5 of te Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct( wic pro#ides tat Din e#er" case a
3!dge sall endea#or diligentl" to ascertain te facts and te applicable law !nswa"ed b" partisan
interest( p!blic opinion or fear of criticism$F
+aniel > S&5rema +&mo v. %&0=e )omeo 1. 6ere8
A.3. !o. 3T%7007#2-2 %an. 20( 2000.
FACTS: Cespondent 2!dge iss!ed an order stating tat complainants sall not be affected b" a
writ of e-ec!tion beca!se te" were not made parties to te case$ Despite s!c order( e mo#ed
on to iss!e a +rit of Possession in fa#or of te original plaintiff 4Espinas8$ As a conse9!ence(
Espinas !sed s!c +rit of Possession against te erein complainants in order to e3ect tem from
teir propert" and depri#ed tem from te en3o"ment of te same$
%ELD: First of all( respondent 2!dge is g!ilt" of ignorance of te law$ As an .TC 3!dge( e
ob#io!sl" ad no 3!risdiction o#er te action for 9!ieting of title and reco#er" of ownersip filed
b" Espinas against te original defendants$ *t m!st be stressed tat te case was NOT for
e3ectment b!t for 9!ieting of title andNor ownersip falling witin te e-cl!si#e 3!risdiction of
CTC$
Secondl"( te 3!dgeJs act of iss!ing conflicting orders is li'ewise ine-c!sable$ After
declaring tat te +rit of E-ec!tion cannot be made enforceable against erein complainants as
te" were not made parties to te case( e re#ersed imself ne#erteless b" iss!ing te +rit of
Possession$ Canon 1 of te Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct pro#ides tat: Da 3!dge so!ld also a#oid
impropriet" and te appearance of impropriet" in all acti#ities$F A 3!dge so!ld so bea#e at all
times as to promote p!blic confidence in te integrit" and impartialit" of te 3!diciar"$ 4C!le
1$?6( Canon 18$
)om&lo Tolentino v. %&0=e 6oliar5io S. Camano( %r.
9
A.3. )T%7007#*22. %an. 20( 2000. "22 SC)A **$
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Te complaint alleges tat respondent 2!dge granted bail wile pending te olding of a
preliminar" in#estigation$ Te defense mo#ed to 9!as te information against te acc!sed on
te alleged absence of a preliminar" in#estigation$ Conse9!entl"( respondent 2!dge ordered tat
a preliminar" in#estigation be ad b" te state prosec!tor$ D!ring te pendenc" of tis( e
granted bail in fa#or of te defendant after se#eral notices of earing to te state prosec!tor to
wic te latter failed to appear$ After s!c grant( complainant erein now acc!ses respondent of
den"ing te prosec!tion te cance to add!ce e#idence to sow tat te g!ilt of te acc!sed was
strong and tat bail so!ld not a#e been granted in is fa#or$
%ELD: NOT :H*LTI$ Tere was no denial of d!e process$ *t was not necessar" to old earing
so tat te prosec!tion co!ld sow tat e#idence of g!ilt of te acc!sed was strong since a
preliminar" in#estigation ad been ordered b" te co!rt$ At tat point( bail was still a matter of
rigt$ Cespondent 3!dge( 'nowing tat bail was indeed a matter of rigt at tat stage( ne#erteless
set te earing for te petition for bail fo!r times$ %owe#er( complainant failed to appear and
present e#idence to sow tat te g!ilt of te acc!sed was strong$ *t t!s appears tat
complainant is act!all" te one wo was remiss in te performance of is d!ties$
)e9 Hol0 +e5art&re /r0er +ate0 A5ril #"( #$$' Iss&e0 By %&0=e %&an C. !artate8
A. 3. !o. $'7#07#-#73TCC !ov. #-( #$$'. 2$' SC)A 4#0
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: %old depart!re order was iss!ed b" 2!dge Nartate/ for #iolations of B$P$ 11( to pre#ent
te depart!re of te acc!sed from te Pilippines$ Te Sec of 2!stice claims tat calls te order is
contrar" to Circ!lar No$ 5<0<G of tis Co!rt( wic limits te a!torit" to iss!e old depart!re
orders to te Cegional Trial Co!rts in criminal cases witin teir e-cl!si#e 3!risdiction$
%ELD: Te Co!rt reprimanded 2!dge Nartate/ and reminded im tat e so!ld 'eep imself
abreast of S!preme Co!rt iss!ances so as not to commit te same mista'e in te f!t!re$ Te
Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct en3oins 3!dges to be faitf!l to te law and maintain professional
competence$ Te" can li#e !p to tis e-pectation onl" b" diligent effort to 'eep temsel#es
abreast of te legal and 3!rispr!dential de#elopments$ Te learning process in law is a ne#er
ending and ceaseless process$
)amon T. Ar0osa v. Lolita /. Gal7lan=( et al.
A. 3. !o. )T%7$47#"'*. %an. '( #$$'. 2'- SC)A *'
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: *n a Criminal Case before 2!dge :al0Lang( te acc!sed filed a motion for
rein#estigation and pra"ed tat iss!ance of te warrant of arrest be eld in abe"ance$ Hpon
learning tat te warrant ad alread" been iss!ed on tat da"( te acc!sed filed a .otion to
Cecall te +arrant of Arrest$ Since te prosec!tor and complainant were present and ad been
10
f!rnised a cop" of te motion( te 3!dge decided to ear te motion on te same da" it was
filed$
%ELD: Cespondent 3!dge committed an ab!se of discretion in earing te motion of te acc!sed
on te same da" te motion was filed$ C!les 67( O; of te former C!les of Co!rt pro#ides tat
notice of a motion sall be ser#ed b" te applicant to all parties concerned at least tree 458 da"s
before te earing$ Te co!rt( owe#er( for good ca!se ma" ear a motion on sorter notice$ *n
tis case( respondent 3!dge defends er decision to ear te motion of te acc!sed for te recall
of te warrant of arrest on te same da" it was filed on te gro!nd tat an"wa" te p!blic
prosec!tor was present$ Te onl" e-c!se for dispensing wit it is if te matter to be eard is
!rgent$
+r. L&is C. Ben=8on vs. %&0=e L&isito A0aoa=
A. 3. !o. 3T%7$*7#0-*. !ov. 2'( #$$*. 2*0 SC)A "--
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: 2!dge Adaoag of .TC is carged wit ignorance of law( incompetence( bias( ostilit"(
persec!tion( arassment( obstr!ction of 3!stice and ab!se of a!torit" for olding in abe"ance te
resol!tion of complainant&s motion for demolition in an e3ectment case$ Te defendants mo#ed to
dismiss te complaint alleging tat te case was a tenanc" case o#er wic te .TC ad no
3!risdiction$ %e eld in abe"ance te resol!tion of complainant&s motion for demolition !ntil te
decision in te tenanc" case$ 2!dge Adaoag too' notice of te claim of Comeo Fernande/ tat e
was not a part" in te e3ectment case and tat e owned te lot b" #irt!e of a Certificate of Land
Transfer$ Complainant mo#ed for a reconsideration of te resol!tion$ As 2!dge Adaoag denied
te motion( tis complaint was filed against im$
%ELD: Case dismissed$ For alto!g respondent 3!dge&s resol!tion s!spending 3!dgment
on te motion for demolition ma" be erroneo!s( te error can at most amo!nt onl" to an error of
3!risdiction P wat in C!le E7( 6 of te C!les of Co!rt is termed ,gra#e ab!se of discretion$, To
warrant a finding of ignorance of te law and ab!se of a!torit"( te error m!st be ,so gross and
patent as to prod!ce an inference of ignorance or bad fait or tat te 3!dge 'nowingl" rendered
an !n3!st decision$, Oterwise( to old a 3!dge administrati#el" acco!ntable for e#er" erroneo!s
r!ling or decision e renders( ass!ming tat te 3!dge erred( wo!ld be noting sort of
arassment and tat wo!ld be intolerable$
Antonio 6. C?in v. Tito G. G&stilo( et al.
A. 3. !o. )T%7$-7#2-". A&=. ##( #$$*. 2-4 SC)A #4*
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: 2on :irao( a sec!rit" g!ard at te *loilo Central Commercial %ig Scool( tr"ing to
pre#ent Antonio Cin from entering te scool( accidentall" sot Cin$ %e s!rrendered to te
police and was bro!gt to te sala of respondent 2!dge Tito :$ :!stilo$ Hpon :irao&s motion(
respondent 3!dge granted im bail in te amo!nt of P@(???$ and ordered im released on te
same da"$
11
%ELD: A notice of application for bail to te prosec!tor is re9!ired e#en to!g no carge as
"et been filed in co!rt and e#en to!g !nder te circ!mstances bail is a matter of rigt$ +ile
respondent was in error in belie#ing tat notice to te prosec!tor is re9!ired onl" were bail is a
matter of discretion( noneteless( te SC fo!nd tat is error was not d!e to an" conscio!s and
deliberate intent to commit an in3!stice$ *n cases s!c as tis( it as been te #iew tat( as a
matter of p!blic polic"( in te absence of fra!d( disonest"( or corr!ption( te acts of a 3!dge in
is 3!dicial capacit" are not s!b3ect to disciplinar" action e#en to!g s!c acts are erroneo!s$
Noneteless( te SC a#e stressed te importance of te d!t" of members of te 3!diciar" to 'eep
abreast of te laws( r!lings and 3!rispr!dence affecting teir 3!risdiction$ Cespondent 3!dge&s
fail!re to compl" wit tis d!t" res!lting in te fail!re to gi#e notice to te prosec!tion of
pending application for bail merits a reprimand$
Teresita <. T&ay vs. %&0=e )o=er A. +oma=as
A. 3. !o. )T%7$*7#2'.. 3ar. 2( #$$*. 2-2 SC)A ##0
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: A complaint was filed( protesting te grant of bail wito!t earing and wito!t notice to
trial fiscal( Att"$ =illarin( of te Pro#incial Prosec!tor&s recommendation for appro#al of te
bond$
%ELD: *n failing to obser#e tese r!dimentar" re9!irements( te respondent 3!dge sowed gross
ignorance of te law for wic e so!ld be fined$
A5olinario 3&@e8 vs. %&0=e Ciriao Ari@o
A. 3. !o. 3T%7$-7$'*. 2e,. 2#( #$$*. 2-# SC)A -4'
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Tis 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 te CPC$
%ELD: %e sowed poor 3!dgment and gross ignorance of basic legal principles$ +ile 3!dges
so!ld not be disciplined for inefficienc" on acco!nt merel" of occasional mista'es or errors of
3!dgment( "et( it is igl" imperati#e tat te" so!ld be con#ersant wit basic legal principles$
*n e#er" case( a 3!dge so!ld endea#or diligentl" to ascertain te facts and te applicable law
!nswa"ed b" partisan or personal interests( p!blic opinion or fear of criticism$ A 3!dge owes it to
te p!blic and te administration of 3!stice to 'now te law e is s!pposed to appl" to a gi#en
contro#ers"$ Cespondent 3!dge sowed lac' of capacit" for independent 3!dgment$
b. Re&uirements for liability to attac! to gross ignorance of t!e law
)allos vs. GoAo( %r.
A.3. !o. )T%7$$7#-'-(A). /t. 2-( 2000. "-- SC)A #4'
12
PONENTE: Panganiban
FACTS: Complainant alleged tat te respondent 3!dge ordered te release of 17(??? sac's of
rice to claimants( notwitstanding te pendenc" of sei/!re and forfeit!re proceedings before te
B!rea! of C!stoms$ *t is alleged tat respondent is g!ilt" of gross ignorance of law$
%ELD: Tis act constit!tes gross ignorance of te law$ %owe#er( we a#e eld tat to be
p!nisable as s!c( it m!st not onl" be contradictor" to e-isting law and 3!rispr!dence( b!t m!st
also be moti#ated b" bad fait( fra!d( disonest" or corr!ption$ Cespondent was in bad fait
wen respondent did not appear for earing on te dates set for te earing of wic e ad
'nowledge of$
+araan vs. !ativi0a0
A3 )T%7$$7#--4. Se5t. 24( 2000. "-# SC)A #.#
PONENTE: Inares Santiago
FACTS: Tis case deals wit ow to old a 3!dge administrati#el" liable for ignorance of te law
andNor 'nowingl" rendering an !n3!st 3!dgment$
%ELD: For liabilit" to attac for ignorance of law( te assailed order or decision of te 3!dge in
te performance of official d!ties m!st not onl" be fo!nd erroneo!s b!t( more importantl"( it
m!st also be establised tat e was mo#ed b" bad fait) disonest"( atred( or some oter li'e
moti#es$ Similarl"( a 3!dge will be eld liable for rendering an !n3!st 3!dgment wen e acts in
bad fait( malice( re#enge or some oter similar moti#e$ *n fine( bad fait is te gro!nd for
liabilit" in eiter or bot offenses$ Bad fait does not simpl" connote bad 3!dgment or
negligence) it imp!tes a disonest p!rpose or some moral obli9!it" and conscio!s doing of a
wrong) a breac of a sworn d!t" tro!g some moti#e or intent or ill0will) it parta'es of te
nat!re of fra!d$ Bad fait is not pres!med and e wo alleges te same as te on!s of pro#ing
it$
/sar C. 2ernan0e8 v. Lilia Es5a@ol
A. 3. !o. 3T%7$'7##*0. A5ril #*( #$$'. 2'$ SC)A #
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS:Complainant filed a motion for e-ec!tion( wic was granted b" respondent 3!dge$
Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration( alleging tat complainant&s broters( wo are co0
owners of te propert"( ad renewed is lease contract$ Cespondent 3!dge granted te defendant&s
motion for reconsideration( deferring e-ec!tion$ *n comment( respondent 3!dge e-plained tat
se granted te defendant&s motion in #iew of a s!per#ening e#ent$
%ELD: Cespondent 3!dge as sown ignorance of law b" failing to order e-ec!tion despite te
fact tat defendant ad not gi#en a s!persedeas bond( paid te rents as te" fell d!e or paid te
doc'et fees$ Te co!rt&s d!t" was simpl" to order s!c e-ec!tion$ Also( tere was no s!per#ening
e#ent$
13
%owe#er( to 3!stif" te ta'ing of drastic disciplinar" action( te law re9!ires tat te error or
mista'e of te 3!dge m!st be gross or patent( malicio!s( deliberate or in bad fait$ Tese are not
present in te instant case$
c. Gross #gnorance of law. #mpartiality.
A0an vs. A,&e;o7L&8ano
A.3. !o. 3T%7007#2$'. ""4 SC)A #*'
PONENTE: :on/aga0 Ce"es
FACTS:A caref!l reading of te order of ac9!ittal sows tat respondent 3!dge cond!cted an
oc!lar inspection of te place of te incident Don er wa" omeF at wic te acc!sed was
present and werein respondent 2!dge was informed b" te acc!sed tat Dte area was fenced b"
te .SHF$ *t is not disp!ted tat complainant or is co!nsel was not informed of s!c oc!lar
inspection$ Complainant carged respondent 2!dge wit ab!se of a!torit"( partiall" and
rendering an !n3!st 3!dgment relati#e to te aforesaid criminal cases$
%ELD:Cespondent 2!dge so!ld a#e 'nown tat an e2 parte oc!lar inspection wito!t notice to
nor presence of te parties and after te case ad alread" been decided was igl" improper$ *f
respondent 3!dge ad entertained do!bts tat se wised to clarif" after te trial ad alread"
terminated( se so!ld a#e ordered motu proprio te reopening of te trial for te p!rpose( wit
d!e notice to te parties( wose participation terein is essential to d!e process$ T!s( it is error
for te 3!dge to go alone to te place were te crime was committed and ma'e an inspection
wito!t pre#io!s 'nowledge or consent of te parties$ Cespondent as opened erself to carges
of partialit" and bias b" meeting wit te acc!sed pri#atel"$ Cespondent 2!dge as not onl"
sown gross ignorance of te law and proced!re b!t failed to li#e !p to te norm tat D3!dges
so!ld not onl" be impartial b!t so!ld also appear impartial$F Se t!s #iolated Canon 1 of te
Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct wic pro#ides tat Da 3!dge so!ld a#oid impropriet" and te
appearance of impropriet" in all acti#ities$F
L& vs. Sia5no
A.3. !o. 3T%7$$7##$$. %&ly .( 2000. ""* SC)A #22
PONENTE: :on/aga0Ce"es
FACTS: On appeal( .TC03!dgment was modified b" deleting te paragrap ,4*8n accordance
wit te C!les( let a +rit of E-ec!tion be iss!ed$, L! filed a petition for re#iew wit te Co!rt of
Appeals( wile petitioner&s co!nsel filed a .otion for E-ec!tion wic was granted b"
respondent 3!dge$ +rit was iss!ed wito!t notice and earing$ An e-0parte .otion to +itdraw
deposit was filed and granted$ A .otion for Special Demolition was li'ewise granted wito!t
notice and earing$ %ence( tis complaint for gross incompetence( gross ignorance of te law(
abdication of official f!nction and gross miscond!ct$
%ELD: Cespondent is g!ilt" of gross ignorance of te law wen e rendered 3!dgment
pro#iding( in te dispositi#e portion( for its immediate e-ec!tion$ *t so!ld be noted tat te CTC
14
modified te .TC0decision to te effect tat it so!ld not be immediatel" e-ec!ted$ Basic is te
r!le tat a 3!dge ma" not order te e-ec!tion of 3!dgment in te decision itself$ Section 16 of te
C!les of S!mmar" Proced!re li'ewise pro#ides tat te decision of te CTC is immediatel"
e-ec!tor"$ E#en if immediatel" e-ec!tor"( tere m!st be notice and earing$ Also( mere
s!spicion tat te 3!dge is partial to a part" is not eno!g) tere so!ld be ade9!ate e#idence to
pro#e te carge$
%e5son +i?aves vs. Billy A5alit
A.3. 3T%7007#24-. %&ne '( 2000. """ SC)A *-
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: *n a criminal case for #iolation of BP 11( respondent 2!dge iss!ed 5 orders: 468
s!spension of te criminal case d!e to te principle of pre3!dicial 9!estion wen te complainant
was not a part" to te ci#il case 4no 3!stification for te r!ling was made8) 418 dis9!alification of
co!nsel of complainant for ta'ing part in te prosec!tion of te criminal case allegedl" d!e to te
fact tat te ci#il aspect of te case was being litigated) and 458 ac9!itting te acc!sed beca!se
te cec's were allegedl" iss!ed as a g!arantee$
%ELD: 2!dge Apalit is g!ilt" of gross ignorance of te law$ An isolated error of 3!dgment
wo!ld normall" not ma'e a 3!dge s!sceptible to administrati#e liabilit"$ *n tis case( te 3!dgeJs
partialit" for a part" to a case before im is e#ident in se#eral orders( fa#oring te acc!sed in te
criminal case( e#en going to te e-tent of disregarding settled r!lings$
3a. Imel0a 3aros73anoto vs. Emerito 3. A=aoili
A.3. !o. )T%7$'7#-0*. A5r. #2( 2000. ""0 SC)A 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 te
iss!ance of a writ of preliminar" in3!nction and TCO against complainants .arcos0.anotoc( et
al$ On te same da"( 3!dge iss!ed a TCO( stating tat s!c Dis good !ntil s!c time tat te writ
of preliminar" in3!nction sall a#e been resol#edF$ Te earing for te application for a
preliminar" in3!nction was sced!led on 2!ne 1; b!t on tat da"( instead of cond!cting a
earing( 3!dge iss!ed an order e-tending te effecti#it" of te TCO for 7 more da"s$ On 2!ne 1@(
3!dge again e-tended te TCO$
%ELD: 2!dge failed to obser#e C!les 5$?6 and 5$?7 of te Code of 2!dicial cond!ct( en3oining
3!dges to be faitf!l to te law and to maintain professional competence and to dispose of te
b!siness of teir co!rts promptl" and witin te applicable periods$ 2!dgeJs act of f!rter
e-tending te TCOs( 'nowing f!ll" well tat e as not cond!cted a s!mmar" earing and tat
e wo!ld not be able to cond!ct one in te s!cceeding da"s beca!se of is oter commitments(
s!ggests partialit" to a part" in te case$ %e disregarded te time0onored in3!nction on 3!dges
to be impartial bot in fact and in appearance$
)o,erto Es5irit& vs. vs. E0&ar0o %ovellanos
15
A.3. !o. 3T%7$47##"$. /to,er #.( #$$4. 2'0 SC)A *4$
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Espirit! carged respondent 3!dge wit wit ignorance of te law( gra#e ab!se of
a!torit"( and gross partialit" alleging irreg!larities committed b" respondent 3!dge in te
cond!ct of te preliminar" in#estigation of is complaint against D!mlao$
%ELD: Te respondent 3!dge is g!ilt" of ignorance of te law( bias( and partialit" for D!mlao as
sown b" te respondent 3!dge granting bail and later red!cing its amo!nt wen te fact was
tat( at tat time( D!mlao was not in te c!stod" of te co!rt( and no notice and earing for te
red!ction were eld$ Alto!g ten not in legal c!stod"( D!mlao s!bse9!entl" s!bmitted imself
to te 3!risdiction of te co!rt wen 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 te amo!nt of bail at P1?(???$?? and
red!cing it to P6?(???$?? and in doing so wito!t a earing$ Eiter respondent 3!dge was
grossl" ignorant of te law or e deliberatel" disregarded it to fa#or te acc!sed$
F!rter demonstrating eiter deliberate disregard of te law or gross ignorance of te same(
respondent 3!dge granted bail to +en" D!mlao wito!t notice to te prosec!tion( in #iolation of
C!le 66;( O6@$ Te fail!re to obser#e te abo#e re9!irement constit!tes ignorance or
incompetence wic cannot be e-c!sed b" an" protestation of good fait$ +at respondent 3!dge
so!ld a#e done was to a#e D!mlao p!t is re9!est in writing and ten sced!le te incident
for earing wit notice to te prosec!tion$ *nstead( e readil" granted te re9!est( wic
indicates rater clearl" respondent 3!dge&s partialit"$ Tis partialit" was nowere more e#ident
tan in te pri#ate conference wic e ad wit te D!mlaos in is cambers wito!t te
presence of te opposing part"( te complainant in tis case$ Time and again we a#e
admonised 3!dges not onl" to be impartial b!t also to appear to be so$
D. Gross #gnorance of /aw and #mpropriety
Emeterio Gallo vs. %&0=e %ose Cor0ero
A. 3. !o. 3T%7$*7#0"* %&ne 2#( #$$*. 2-* SC)A 2#$
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: :allo carges tat 4a8 in #iolation of art$ 1?G and art$ 1?@ of te CPC( respondent 3!dge
ordered te arrest of te acc!sed) 4b8 tat respondent pri#atel" conferred wit te acc!sed in is
office wic ,logicall" and nat!rall" aro!ses s!spicion of graft and ran' fa#oritism), and 4c8 tat
e acted wit bias and ignorance of te law(, and tat e#en if te acc!sed were not tenants(
,nobod" can e3ect tem$,
%ELD: Cordero opened imself to carges of partialit" and bias b" meeting pri#atel" wit te
fo!r acc!sed$ *t was improper for im to meet tem wito!t te presence of complainant$ %e not
onl" as sown gross ignorance of law and proced!re b!t as also failed to li#e !p to te norm
16
tat ,3!dges so!ld not onl" be impartial b!t so!ld also appear impartial$, %e #iolated Canon 1
of te Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct wic pro#ides tat ,a 3!dge so!ld a#oid impropriet" and te
appearance of impropriet" in all acti#ities$, C!le 1$?6 pro#ides tat ,A 3!dge so!ld so bea#e at
all times as to promote p!blic confidence in te integrit" and impartialit" of te 3!diciar"$,
3. Malfeasance4Misfeasance in Rendering 5njust *udgment6 Gross #gnorance
Heirs of %&an an0 !ativi0a0 Germinan0a vs. Salvanera
A.3. !o. 3T%7007#2-.. %an. 2'( 2000. "2" SC)A *.#
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: An !nlawf!l detainer case was p!rs!ed b" te :erminandas in one ci#il case and te
ownersip of te land in anoter case$ Te 3!dge s!spended te resol!tion in te !nlawf!l
detainer case !ntil te ownersip case as been terminated$ Te iss!e is weter or not tere as
been malfeasance or misfeasance in te s!spension$
%ELD: *t is settled tat te pendenc" of an action 9!estioning te ownersip of te propert"
does not bar te filing or te consideration of an e3ectment s!it nor te e-ec!tion of te 3!dgment
terein$ Te reason for tis r!le is tat e3ectment s!its in#ol#e onl" te iss!e of material
possession and does not decide te iss!e of ownersip$ Considering te differences in ca!ses of
action( it was wrong for te 3!dge to r!le te complainants g!ilt" of for!m sopping in filing
teir complaints for !nlawf!l detainer despite pendenc" of te ownersip case$ 2!dge was
reprimanded$
$. #gnorance of t!e /aw4 Nonfeasance
/rlan0o La5e@a vs. %ovito 6amaran=
A.3. !o. 67007#".2. 2e,. #*( 2000. "2* SC)A --0
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Parmarang( Seriff *= 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 wen e made a ret!rn$
%ELD: *t is well settled tat to sta" te immediate e-ec!tion of 3!dgment in an e3ectment case
wile appeal is pending( te defendant m!st: 4a8 perfect is appeal) 4b8 file a s!persedeas bond)
and 4c8 periodicall" deposit te rentals wic become d!e d!ring te pendenc" of te appeal$
Tese circ!mstances were not present to 3!stif" te seriff from desisting from te
implementation of te writ of e-ec!tion$ Considering tat te losing part" onl" ad 67 da"s
from receipt of te decision 4or !ntil A!g!st 6@( 6<<78 to a#ert e-ec!tion( tere was no reason for
te seriff to wait !ntil October 7$ Ass!ming tat te writ was not enforced d!e to te
aforementioned circ!mstances( te respondent seriff still ad a d!t" to ma'e a timel" ret!rn to
te co!rt$ Seriff is g!ilt" of nonfeasance$
17
G. Gross #gnorance of t!e /aw7 8artiality7 #ncompetence7 9nowingly Rendering 5njust
*udgment
Clo0&al0o 0e %es&s vs. )o0olfo /,namia
A.3. !o. 3T%7007#"#-. Se5t. 4( 2000. "-0 SC)A #
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Complainants erein allege tat respondent 2!dge amended te order of 2!dge Nantes
and acted wit gross ignorance of te law and incompetence and 'nowingl" rendered an !n3!st
3!dgment$ Cespondent 2!dge claims tat e was not aware of te decision as s!c was not
attaced to te records wen e prepared te 9!estioned resol!tion$
%ELD: E#en if te decision of te CA was not in te records of te e3ectment case( te same
were bro!gt to respondent 3!dgeJs attention b" complainant in te s!pplemental opposition e
filed to te plaintiffJs motion for reconsideration of 2!dge NanteJs order den"ing te plaintiffJs
motion for writ of demolition$ Te e-ec!tion of te decision terefore is a contentio!s matter$ *t
was t!s necessar" for respondent 3!dge to ens!re compliance wit te tree0da" notice r!le for
te earing werein e co!ld ten confirm te e-istence of te decision and resol!tion of te CA$
CespondentJs fail!re to do so constit!tes cens!rable cond!ct$
Go8&n vs. Lian=o
A.3. !o. 3T%7$47##".. A&=. "0( 2000. ""$ SC)A 2*"
PEC CHC*A.
FACTS: :o/!n was in open and ad#erse possession of s!b3ect land for a period of 5? "ears$ Te
m!nicipalit" of San L!is( Pampanga claimed to own te same lot and iss!ed a resol!tion
declaring tat te lot were :o/!n and famil" were s9!atting as te new site of te %ealt
Center$ 2!dge iss!ed a resol!tion( reasoning in fa#or of te m!nicipalit" and !polding te
resol!tion$ Note tat :o/!n was not ser#ed wit s!mmons or gi#en notice of te petition$
Complainant a#ers tat respondent&s iss!ance of te resol!tion amo!nts to gross miscond!ct(
gross inefficienc"( and incompetence( and f!rter acc!sed te ma"or of a#ing bribed
respondent$
%ELD: 2!dge not onl" acted wito!t 3!risdiction( b!t in so acting ignored blatantl" te basic
r!les of fair pla"$ Complainant was not notified of nor made a part" to te petition$ A member of
te benc m!st 'eep imself constantl" abreast of legal and 3!rispr!dential de#elopments(
bearing in mind tat tis learning process ne#er ceases e#en as it is so indispensable in te
correct dispensation of 3!stice$ +en te law #iolated is elementar"( te fail!re to 'now or
obser#e it constit!tes gross ignorance of te law$ Also( 3!dges are proibited from engaging in
te pri#ate practice of law or from gi#ing professional ad#ice to clients$ Te" are re9!ired to be
ob3ecti#e and cannot inno#ate at pleas!re and 3!stif" s!c b" teir own perception of wat is
ideal or good$
:. Gross #gnorance of /aw. No *urisdiction.
18
i. !old departure order
Hol0 +e5art&re /r0er ,y %&0=e Anieto 3a0ronio
A.3. !o. $$7#27#$2. %an. 2.( 2000. "2" SC)A "-*
PONENTE: .endo/a
%ELD: S!preme Co!rt Circ!lar No$ 5<0<G dated 2!ne 6<( 6<<G limits te a!torit" to iss!e old
depart!re orders to CTCs in Criminal Cases witin teir e-cl!si#e 3!risdiction$ 2!dge .adronio
e#en admits is o#ersigt$ Cespondent is s!spended$
Hol0 +e5art&re /r0er Iss&e0 By %&0=e E&se,io Barot( 3CTC Br. 2 A5arrie( Calayan(
Ca=ayan
A.3. $$7'7#0'73CTC. A&=. 2*( #$$$. "#" SC)A --
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 te
depart!re of te acc!sed from te Pilippines$ Te Secretar" of 2!stice calls attention to te fact
tat te order is contrar" to Co!rt Circ!lar 5<05G wic limits te a!torit" to iss!e old
depart!re orders to CTCs in criminal cases witin its e-cl!si#e 3!risdiction$
%ELD: 2!dge Barot is reprimanded wit warning$ Te Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct en3oins 3!dges
to be faitf!l to te law and maintain professional competence$
ii. Regular Courts !ave no *urisdiction to Restrain 32ecution of $inal Decisions
of t!e /abor -rbiter
Gor=onio !ova vs. %&0=e San?o +ames
A.3. !o. )T%7007#*4-. 3ar. 2'( 200#
PONENTE: Pardo
FACTS: No#a filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and oter mone" claims against Station
DQC.$ Te Labor Arbiter r!led in is fa#or and te NLCC dismissed te appeal$ Te decision
a#ing become final( te NLCC iss!ed an alias writ of e-ec!tion$ %owe#er( respondent 2!dge
iss!ed a TCO restraining te NLCC Seriff from cond!cting te sced!led p!blic a!ction$
%ELD: Ceg!lar co!rts a#e no 3!risdiction to ear and decide 9!estions wic arise and are
incidental to te enforcement of decisions( orders or awards rendered in labor cases b"
appropriate officers and trib!nals of te DOLE$ Te" owe it to te p!blic to be legall"
'nowledgeable wit basic laws and principles( for ignorance of te law is te bane of in3!stice$
)o0ri=&e8 vs. Bonifaio
A.3. !o. )T%7$$7#*#0 !ov. .( 2000. "-- SC)A *.*
19
PONENTE: Inares0Santiago
FACTS: Cespondent allegedl" granted impro#identl" a petition for %abeas Corp!s t!s( e was
carged wit gross ignorance of te law( gross incompetence and 'nowingl" rendering an !n3!st
3!dgment$
%ELD: +ere te B!rea! of *mmigration and Deportation ad not "et completed its earing and
in#estigation proceedings wit respect to an alien and tere is no sowing tat it is !nd!l"
dela"ing its decision( abeas corp!s proceedings are premat!re$ *t was grie#io!s error for te
3!dge to gi#e d!e co!rse to te abeas corp!s petition$ *t is imperati#e tat 3!dges be con#ersant
wit basic legal principles and aware of well0settled a!toritati#e doctrines$ %e so!ld stri#e for
e-cellence e-ceeded onl" b" is passion for tr!t( to te end tat e be te personification of
3!stice and te C!le of Law$
iii. 3lection /aw
)omeo G&stilo vs. Hon. )iar0o S. )eal
A.3. !o. 3T%700#2*0. 2e,. 2'( 200#
PONENTE: R!is!mbing
FACTS: Complainant :!stilo was a candidate for p!nong baranga" wit +edd" Libo0on as is
lone opponent$ Te can#assing "ielded a tie( te brea'ing of wic was in fa#or of :!stilo 4wo
was d!l" proclaimed8$ Libo0on filed an election protest wit te .CTC$ Cespondent 3!dge
granted Libo0onJs motion to ad#ance te earing wito!t gi#ing d!e notice to :!stilo$
Cespondent ten iss!ed a TCO and ann!lled te proclamation of Ceal$ Complainant a#ers tat
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 te 3!risdictional bo!ndaries of co!rts and 9!asi03!dicial
bodies li'e te CO.ELEC and to act onl" witin said limits$ A 3!dge wo wantonl" arrogates
!nto imself te a!torit" and power #ested in oter agencies not onl" acts in oppressi#e
disregard of te basic re9!irements of d!e process( b!t also creates caos and contrib!tes to
conf!sion in te administration of 3!stice$ Cespondent displa"ed a mar'ed ignorance of basic
laws and principles$
Commission on Eletions vs. %&0=e B&o ). +at&7iman
A.3. !o. 3T%7$$7##4'. 3ar? "( #$$$. "0- SC)A #0.
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: On .arc 1< and 56( 6<<;( Comelec sent telegrams to election officials in Lanao del
S!r ordering tem to delete Baranga" S!mbago from te list of baranga"s in te .!nicipalit" of
Ba"ang on te gro!nd tat it ad not been legall" created$ %owe#er( baranga" officials see'ing
reelection bro!gt s!it against Comelec in 2!dge Dat!0*manJs co!rt to stop implementation of
te CO.ELEC directi#e$ 2!dge Dat!0*man iss!ed a temporar" restraining order on April <( 6<<;
20
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 te law$
%ELD: Beca!se of te s!bordinate stat!s and ran' of co!rts #is0a0#is te CO.ELEC( te lower
co!rts cannot iss!e writs of in3!nction enforceable against te CO.ELEC$ .ore importantl"(
2!dge Dat!0*man o!gt to a#e 'nown tat( since its creation( te CO.ELEC as been accorded
f!ll discretion gi#en its constit!tional mandate to enforce and administer all laws relati#e to te
cond!ct of election( plebiscite( initiati#e( referend!m( and recall$ Tis was stressed in te
decision of tis Co!rt in Qaldi#ar #$ Esten/o$
iv. R0C interference wit! t!e business of t!e C-
3artin Bri8&ela vs. )&,en 3en0iola
A.3. !o. )T%7007#*.0. %&ly *( 2000. ""* SC)A 2"
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: After defa!lting on is loan and after te forclos!re on is real estate mortgage and te
lapse of te period of redemption( mortgagor Bri/!ela files an action to ann!l te a!ction sale
wit CTC Branc EE$ *t is dismissed( b!t on appeal to te CA( Bri/!ela is able to ca!se te
annotation of a notice of lis pendens on te propert"$ .eanwile( te winning bidder files a
motion to cancell te notice of lis pendens wit 2!dge .endiola of CTC Branc E5 wo grants it$
%ELD: Te 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 te annotation of te notice was made
in relation to te ann!lment case filed in Branc EE( wic case fell !nder te 3!risdiction of te
CA at te moment te decision of te former was appealed to te latter$ .endiola is g!ilt" of
gross ignorance of te law and gra#e miscond!ct) fined P7(???( to be d!dected from te balance
of is retirement benefits$
v. #nterference of court wit! anot!er court of e&ual ran;
)omeo +ela Cr&8 vs. Carlito Eisma
A.3. !o. )T%7007#*--. 3ar. #*( 2000. "2' SC)A #*#
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: LedesmaJs land was ta'en b" e-propriation proceedings$ After 11 "ears( eirs of
Ledesma enter and occ!p" te e-propriated portion( prompting Sol:en Dela Cr!/ to file a case
of forcible entr"$ *t was dismissed b" te .TC b!t re#ersed b" CTC Branc 6G( attaining finalit"
wen no appeal was filed$ S!bse9!entl"( te eirs were able to file an accion p!bliciana wit
2!dge Eisma of CTC Branc 65( wo iss!ed a TCO and preliminar" in3!nction against te .TC$
%ELD Te principle tat a co!rt cannot pre#ent te e-ec!tion of a decision of a iger co!rt
applies to salas of co0e9!al 3!risdiction$ Alto!g EismaJs orders were directed to te .TC( its
effect was to pre#ent te e-ec!tion of a final order of anoter CTC of e9!al ran' and 3!risdiction$
Eisma is g!ilt" of gross ignorance of te law and ab!se of a!torit") fined P7(???$
21
.. Gross Negligence. Gross #gnorance. #mpartiality.
)om&lo Tolentino vs. Alfre0o Ca,ral
A.3. !o. )T%7007#*2'. 3ar. 2'( 2000. "2$ SC)A #
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Prosec!tor Tolentino files a petition for certiorari assailing te order of CTC 2!dge
Cabral granting bail to a rape s!spect$ Tolentino also files an administrati#e complaint against
Cabral for te loss of pertinent records on te case and for sowing partialit" for te acc!sed$
Cabral brings co!nter carges against Tolentino wen te latter 9!estioned certain orders of te
co!rt b" distorting and misrepresenting te act!al contents of s!c orders) and for treatening
Cabral tat if te prosec!tionJs motions are not granted( an administrati#e complaint wo!ld be
bro!gt against im$
%ELD Acting on te petition for certiorari( te S!preme Co!rt fo!nd tat Cabral 'nowingl"
iss!ed a manifestl" !n3!st order granting bail despite strong e#idence of g!ilt$ Acting on te
administrati#e complaint( te S!preme Co!rt finds Cabral g!ilt" of gross negligence and
inefficienc" for te loss of important records on te case$ %e is also g!ilt" of partialit" in
den"ing te prosec!tion te cance to file an opposition wen Cabral fi-ed te date of a earing
close to te date of its ser#ice to te prosec!tion$ Tolentino is also fo!nd g!ilt" of te
co!ntercarges$
For gra#e ab!se of a!torit"( gross ignorance of te law( gross negligence and
inefficienc"( rendering !n3!st 3!dgment and for #iolations of te Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct( 2!dge
Cabral is s!spended for E monts wito!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 te Code of Professional
Cesponsibilit"$
3. Continuance of admin. case
a$ Complainant<s Desistance does not =ar
%&anito A=&lan vs. %&0=e 2ernan0e8
A.3. !o. 3T% 0#7#"*-. A5r. - 200#
PONENTE: :on/aga0Ce"es
FACTS: Cespondent 2!dgeJs fail!re to compl" wit te r!les regarding te proced!re for
acceptance and disposition of cas bail bonds placed is integrit" in serio!s do!bt partic!larl"
wen e replaced part of te cas bond wit is personal cec' wito!t an" acceptable
e-planation$
%ELD: A 3!dgeJs official cond!ct so!ld be free from an" appearance of impropriet"$ %e m!st
not act in a wa" tat wo!ld cast s!spicion in order to preser#e te fait in te administration of
3!stice$ *n te case of p!blic ser#ants in te 3!diciar"( teir cond!ct and bea#ior( from te
22
presiding 3!dge to te lowliest cler'( m!st not onl" be caracteri/ed b" propriet" and decor!m
b!t abo#e all else m!st be abo#e s!spicion$ Te mere fact tat complainant sent a letter
re9!esting te witdrawal of te instant administrati#e case does not warrant te dismissal
tereof) te co!rt ma" proceed wit its in#estigation and mete o!t appropriate penalt" against
erring officers of te co!rt$
Sevilla vs. Sal&,re
A.3. 3T%7007#"".( +e. #$( 2000( "-' SC)A *$2.
PONENTE: De Leon( 2r$
FACTS: Cespondent 3!dge misappropriated is clientJs f!nds wen 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 cec's as
pa"ment b!t bot bo!nced$ Te client filed an estafa case b!t later on e-ec!ted an Affida#it of
Desistance$ Te iss!e is weter te Affida#it of Desistance di#ested te SC of its 3!risdiction to
impose administrati#e sanctions !pon respondent$
%ELD: No$ +ile te complaint for estafa ad been dismissed( te dismissal was on acco!nt of
complainantJs #ol!ntar" desistance and not !pon a finding of innocence$ Te primar" ob3ect of
administrati#e cases against law"ers is not onl" to p!nis and discipline te erring indi#id!al
law"ers b!t also to safeg!ard te administration of 3!stice b" protecting te co!rts and te p!blic
from te miscond!ct of law"ers( and to remo#e from te legal profession persons wose !tter
disregard of teir law"erJs oat a#e pro#en tem !nfit to contin!e discarging te tr!st reposed
in tem as members of te bar$ Administrati#e cases against law"ers can still proceed despite te
dismissal of ci#il andNor criminal complaints against tem$
b. Retirement Does Not 3ffect Dismissal
Ca,arlo vs. Ca,&sora
A.3. !o. 3T%7007#2*.( +e. #*( 2000. "-' SC)A 2#4.
PONENTE: Map!nan
FACTS: 2!dge Cab!sora downgraded te crime to %omicide and e-onerated Cadano$ *t was also
fo!nd tat te 3!dge committed error in cond!cting anoter preliminar" in#estigation( re#ersing
is own findings mot! propio and ordering te release of te two acc!sed wito!t a!torit"$
%ELD: 2!dge Cab!sora e-ceeded is a!torit" in ma'ing a determination of te crime
committed as tis is te f!nction of te prosec!tion and not of te in#estigating 3!dge$ Cessation
from office beca!se of retirement does not warrant te dismissal of te administrati#e complaint
filed against a 3!dge wile e was still in ser#ice$
6erlito +. 2lores( et al. v. Antonio C. S&malia=
A. 3. !o. 3T%7$47###*. %&ne *( #$$'. 2$0 SC)A *.'
PONENTE: .endo/a
23
FACTS: Te complainants instit!ted tis administrati#e case against respondent 3!dge for gross
ignorance of te law in connection wit te preliminar" in#estigation of tree criminal cases and
te arrest of complainants$ Cespondent as alread" retired$ *t is contended tat respondent
ordered te arrest of complainants wito!t te 3!stification of doing so ,in order not to fr!strate
te ends of 3!stice(, as pro#ided in C!le 661( OE4b8$
%ELD: Te arrest of te acc!sed can be ordered onl" in te e#ent te prosec!tor files te case
and te 3!dge of te CTC finds probable ca!se for te iss!ance of a warrant$ Cespondent ordered
te iss!ance of a warrant solel" on is finding of probable ca!se( totall" omitting to consider
weter it was necessar" to do so in order not to fr!strate te ends of 3!stice$
Cespondent as since retired$ %owe#er( tis does not render tis case moot and academic$
Te 3!risdiction at te time of te filing of te administrati#e complaint is not lost b" te mere
fact tat te respondent p!blic official as ceased in office d!ring te pendenc" of is case$ Te
Co!rt retains its 3!risdiction eiter to prono!nce te respondent official innocent of te carges
or declare im g!ilt" tereof$
c. Resignation
Carino vs. Biten=
A.3. !o. 3T%7$$7#2#". /t. 2( 2000. "-# SC)A *"$.
PONENTE: R!is!mbing

FACTS: Carino was cited and ordered arrested and detained for indirect contempt wito!t
earing b" respondent 3!dge$ Te E-ec!ti#e 2!dge recommended dismissal of te complaint
beca!se Biteng ad retired and co!ld no longer be eld liable$ Te OCA disagreed( pointing o!t
tat 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 tat P17(??? was
witeld from BitengJs retirement benefits pending te o!tcome of te instant complaint$
%ELD: Te SC agreed wit te OCA and fo!nd tat respondent 3!dge was g!ilt" of gross
ignorance of te law and incompetence$ Biteng was con#enientl" fined P17(???( same amo!nt
set aside from is retirement benefits$
>. #n!ibition of a *udge
Inoenio Siawan vs. A:&ilino Ino5i:&e8
A.3. !o. 3T%7$*7#0*.. 3ay 2#( 200#.
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Complainant Siawan alleged tat respondent 2!dge is g!ilt" of grossl" ab!sing is
a!torit"$ *n te first contro#ers"( a criminal case was pending in te sale of respondent$ Despite
motions of complainant for te 3!dge to inibit imself( respondent did not do so
notwitstanding tat is 4respondentJs8 fater0in0law was directl" participating in te case$
24
%owe#er( respondent was forced to inibit imself wen se#eral oter relati#es became in#ol#ed
in te case$ *n te second contro#ers"( respondent 3!dge tried election cases wile is relati#es
were candidates for #ario!s positions in te m!nicipalit"$
%ELD: Ato!g te dis9!alification of 3!dges is limited onl" to cases were te 3!dge is related
to co!nsel witin te fo!rt degree of consang!init" or affinit"( te C!les noneteless pro#ide
tat a 3!dge ma"( in te e-ercise of is discretion( dis9!alif" imself from sitting in a case for
oter 3!st and #alid reasons$ A 3!dge so!ld not andle a case were e migt be percei#ed(
rigtl" or wrongl"( to be s!sceptible to bias and impartialit"( wic a-iom is intended to preser#e
and promote p!blic confidence in te integrit" and respect for te 3!diciar"$ *n tis case( te
ref!sal of respondent to inibit imself from te cond!ct of te case and is doing so onl" after
being treatened wit an administrati#e case co!ld not b!t create te impression tat e ad
!lterior moti#es in wanting to tr" te case$ Te p!rpose of te proibition is to pre#ent not onl"
a conflict of interest b!t also te appearance of impropriet" on te part of a 3!dge$ A 3!dge so!ld
ta'e no part in a proceeding were is impartialit" migt reasonabl" be 9!estioned and e so!ld
administer 3!stice impartiall" and wito!t dela"$ Te fail!re of respondent 3!dge to inibit
imself constit!tes an ab!se of is a!torit" and !ndermines p!blic confidence in te
impartialit" of 3!dges$
German A=&n0ay vs. !ieto Tresvalles
A3 3T%7$$7#2".. !ov. 2*( #$$$. "#$ SC)A #"-
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Cespondent 2!dge was carged wit gross inefficienc"( gross ignorance of te law and
impropriet" on te part of respondent 3!dge$ Cespondent failed to inibit imself e#en if e was
related to te acc!sed$
%ELD: Cespondent was te fater0in0law of acc!sedJs son$ Te relationsip in o!r c!lt!re
'nown as magbalaes so!ld a#e prompted respondent 3!dge to inibit imself from te case$ A
3!dge so!ld not onl" be impartial b!t m!st appear impartial as well$
)e9 In?i,ition of %&0=e E00ie ). )o;as
A. 3. !o. $'7.7#'*7)TC. /t. "0( #$$'. 2$' SC)A "0.
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: A criminal case was initiall" tried in te CTC( wit 2!dge Co3as as p!blic prosec!tor$
+ile te case was pending( 2!dge Co3as was appointed 3!dge of te trial co!rt on No#ember 61(
6<<E$ As te original co!nsel for te acc!sed did not interpose an" ob3ection( 2!dge Co3as tried
te case$ On April 65( 6<<@( owe#er( 2!dge Co3as decided to inibit imself from te case$ On
2!l" G( 6<<@( te Co!rt re9!ired 2!dge Co3as to sow ca!se w" no disciplinar" action so!ld be
ta'en against im for sitting in a case in wic e ad pre#io!sl" acted as co!nsel for one of te
parties$ 2!dge Co3as tried to 3!stif" is fail!re to inibit imself from te beginning b" stating
tat it was onl" after a close scr!tin" of te case records tat e disco#ered and remembered tat
e ad andled te criminal case as p!blic prosec!tor "ears ago and also tried to minimi/e te
serio!sness of is breac of 3!dicial etics b" claiming tat an"wa" e did not cond!ct a f!ll0
25
blown trial$ .oreo#er( 2!dge Co3as stated tat e ad not inibited imself beca!se te pre#io!s
co!nsel of te acc!sed( Att"$ Cosalie CariLo( did not ob3ect to is sitting in te case as te 3!dge$
%ELD: Ies$ 2!dge Co3as is s!b3ect to disciplinar" action$ C!le 65G( O6 of te C!les of Co!rt
e-pressl" states( owe#er( tat ,no 3!dge or 3!dicial officer sall sit in an" case in wic e $ $ $
as been co!nsel Afor a part"B wito!t te written consent of all parties in interest( signed b"
tem and entered !pon te record$&& Te proibition is not limited to cases in wic a 3!dge ears
te e#idence of te parties b!t incl!des as well cases were e acts b" resol#ing motions( iss!ing
orders and te li'e as 2!dge Co3as as done in te criminal case$ Te p!rpose of te r!le is to
pre#ent not onl" a conflict of interest b!t also te appearance of impropriet" on te part of te
3!dge$
In re9 In?i,ition of Bienveni0o ). Estra0a
A. 3. !o. $'7#7"27)TC. %&ly 2$( #$$'. 2$" SC)A "#"
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Circ!lar No$ E dated April 6?( 6<@G strictl" en3oins all 2!dges( Cler's of Co!rt and
Seriffs not to accept te position of director or an" oter position in an" electric cooperati#e or
oter enterprises( or to resign immediatel" from s!c position if te" are alread" olding te
same so as not to pre3!dice te e-peditio!s and proper administration of 3!stice$ *n #iolation of
tis circ!lar( 2!dge Estrada( wo was appointed to te 3!diciar" on .a" 6G( 6<<;( did not resign
from te Board of Directors of te C!ral Ban' of Labrador !ntil .a" 56( 6<<G$
%ELD:2!dge Estrada failed to compl" wit te directi#e of Circ!lar No$ E dated April 6?( 6<@G$
Te fact tat e as alread" resigned as a .ember from te Directorsip of te C!ral Ban' of
Labrador does not e-c!se im from an" administrati#e liabilit"$ As a 2!dge e so!ld be faitf!l
to te law and maintain professional competence$
Leovi=il0o U. 3antarin= vs. %&0=e 3an&el A. )oman( %r. et. al
A. 3. !o. )T%7$"7$.-. 2e,. 2'( #$$.. 2*- SC)A #*'
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: *n a S!pplemental Complaint filed b" .antaring( Sr$ against 2!dge .olato( it carges
respondent wit arassment$ *t is alleged tat beca!se of te filing of te first complaint against
im( respondent 2!dge .olato so!ld a#e inibited imself from cond!cting te preliminar"
in#estigation of a criminal case considering tat te respondents in tat case were complainant
and is son$ *nstead( it is alleged( e too' cogni/ance of te case and ordered te arrest of
complainant and is son( .antaring( 2r$( o!t of atred and re#enge for tem beca!se of te filing
of te first case b" te complainant$
%ELD:Te mere filing of an administrati#e case against a 3!dge b" one of te parties before im
is not a gro!nd for dis9!alif"ing im from earing a case$ As tis Co!rt eld( if on e#er"
occasion te part" apparentl" aggrie#ed were allowed to stop te proceedings in order to await
te final decision on te desired dis9!alification( or demand te immediate inibition of te
26
3!dge on te basis alone of is being so carged( man" cases wo!ld a#e to be 'ept pending or
peraps tere wo!ld not be eno!g 3!dges left to andle all te cases pending in all te co!rts$
B!t( in te 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 tat respondent was free from an"
appearance of bias against( or ostilit" toward( te complainant$ Te impression co!ld not be
elped tat is action in te case was dictated b" a spirit of re#enge against complainant for te
latter&s a#ing filed an administrati#e disciplinar" action against te 3!dge$ Te sit!ation called
for sed!lo!s regard on is part tan tat of te cold ne!tralit" of an impartial 3!dge$
.oreo#er( it was improper for respondent 3!dge to a#e iss!ed te warrants of arrest against
complainant and is son wito!t an" finding tat it was necessar" to place tem in immediate
c!stod" in order to pre#ent a fr!stration of 3!stice$
?. Grave -buse of Discretion
Letter 0ate0 A&=&st 2*( #$$" of Seretary 2ranAlin +rilon on t?e alle=e0 5artii5ation of
%&0=e Geronimo Bal0o( 3TC( Cala&an( La=&na in t?e Gome87Sarmienta ase
A.3. !o. $"7$74-#70. !ov. 4( #$$4. 2'# SC)A *2"
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Fran'lin N$ Drilon referred tis case to te Co!rt for possible disciplinar" action
against 2!dge Baldo for a#ing committed gra#e ab!se of discretion in #iew of a sworn
statement gi#en b" L!is Corcolon( one of te acc!sed in te rape and m!rder of Eileen Sarmenta
and te m!rder of Allan :ome/( tat 2!dge Baldo ad ordered te cleaning of a #eicle in wic
te bodies of te #ictims were fo!nd( in order to destro" e#idence of te crime$
%ELD: Tere is no direct e#idence tat 2!dge Baldo ad ordered te cleaning of te Tamaraw
#an$ B!t te following circ!mstances tend to sow tat( at te #er" least( e was present wen
te #an was cleaned and tat is presence wittingl" or !nwittingl" con#e"ed is appro#al to
tose wo cleaned te #eicle$ *ndeed( it wo!ld appear tat( contrar" to is assertion( 2!dge
Baldo did not e#en ta'e te tro!ble to ascertain wo ad ordered te #an wased$
Belly ). CiAer et. al vs. ?on. 6a&l T. Aran=el
G.). !o. ##2'.$. %an. 2$( #$$.. 2*2 SC)A ---
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: *t appears tat on No# 6@( 6<<5( +ic'er&s co!nsel( Att"$ Ca"os( filed a motion see'ing
te inibition of te respondent 2!dge Arcangel from te case$ Cespondent 3!dge fo!nd offense
in te allegations on te motion for inibition filed b" complainants( and in an order( eld tem
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( wic respondent 3!dge denied
for lac' of merit in is order of Dec 6G( 6<<5$
%ELD: Te power to p!nis for contempt is to be e-ercised on te preser#ati#e and not on
te #indicti#e principle$ Onl" occasionall" so!ld it be in#o'ed to preser#e tat respect
27
wito!t wic te administration of 3!stice will fail$ Consistent wit te foregoing principles
and based on te abo#ementioned facts( te Co!rt s!stains 2!dge Arcangel&s finding tat
petitioners are g!ilt" of contempt$
Att"$ Ca"os( owe#er( cannot e#ade responsibilit" for te 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 te representation of a ca!se( and wile e owed im wole0so!led de#otion( tere
were bo!nds set b" is responsibilit" as a law"er wic e co!ld not o#erstep$ Based on Canon
66 of te Code of Professional Cesponsibilit"( Att"$ Ca"os bears as m!c responsibilit" for te
contempt!o!s allegations in te motion for inibition as is client$ Att"$ Ca"os& d!t" to te co!rts
is not secondar" to tat of is client$ Te Code of Professional Cesponsibilit" en3oins im to
,obser#e and maintain te respect d!e to te co!rts and to 3!dicial officers and AtoB insist on
similar cond!ct b" oters, and ,not AtoB attrib!te to a 2!dge moti#es not s!pported b" te record
or a#e materialit" to te case$,
". Delay in Deciding Cases
6atria 3a:&iran vs. Lilia Lo5e8
A.3. !o. )T%7007#.0.. %&ne 20( 200#.
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Fi#e "ears after a s!it for damages was s!bmitted for 3!dgment( respondent 3!dge still
ad to decide te case$ An administrati#e complaint against respondent for gross negligence$
Cespondent claimed first tat se ad decided te case and ad gi#en copies to te parties$
Tereafter( se e-plained tat se ad s!rger"( tat er parents passed awa"( etc$
%ELD: Te Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct en3oins 3!dges to dispose of teir b!siness promptl" and
decide cases witin te re9!ired period$ Tis co!rt as constantl" impressed !pon 3!dges te
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 witin te period constit!tes gross inefficienc" warranting te imposition of
administrati#e sanctions$ Te reasons add!ced b" respondent are !nsatisfactor"$ Alto!g te
Co!rt is inclined to be compassionate( respondent m!st reali/e tat compassion as its limits$
Finall"( tis is te tird time tat respondent as failed to decide cases witin te period$
C!rio!sl"( te reasons se ad#anced erein are te same as in te pre#io!s two instances$
An=el Gil vs. Leonio %anolo
A.3. !o. )T%7007#.02. +e. *( 2000. "-4 SC)A .
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Cespondent iss!ed an order admitting defendantJs Formal Offer of E#idence and
directed bot parties to s!bmit teir respecti#e memoranda$ %owe#er( bot parties failed to
s!bmit so respondent iss!ed anoter order reiterating is pre#io!s directi#e$ O#er 7 monts
later( a complainant was filed alleging tat it too' respondent more tan ; monts to act on is
Formal Offer of E#idence and tat it is also e#ident from te records tat 5 monts ad elapsed
28
and te case as still remained !ndecided$ Cespondent ac'nowledges te dela"( wic e
claims( is a res!lt of tecnical problems wit te office comp!ters$
%ELD: CespondentJs e-c!se is !nsatisfactor"$ Te Constit!tion mandates tat lower co!rts
a#e 5 monts witin wic to decide cases or resol#e matters s!bmitted to tem for resol!tion$
Canon 5( C!le 5$?7 of te Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct en3oins 3!dges to dispose of teir b!siness
promptl" and decide cases witin te re9!ired period$ Dela" in te disposition of cases
!ndermines te peopleJs fait and confidence in te 3!diciar"$ %ence( 3!dges are en3oined to
decide cases wit dispatc$ Fail!re to do so constit!tes gross inefficienc" and warrants te
imposition of administrati#e sanctions$
1ia;e vs. Hernan0e8
A.3. !o. )T%7007#*". !ov. 2'( 2000. "-. SC)A #.2
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( wic was dela"ed se#eral times$ Te 3!dge claims tat e was onl" tr"ing to pre#ent
te impro#ident iss!ance of a writ of preliminar" in3!nction andNor to a#ert te improper denial
of te same$ %e also points o!t tat te iss!ance of te writ did not appear to be !rgent$
%ELD: Alto!g te 3!dge cannot be eld liable for ignorance of C!le 7@ of Ci#pro( e so!ld
ne#erteless be sanctioned for !nd!e dela" in acting on te pra"er for iss!ance of said writ$
Cegardless of weter te iss!ance of te writ was !rgent or not( it was inc!mbent !pon te
3!dge to immediatel" act on plaintiffJs pra"er eiter b" e-pressl" granting( den"ing or deferring
its resol!tion$ Hnd!e dela" !ndermines p!blic fait and confidence in te 3!dges to wom
aggrie#ed part"Js t!rn for te speed" resol!tion of teir cases$ 4Fine was P6(???8
Es=&erra vs. %&0=e Lo;a
A.3. !o. )T%7007#*2". A&=. #*( 2000. ""' SC)A #
PONENTE: P!risima
FACTS: Complainant carged tat respondent failed to decide te case for falsification of p!blic
doc!ments witin <? da"s after it was s!bmitted for decision and teori/ed tat tere is a
possibilit" tat respondent migt a#e falsified is certificate of ser#ice sent to tis co!rt( to
ma'e it appear tat e ad no case ten pending( so as to enable im to recei#e is salar"$ 2!dge
denied te allegations and maintained tat e#en ass!ming arg!endo tat tere was a sligt dela"
in te prom!lgation of te 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$ Tere is no clear e#idence tat
respondent intentionall" falsified is montl" certificate of ser#ice simpl" on te basis tat is
deciison was !ndated$ Also( respondent&s abo#e0a#erage disposal of cases( being consistentl" in
29
te top tree in te .anila CTC for te last fo!r s!ccessi#e "ears wo!ld seem to arg!e against
te allegation of incompetence( ab!se of a!torit" and falsification against im$
Tolentino v. 3alanyoan
A.3. !o. )T%7$$7#---. A&=. "( 2000. ""4 SC)A #.2
PONENTE: Map!nan
FACTS: Cespondent 3!dge iss!ed an order dismissing certain criminal cases( olding tat
probable ca!se ad not been establised b" te prosec!tion and ma'ing it constit!tionall"
impermissible to iss!e a warrant of arrest$ One of te cases was dismissed for te reason tat
complainantJs non0appearance and is fail!re to add!ce e#idence #iolated acc!sedJs rigt to a
speed" trial$ Tereafter( a letter0complaint was filed against respondent for: 'nowingl" iss!ing
!n3!st orders for te dismissal of tese cases wito!t serio!sl" determining te operati#e facts
and te applicable law in ca#alier disregard of d!e process and moti#ated b" bad fait( partialit"(
falseood( and intentionall" to ca!se !nd!e in3!r" to te state and te pri#ate complainant b"
gi#ing !nwarranted benefits to te 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 te Canons of 2!dicial Cond!ct$
%ELD:Te respondent is not liable for dismissing te 7 criminal cases d!e to is onest belief
tat tere was no probable ca!se$ :ood fait and te absence of malice( corr!pt moti#es or
improper consideration are s!fficient defenses protecting a 3!dicial officer carged wit
ignorance of te law and prom!lgation of an !n3!st decision from being eld acco!ntable for
errors of 3!dgment on te premise tat no one called !pon to tr" te facts or interpret te law in
te administration of 3!stice can be infallible$ *t is settled tat it is te 3!dge wo m!st be
satisfied tat tere is a probable ca!se for te iss!ance of te warrant of arrest$ %owe#er( on te
matter of te pending motions and oter incidents( wic respondent ad long been pending
wito!t respondent a#ing acted tereon or resol#ed te same( te SC fo!nd respondent remiss
in is d!t"$ Te 7 motionsNincidents were left !nacted !pon from 5 to 7 monts and were still
pending wen te administrati#e complaint was filed against im$ Hnder C!le 5$?7 of te Code
of 2!dicial Cond!ct( a 3!dge sall dispose of te co!rtJs b!siness promptl" and decide te cases
witin te re9!ired periods$ +ile te prosec!tor in tis case is not wito!t fa!lt( te
respondent cannot escape responsibilit" for is inaction of te pending motions before im$
E#en ass!ming arguendo tat te #ario!s motions filed b" te prosec!tor were considered to be
mere scraps of paper or wito!t merit( te 3!dge m!st ne#erteless resol#e on tose matters
promptl" b" granting or den"ing tem$
+ela Cr&8 vs. Bersamira
A.3. !o. )T%700#*.4. %&ly 2-( 2000. "". SC)A "*"
PONENTE: Inares0Santiago
FACTS: Cespondent was carged wit te #iolation of te Anti0:raft and Corr!pt Practices Act(
Code of Cond!ct and Etical Standards for P!blic Officials( and te Code of 2!dicial
Cond!ct$Te complainant alleges tat respondent gra#el" ab!sed is discretion b" iss!ing
!nreasonable orders for postponement to !n3!stl" dela" te administration of 3!stice$
30
%ELD: Te !nreasonable dela" of a 3!dge in resol#ing a pending incident is a #iolation of te
norms of 3!dicial cond!ct and constit!tes a gro!nd for administrati#e sanction against te
defa!lting magistrate$ *ndeed( te Co!rt as consistentl" impressed !pon te 3!dges te need to
decide cases promptl" and e-peditio!sl" on te principle tat 3!stice dela"ed is 3!stice denied$
2elimon C&evas vs. Isa&ro Bal0erian
A.3. !o. 3T%7007#24.. %&ne 2"( 2000. ""- SC)A 2-2
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: A complaint of e3ectment was filed in te sala of .TC 2!dge Balderian$ +en te last
re9!ired paper was filed on 56 .arc 6<<G( te case was deemed s!bmitted for decision( to be
rendered not later tan April 5?$ After te lapse of 6? monts from te time te last paper was
filed( and despite te filing of tree .otions for Earl" Decision( said case remained !ndecided$
%ELD Te C!le on S!mmar" Proced!re pro#ides tat te co!rt sall render 3!dgement witin
5? da"s from te time te case is s!bmitted for 3!dgement$ C!le 5$?7 of Canon 5 of te Code of
2!dicial Cond!ct en3oins 3!dges to decide cases witin te re9!ired periods$ Cespondent as
miserabl" failed to li#e !p to tis standard$ Nor was tere an" e-planation gi#en b" respondent
for te dela"$ 2!dge Balderian is g!ilt" of gross negligence and inefficienc") fined P7(???$??$
)e:&est of %&0=e Irma Dita v. 3asamayor
A. 3. !o. $$7#7#.7)TC %&ne 2#( #$$$. "#. SC)A 2#$
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: CTC 2!dge .asama"or as'ed for an e-tension of time witin wic to decide a
Criminal Case on te gro!nd tat ,te case in#ol#es legal 9!estions wic re9!ire caref!l st!d"
for wic AseB as not eno!g time considering te #er" ea#" caseload of te single0sala co!rt
o#er wic se presides$, Te re9!est was made after te original period ad e-pired$ As
.asama"or did not specif" te period of e-tension se was see'ing( se was directed to inform
te Co!rt weter or not se ad alread" rendered er decision in te s!b3ect criminal case and(
in an" e#ent( to e-plain w" no disciplinar" action so!ld be ta'en against er for ma'ing er
re9!est for e-tension after te e-piration of te reglementar" period for deciding cases$
%ELD: .asama"or is g!ilt" of gross inefficienc" and te Co!rt ordered er to pa" a fine in te
amo!nt of P7(???$?? wit warning tat a repetition of te same or similar act or omission will be
dealt wit more se#erel"$ A ea#" caseload ma" e-c!se a 3!dge&s fail!re to decide cases witin
te reglementar" period( b!t not isNer fail!re to re9!est an e-tension of time witin wic to
decide te same on time( i$e$( before te e-piration of te period to be e-tended$ *ndeed(
cogni/ant of te caseload of 3!dges and mindf!l of te press!re of teir wor'( tis Co!rt almost
alwa"s grants re9!ests for e-tension of time to decide cases$ B!t te re9!est for e-tension m!st
be made on time$ %owe#er( as admitted b" er( tis is not te first time .asama"or failed to
ma'e a re9!est for e-tension before te lapse of te period to be e-tended$
31
)e9 )e5ort on t?e %&0iial A&0it of Cases in t?e )TC( Br. "*( Iri=a City
A. 3. !o. $47'72.27)TC !ov. 24( #$$'. 2$' SC)A 4#0
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: *n #iew of te report s!bmitted b" a 2!dicial A!dit Team( te Co!rt re9!ired CTC 2!dge
:on/ales of *riga Cit" to comment on is fail!re: 468 to decide tree 458 ci#il cases witin tree
458 monts from te time te" ad been s!bmitted to im for decision) 418 to act( for an
!nreasonable period of time on eigt 4@8 oter cases) and 458 to arci#e ten 46?8 criminal cases$
%ELD: 2!dge :on/ales was satisfactoril" able to e-plain te dela" of some of te cases wile e
was !nable to e-plain oters$ T!s( a fine of P1?(???$?? was imposed on im$ Art$ =***( O67 468
of te Constit!tion states: All cases or matters filed after te effecti#it" of te Constit!tion m!st
be decided or resol#ed witin twent" fo!r monts from date of s!bmission for te SC( and !nless
red!ced b" te SC( twel#e monts for all lower collegiate co!rts( and tree monts for all oter
lower co!rts$ To implement te constit!tional mandate( Canon 5( C!le 5$?7 of te Code of
2!dicial Cond!ct pro#ides: A 3!dge sall dispose of te co!rt&s b!siness promptl" and decide
cases witin te re9!ired periods$ On te prompt resol!tion of cases( Art$ ***( O6E of te
Constit!tion states: All persons sall a#e te rigt to a speed" disposition of teir cases before
all 3!dicial( 9!asi03!dicial( or administrati#e bodies$ Canon 5( C!le 5$?< of te Code of 2!dicial
Cond!ct pro#ides: A 3!dge so!ld organi/e and s!per#ise te co!rt personnel to ens!re te
prompt and efficient dispatc of b!siness( and re9!ire at all times te obser#ance of ig
standards of p!blic ser#ice and fidelit"$
!elson E. != v. Letiia <. Uli,ari
A. 3. !o. 3T%7$'7##*'. %&ly "0( #$$'. 2$" SC)A "-2
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Complaint b" Att"$ Ng on te alleged inaction and fail!re of respondent 2!dge Hlibari to
resol#e pending motions in er sala was filed$ %e also alleges tat respondent is ,a la/" 3!dge,
wo calls er cases late at <:5? in te morning in er cambers instead of in open co!rt and wo
,repeatedl" neglects or fails to discarge er d!ties$F
%ELD: Tis is a reflection on respondent 3!dge&s management of er doc'et and indicates fail!re
on er part to abide b" te Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct( Canon 5$ C!le 5$?@ re9!ires 3!dges to
diligentl" discarge administrati#e responsibilities( maintain professional competence in co!rt
management( and facilitate te performance of administrati#e f!nctions of oter 3!dges and co!rt
personnel$ C!le 5$?< re9!ires 3!dges to organi/e and s!per#ise te co!rt personnel to ens!re te
prompt and efficient dispatc of b!siness( and re9!ire at all times te obser#ance of ig
standards of p!blic ser#ice and fidelit"$ C!le 5$?7 re9!ires 3!dges to dispose of teir co!rt&s
b!siness promptl" and witin te periods prescribed b" law or r!les$ *t needs ardl" to be said
tat dela"s in co!rt !ndermine te people&s fait and confidence in te 3!diciar" and bring it into
disrep!te$ Tis admonition as special application to respondent 3!dge wo( as an .eTC 3!dge(
is a frontline official of te 3!diciar"$ Se so!ld at all times act wit efficienc" and wit probit"$
Te fact tat respondent as no permanentl" assigned stenograper cannot completel"
e-c!se er fail!re to timel" resol#e se#eral motions$
32
)omeo Sta. Ana v. Graiano H. Arin0ay( %r.
A. 3. !o. )T%7$47#"$-. +e. #4( #$$4. 2'" SC)A "$2
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Complaint against 2!dge Arinda" for dela" in resol#ing 1 Criminal Cases was filed$ %e
admits tat te cases were s!bmitted for resol!tion wen te prosec!tion rested and acc!sed was
considered to a#e wai#ed er rigt to introd!ce e#idence b" er fail!re to do so$ Tree "ears
ad gone b" wito!t a decision$ *n is comment( e alleges tat te aforesaid cases were among
1?? transferred to is sala wen e ass!med office and tat e decided to wait( rel"ing on te
possibilit" of an amicable settlement b" te parties$
%ELD:Hnder te law( e is re9!ired to decide cases witin <? da"s$ *ndeed( a 3!dge cannot wait
indefinitel" for te parties to come to a settlement wito!t opening imself to s!spicion of
partialit" and bias$ As tis Co!rt as eld: ,Dela" in te disposition of cases erodes te fait and
confidence of o!r people in te 3!diciar"( lowers its standards( and brings it into disrep!te$,
/ffie of t?e Co&rt A0ministrator vs. 6an=ani,an
A.3. !o. )T%7$.7#"*0. A&=&st #'( #$$4. 244 SC)A -$$
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Cespondent is carged wit gross negligence in failing to decide te cases witin te
reglementar" period$
%ELD: Cespondent&s fail!re to decide cases constit!tes a #iolation of Canon 5( C!le 5$?7 of te
Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct wic re9!ires 3!dges to dispose of teir co!rt&s b!siness promptl" and
decide cases witin te period specified in te Constit!tion( i$e$( tree 458 monts or ninet" 4<?8
da"s from te filing of te last pleading( brief( or memorand!m$ Tis canon is intended to
implement te Constit!tion wic ma'es it te d!t" of trial co!rts to decide cases witin tree
monts( e#en as it gi#es parties to a s!it te rigt to te speed" disposition of teir cases$
Cespondent 3!dge 'new of te cases pending resol!tion$
)e5ort on t?e %&0iial A&0it an0 6?ysial Inventory of t?e )eor0s of ases in 3TCC7Br.
2( Batan=as City.
A. 3. !o. $-7#07$.73TCC. Se5t. *( #$$*. 2-' SC)A ".
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS:Tis concerns te recommendation of te Office of te Co!rt Administrator to ta'e
disciplinar" action against 2!dge Francisco D$ S!lit of te .TC in te Cities 4Branc 18 at
Batangas Cit" and certain emplo"ees of is co!rt( te 3!dge for is fail!re to decide nineteen 46<8
cases witin ninet" 4<?8 da"s as re9!ired b" law( and te emplo"ees for teir fail!re to obser#e
office o!rs$ +en te a!dit team re9!ested te Cler' of Co!rt to prod!ce te records of te said
cases( te latter was able to acco!nt for onl" si- 4E8 cases wit te e-planation tat te oter
tirteen 4658 cases are still wit 2!dge S!lit$ *t so!ld be noted tat te aforesaid E cases
33
4Criminal Cases Nos$ 6EE;G( 6G117( 6GEE?( 6@6GG( 6@1?; and 6<5?58 were still !ndecided at te
time of te a!dit$
%ELD: 2!dge S!lit claims tat is caseload is appreciabl" lower tan tat of te oter sala(
beca!se e as been doing is best to dispose of cases on time$ *ndeed( is R!arterl" Ceport
dated .arc 6<<; sows tat e ad onl" 5?? pending$ *n te same report( owe#er( and in is
montl" reports s!bmitted in 6<<5( e omitted to mention te nineteen 46<8 cases in 9!estion$
No reason as been gi#en b" 2!dge S!lit w" e failed to report tese cases to te Co!rt$ Te
fail!re of 2!dge S!lit to disclose tis fact constit!tes serio!s miscond!ct and warrants te
imposition of a penalt" iger tan tat recommended b" te OCA$ *ndeed( te admonition tat a
3!dge&s cond!ct so!ld be abo#e reproac 4Canon 56( Canons of 2!dicial Etics8 applies wit
greater force to is dealings wit te Co!rt !nder wose s!per#ision e is$
)e5ort on t?e %&0iial A&0it Con0&te0 in t?e )TC( Bran? #.( of Laoa= City( 6resi0e0 ,y
%&0=e L&is B. Bello( %r.
A. 3. !o. $*7"7'$7)TC. A&=. 2"( #$$*. 2.0 SC)A """
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS:*n #iew of te comp!lsor" retirement on 2an!ar" 6<( 6<<7 of 2!dge L!is Bello( 2r$ of te
Cegional Trial Co!rt 4Branc 6E8 of Laoag Cit"( te Office of te 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( te OCA fo!nd tat Branc 6E ad ninet"0nine 4<<8 pending cases( of wic
fift"0se#en 47G8 were criminal cases( wile fort"0two 4;18 were ci#il cases$ Of te fift"0se#en
47G8 criminal cases( fo!r 4;8 ad been s!bmitted for decision b!t( as of te date of te a!dit( te
<?0da" period for deciding tem ad not "et e-pired$ On te oter and( of te ;1 ci#il cases(
twel#e 4618 ad been s!bmitted for decision$ Of tese( se#en 4G8 were cases in wic( on te date
of te a!dit( te <?0da" period ad not "et e-pired according to te a!dit team$ Te report sows
tat tere are onl" fo!r 4;8 cases wic 2!dge Bello failed to decide witin <? da"s 4Ci#il case
Nos$ <??G( <<7<( 6?;7@( S <6E5$8$ *t appeared tat in tese ; cases( te stenograpic notes were
not "et transcribed$
%ELD: Cespondent 3!dge failed to compl" to decide witin <? da"s fo!r 4;8 cases as
mandated b" Art$ =***( O67 of te Constit!tion: All cases or matters filed after te effecti#it" of
tis Constit!tion m!st be decided or resol#ed witin twent"0fo!r monts from date of
s!bmission for te S!preme Co!rt( twel#e monts for all lower collegiate co!rts( and tree
monts for all oter lower co!rts$ Cannon 5( C!le 5$?7 of te Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct also
en3oins te same r!le: A 3!dge sall dispose of te co!rt&s b!siness promptl" and decide cases
witin te re9!ired periods$ Te S!preme Co!rt as consistentl" impressed !pon 3!dges te need
to decide cases promptl" and e-peditio!sl" on te principle tat 3!stice dela"ed is 3!stice denied$
Dela" in te disposition of cases erodes te fait and confidence of o!r people in te 3!diciar"(
lowers its standards( and brings it into disrep!te$
i. Duty to Decide Cases wit! Dispatc! 3specially 0!ose Covered by t!e Rule on
)ummary 8rocedure
34
3onfort Hermanos A=ri&lt&ral +evFt vs. %&0=e )olan0o )amire8
A.3. 3T%70#7#"*4. 3ar. 2'( 200#
PONENTE: .elo
FACTS: *n a forcible entr" case( respondent 2!dge r!led in fa#or of defendants$ On appeal( te
CTC re#ersed and remanded te case$ Complainants alleged tat te .TC decision was
rendered fo!r monts after te last pleading was filed( in #iolation of te C!les on S!mmar"
Proced!re$ Complainants also allege tat defendantJs defense on te administrati#e case( tat is
fail!re to decide witin te period was d!e to n!mero!s pleadings filed b" te parties and oter
statements on te 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$
Te trial of te merits of te forcible entr" case are still on going and besides te 9!estion posed
b" tese iss!es are 3!dicial in caracter as tese go to te assessment of e#idence$ *n s!c case
te remed" of complainants are tose fo!nd in te C!les of Co!rt and not an administrati#e
case$ %owe#er( respondent decided te case be"ond te period$ Te Co!rt as constantl"
impressed !pon 3!dges te need to deicde cases promptl" and e-peditio!sl"( for it cannot be
gainsaid tat 3!stice dela"ed is 3!stice denied$ Dela" in te disposition of cases !ndermines te
peopleJs fait and confidence in te 3!diciar"$
ii. Re&uest for 32tension of 0ime to Decide Cases
)e:&est of %&0=e Irma Dita 3asamayor vs. )TC
A.3. !o. $$7274$7)TC. 3ar. 2#( 2000. "2' SC)A *'-
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: CTC 2!dge .asama"or was twice fo!nd g!ilt" of gross inefficienc" for re9!esting an
e-tension of time to decide cases e#en after te lapse of te period so!gt to be e-tended$ *n
anoter case( .asama"or re9!ested for an e-tension of <? da"s to decide( b!t was onl" granted
;7 da"s$ Still !nable to decide( .asama"or re9!ested anoter e-tension( b!t filed it be"ond te
;7t da"( tin'ing tat er initial re9!est of <? da"s was granted$
%ELD +ile te Code of 2!dicial Etics en3oins 3!dges to decide cases witin te period
prescribed b" law( an e-tension of time to decide cases is allowed pro#ided te re9!est is made
before te lapse of te period so!gt to be e-tended$ .asama"orJs occasional re9!ests for
e-tension to decide cases filed o!t of time sows serio!s neglect in te performance of er
obligation to te parties and to te speed" and orderl" administration of 3!stice) se is g!ilt" of
gross inefficienc") fined P61(???$
iii. $ailure to Decide Case (it!in Reglementary 8eriod7 -dministrative
Complaint is not Dismissed by (it!drawal of Complainant
3os:&era vs. %&0=e Le=as5i
A.3. !o. )T%7$$7#*##. %&ly #0( 2000. ""* SC)A "2.
35
PONENTE: :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 tree "ears on te e-c!se tat e ad to act as pairing
3!dge in tree oter Brances and tat e allowed te parties s!c period to find an amicable
settlement$ Plaintiff in te original case filed tis administrati#e complaint against Legaspi for
dereliction of d!t"$ Legaspi now claims tat e ad tal'ed wit co!nsel of plaintiff( wo agreed
to witdraw te administrati#e case$
%ELD Lower co!rts m!st decide cases witin 5 monts from te date of s!bmission( wito!t
pre3!dice to see'ing an e-tension wit te SC$ Non0obser#ance constit!tes a gro!nd for
administrati#e sanction$ E#en ass!ming te e-c!ses were tr!e( te" co!ld onl" mitigate te
3!dgeJs liabilit" beca!se a 3!dge so!ld not be at te merc" of te wims of law"ers and parties
for it is not teir con#enience wic so!ld be te primordial consideration( b!t te
administration of 3!stice$
.oreo#er( an administrati#e complaint is not a!tomaticall" dismissed b" witdrawal of
complainant$ Te need to maintain te fait and confidence of te people in te go#ernment and
its agencies and instr!mentalities so!ld not be made to depend on te wims and caprices of te
complainants wo are( in a real sense( onl" witnesses terein$ 2!dge Legaspi is administrati#el"
liable for is fail!re to render te decision witin te prescribed period of ninet" da"s from te
time te case was s!bmitted for decision) fined P1(???$
iv. 1iolation of Constitution
+i8on vs. Lo5e8
A. 3. !o. )T%7$.7#""'. Se5t. *( #$$4. 24' SC)A -'"
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Complainant alleges tat te fail!re of respondent 3!dge to f!rnis im a cop" of te
decision !ntil almost one "ear and eigt monts after te prom!lgation of its dispositi#e portion
constit!tes a #iolation of Art$ =***( O6; of te Constit!tion wic proibits co!rts from rendering
decisions wito!t e-pressing terein clearl" and distinctl" te facts and law on wic te" are
based and O67 of te same Art$ =***( wic pro#ides tat in all cases lower co!rts m!st render
teir decisions witin tree monts from te date of teir s!bmission$ %e alleges f!rter tat e
was denied te rigt to a speed" trial in #iolation of Art$ ***( O6;418 of te Constit!tion and tat
2!dge Lope/ falsified er decision b" antedating it and incl!ding terein( as additional penalt"( a
fine of P7(???$??$

%ELD: Ies$ Te fact is tat it too' a "ear and eigt monts more before tis was done and a
cop" of te complete decision f!rnised te complainant on December 6E( 6<<;$ *t is clear tat
merel" reading te dispositi#e portion of te decision to te acc!sed is not s!fficient$ *t is te
3!dgment tat m!st be read to im( stating te facts and te law on wic s!c 3!dgment is
based$ Cespondent failed to render er decision witin tree monts as re9!ired b" Art$ =***( O67
of te Constit!tion$ +at respondent did in tis case was to render wat is 'nown as a ,sin
per3!icio, 3!dgment( wic is a 3!dgment wito!t a statement of te facts in s!pport of its
36
concl!sion to be later s!pplemented b" te final 3!dgment$ As earl" as 6<15( tis Co!rt alread"
e-pressed its disappro#al of te practice of rendering ,sin per3!icio, 3!dgments$ +at m!st be
prom!lgated m!st be te complete decision$
%. Delaying 0actics
Eteria T. Tan vs. %&0=e 3amerto E. Coliflores
A0m. 3atter !o. 3T%7$-7$42 %an. 20( #$$*. 2-0 SC)A "0"
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Tan carged 2!dge Coliflores and Cler' of Co!rt Legaspi for ,ob#io!sl" intentional
deferment and dela"ing tactics, in te transmission to te CTC of te original records of er
Case for conc!binage filed against er !sband and te latter&s s!pposed paramo!r$
%ELD: 2!dge Coliflores is not liable for te "ear0long dela" in te transmission of te records$
+ile e as s!per#ision of Legaspi( 2!dge cannot be e-pected to constantl" cec' on te latter&s
performance of is d!ties since Legaspi is pres!med to be a responsible emplo"ee$ Te 2!dge
ad a rigt to e-pect tat te Cler' of Co!rt wo!ld enforce is order$ Legaspi&s e-planation for
te dela" is not pers!asi#e$ As te Cler' of Co!rt( e is responsible for seeing to it tat te
records of appealed cases are properl" sent to te appropriate appellate co!rt wito!t dela"$ %e
as failed to set an e-ample of official integrit"( responsibilit" and efficienc" for oters(
especiall" tose in is staff$
'. Negligence in t!e Duty to #nforming t!e 8arties of $inal *udgment and 32ecution
1ent&ra B. Ayo v. L&ia 1iola=o7Isnani( et al.
A. 3. !o. )T%7$$7#--* %&ne 2#( #$$$. "0' SC)A *-"
PONENTE: .endo/a
Facts: Tis is a complaint filed b" A"o against CTC 2!dge =iolago0*snani( Cler' of Co!rt L!"(
Seriff %atab( Cler' of Co!rt Pere/( and Legal Cesearcer Astorga$ Complainant was te
representati#e of A9!ino and er minor cildren in Ci#il Case No$ <6057;$ *n an amended
decision rendered b" 2!dge *snani( A9!ino and er cildren were awarded indemnit" for te
deat of er !sband( for loss of is earning capacit"( act!al damages( and moral damages$ A"o
alleged tat it too' respondents an !nreasonabl" long time( from 2!l" 67( 6<<G( wen te writ
was iss!ed( to December 6G( 6<<G( to enforce te writ of e-ec!tion$ A"o claimed tat te two did
not e#en send te writ of e-ec!tion tro!g registered mail to te appropriate Cler' of Co!rt
andNor te Seriff and is dep!t" wo a#e administrati#e 3!risdiction to enforce said writ$
%ELD: %atab correctl" arg!ed tat e cannot be blamed for te dela" since e ad noting to do
wit te s!b3ect writ considering tat e was not te addressee tereof$ Te case against im is
dismissed$ Pere/ cannot be eld liable for Ab!se of Discretion and Non0feasance merel" beca!se
se ref!sed to recei#e and implement te s!b3ect writ$ Te reasons se ga#e in s!pport of er
defense are legal and #alid$ *n so far as se is concerned( tis case so!ld be dismissed$ Astorga
37
was legall" pres!med to a#e reg!larl" performed is d!t" as te writ was alread" endorsed to
te seriff$ 2!dge *snani is not liable for gra#e ab!se of discretion and partialit"$ %er actions
clearl" sowed tat se was scr!p!lo!s in seeing to it tat te re9!irements of fair pla" and d!e
process were satisfied$ Onl" L!" m!st ta'e responsibilit" for te dela" in te implementation of
te writ of e-ec!tion$ %e ga#e no reason w"( considering tat te writ of e-ec!tion was iss!ed
as earl" as 2!l" 67( 6<<G( e ga#e te same to complainant for deli#er" to te CTC of
Dinal!pian onl" on December 6G( 6<<G$ +orse( wen e finall" iss!ed te writ( L!" endorsed it
to te Balanga branc wic does not a#e te territorial 3!risdiction to enforce te writ$ %e was
finall" able to endorse an alias writ of e-ec!tion to te Cler' of Co!rt and E-0Officio Seriff of
te appropriate co!rt( te CTC of Dinal!pian onl" on 2!ne <( 6<<@$ As an officer of te co!rt(
respondent was d!t"0bo!nd to !se reasonable s'ill and diligence in te performance of is
officiall" designated d!ties$ L!" is g!ilt" of simple neglect of d!t" wic( p!rs!ant to te Ci#il
Ser#ice Law( is a less gra#e offense p!nisable b" s!spension for one mont and one da" to si-
monts for te first infraction$
+. #mmorality and 5nbecoming Conduct
1.C. 6one Co.( In. 1. E0&arte
A.3. !o. )T%7$$7#-$*. /t. #'( 2000. "-" SC)A --*
PONENTE: Inares0Santiago
FACTS: Complaint alleges tat respondent 3!dge ref!sed to correct an ob#io!sl" erroneo!s
comp!tation in a mone" 3!dgment$ *t is alleged tat 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 te performance of is 3!dicial f!nctions$
)a0;aie v. Alovera
A.C. !o. -4-'. A&=. -( 2000. ""4 SC)A 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 te 2!diciar"( wic !ltimatel" di#ested complainant of er propert"$
Te gist of te anomalies committed b" te respondent 3!dge are: 468 Te case was not tried$
+at transpired was a moc' or sim!lated trial inside is cambers were onl" te law"er of te
plaintiffs and a co!rt stenograper from anoter co!rt were present$ No 2!dge or co!rt
personnel were present as tere was act!al Co!rt session in open co!rt going on at tat time) 418
Te records of te case were wit 2!dge Alo#era and remained wit im e#en after is
retirement$ %e did not ret!rn te record to te Co!rt Cler' in Carge of Ci#il Cases) 458 Te
record of te case t!rned !p on te table of te Co!rt Cler' togeter wit te DOffer of E-ibitsF
of te law"er of te plaintiffs and te DOrderF( after te retirement of 2!dge Alo#era$ Bot te
Offer and te Order admitting te e-ibits were not properl" filed and do not bear mar'ings of
a#ing been recei#ed b" te co!rt) 4;8 Te DdecisionF of 2!dge Alo#era was filed wit te co!rt
b" 2!dge Alo#era imself and beca!se e was no longer a 3!dge is s!bmission was ref!sed$
38
%ELD: Disbarred$ Cespondent as t!s s!fficientl" demonstrated tat e is morall" and legall"
!nfit to remain in te e-cl!si#e and onorable fraternit" of te legal profession$ Te e#idence
against respondent were all 9!ite telling on ow te latter acted in a grossl" repreensible
manner in a#ing te 9!estioned decision come to fore( leading !ltimatel" to its e-ec!tion
di#esting te complainant of er propert"$ Cespondent gra#el" ab!sed is relationsip wit is
former staff( pompo!sl" fla!nting is erstwile standing as a 3!dge$ %e disregarded is primar"
d!t" as an officer of te co!rt( wo is sworn to assist te co!rts and not to impede or per#ert te
administration of 3!stice to all and s!ndr"$ *n so doing( e made a moc'er" of te 3!diciar" and
eroded p!blic confidence in co!rts and law"ers$
+olores Gome8 v. %&0=e )o0olfo A. Gat0&la
2$" SC)A -""
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: :ome/ is te complainant in 1 different criminal cases before 2!dge :atd!la$ +en
se petitioned te SC to cange te #en!e of 6 of te cases( Cespondent s!spended te sced!led
earings in bot cases$ +en re9!ired b" te SC to sow ca!se w" disciplinar" action so!ld
not be ta'en against im( e dela"ed is comment b!t e#ent!all" e-plained tat te s!spension of
earing was made beca!se of te pending re9!est for cange of #en!e$
%ELD: 2!dge :atd!la acted #indicti#el" S oppressi#el"( apparentl" ir'ed b" te re9!est of
petitioner$ %e need not a#e s!spended bot earings as te cange of #en!e onl" in#ol#ed one
case$ %is dela" in commenting on te cange of #en!e also effecti#el" dela"ed bot cases b" 7
monts$ %is acts are not free from te appearance of impropriet"( let alone be"ond reproac( as
re9!ired b" Canon 5 of te Canons of 2!dicial Etics$
E&,e7Ba0el vs. +e la 6e@a Ba0el
A.3. !o. 67$47#2-'. %&ne #"( #$$4. 24" SC)A "20
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: A complaint for immoralit" carged respondent Co!rt Stenograper for a#ing illicit
relations wit Dalida b" wom e ad begot a cild( and failing to ma'e good a promissor" note
e ad made to pa" is wife as s!pport for teir da!gter and is promise to pa" P7??$?? a
mont from 2an!ar" 6<<7( p!rs!ant to te decision in a s!pport case filed b" complainant$
Cespondent denied all of tese and claimed to a#e been li#ing alone since te separation from
is wife$ Tereafter( respondent admitted te carges b!t claimed tat e fo!nd solace in te
arms of Dalida wic is own wife co!ld not offer im and tat te separation wit is wife as
alread" made tem strangers to eac oter$
%ELD: %e is g!ilt" of immoralit" and per3!r" and recommended is s!spension wito!t pa" for
one 468 "ear$ Hnder C!le >*=( O154o8 of te Ci#il Ser#ice C!les and applicable r!lings(
immoralit" is considered a gra#e offense and is p!nised b" s!spension for E monts and 6 da"
to 6 "ear for te first offense and( for te second offense( b" dismissal$ As alread" noted(
39
respondent declares tat it is ,tis new0fo!nd famil"(, wic as gi#en im ,solace and comfort
and e#en a reason to contin!e li#ing$, *nstead of e-pressing remorse or e#en regret for a#ing
left is wife( e anno!nces tat e as in fact bro!gt an action for ann!lment of is marriage$
Emma %. Castillo vs. %&0=e 3an&el 3. Calano=( %r.
A. 3. !o. )T%7$07--4. +e. #.( #$$-. #$$ SC)A 4*
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: 2!dge Calanog was acc!sed of cond!ct !nbecoming a p!blic official and immoralit"$
Castillo alleged tat e 4Calanog8 establised an intimate( albeit immoral( relationsip wit
complainant alto!g e is a married man$
%ELD: :!ilt"$ Canon *( C!le 6$?6 P A 3!dge so!ld be te embodiment of competence(
integrit"( probit" and independence$ Te integrit" and independence of te 3!diciar" can be
red!ced to one common denominator: te 3!dge P te indi#id!al wo dispenses 3!stice( and
!pon wose attrib!tes depend te p!blic perception of te 3!diciar"$ Tere is no dicotom" of
moralit": a p!blic official is also 3!dged b" is pri#ate morals$ Te Code dictates tat a 3!dge( in
order to promote p!blic confidence in te integrit" and impartialit" of te 3!diciar"( m!st bea#e
wit propriet" at all times$ As te SC as #er" recentl" e-plained( a 3!dge&s official life cannot
simpl" be detaced or separated from is personal e-istence$
1,. 8ropriety of Conduct40a;ing #nterest in Matter =efore !is Court @#mpartialityA
I! )E9 +ero=atory !ews Items C?ar=in= CA %&stie +emetrio +emetria wit? Interferene
on Be?alf of a S&s5ete0 +r&= <&een
A.3. !o. 0070470$7CA. 3ar. 24( 200#
Per C!riam
FACTS: Se#eral newspaper articles collecti#el" reported tat CA Associate 2!stice Demetria
tried to intercede on bealf of s!spected Cinese dr!g R!een I! I!' Lai( wo went in and o!t of
prison to pla" in a .anila casino$ Te Cief State Prosec!tor ad recei#ed a pone call from
Demetria as'ing im for te witdrawal of se#eral motions filed wit te CTC$ Te DO2 was
also recei#ing press!re from Demetria to Dgo slow in prosec!ting I! I!' LaiF$
%ELD: Te cond!ct and bea#ior of e#er"one connected wit an office carged wit te
dispensation of 3!stice is circ!mscribed wit te ea#" b!rden of responsibilit"$ %is at all times
m!st be caracteri/ed wit propriet" and m!st be abo#e s!spicion$ %is m!st be free of e#en a
wiff of impropriet"( not onl" wit respect to te performance of is 3!dicial d!ties( b!t also is
bea#ior o!tside te co!rtroom and as a pri#ate indi#id!al$ Te 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 te integrit" of te entire 2!diciar"$ %ig etical principles and a sense of propriet"
so!ld be maintained( wito!t wic te fait of te people in te 2!diciar" so indispensable in
an orderl" societ" cannot be preser#ed$ Tere is simpl" no place in te 2!diciar" for tose wo
cannot meet te e-acting standards of 3!dicial cond!ct and integrit"$
40
Hilario 0e G&8man vs. %&0=e +eo0oro Sison
A.3. !o. )T%70#7#.2$. 3ar. 2.( 200#.
Per C!riam
FACTS: A complaint was filed carging respondent 2!dge wit gross ignorance of te law and
irreg!larities in connection wit an Election Case$ Complainant alleges tat respondent acted
wit manifest partialit" in declaring te case s!bmitted for decision alto!g complainant ad
not "et finised presenting is e#idence( scaring complainantJs witnesses and stopping co!nsel
from as'ing 9!estions( accepting pleadings of te oter part" e#en after deadline( conferring
personall" wit te 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 so!ld be diligent in 'eeping abreast wit de#elopments in law and
3!rispr!dence( and regard te st!d" of law as a ne#er0ending and ceaseless process$ Elementar"
is te r!le tat wen laws or r!les are clear( it is inc!mbent !pon 3!dges to appl" tem regardless
of personal belief or predilections$ A 3!dge m!st not onl" be impartial( e m!st also appear to be
impartial$ %ence( te 3!dge m!st( at all times( maintain te appearance of fairness and
impartialit"$ %is lang!age( bot written and spo'en( m!st be g!arded and meas!red lest te best
of intentions be misconstr!ed$ Fraterni/ing wit litigants tarnises a 3!dgeJs appearance$ *t is
improper for a 3!dge to meet wit te acc!sed wito!t te presence of co!nsel$ Cespondent
2!dge is D*S.*SSED from ser#ice$
6e0ro A. San %&an v. Lore 1. Ba=alasa
A. 3. !o. )T%7$47#"$*. %&ne *( #$$4. 2'" SC)A -#.
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS:One of te properties in#ol#ed in te intestate proceedings before 2!dge BagalacsaJs sala
was a parcel of land wic te administrator of te intestate estate sold !nder an emancipation
patent to Pontillas o#er te ob3ection of te oppositors$ Pontillas in t!rn sold te land to te
Newreac Corporation$ Complainant alleges tat respondent 3!dge sowed interest in te sale of
propert" tat is s!b3ect of litigation in er sala b" presenting for registration te deed of sale
e-ec!ted in fa#or of Newreac Corp( wit a note to facilitate te registration$
%ELD:Canon 1 of te Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct en3oins 3!dges to a#oid not 3!st impropriet" in
teir cond!ct b!t e#en te mere appearance of impropriet"$ Tis is tr!e not onl" in te
performance of teir 3!dicial d!ties b!t in all teir acti#ities( incl!ding teir pri#ate life$ Te"
m!st cond!ct temsel#es in s!c a manner tat te" gi#e no gro!nd for reproac$ *n tis case(
respondent 3!dge&s note to te register of deeds( re9!esting tat te iss!ance of te TCT be
e-pedited gi#es gro!nd for s!spicion tat se is !tili/ing te power or prestige of er office to
promote te interest of oters$ *ndeed( te cler' of te register of deeds to!gt it was respondent
3!dge wo was te one wo was ca!sing te transfer of te emancipation patent$
11. Buantum of 8roof in )!owing #mpartiality of *udge
41
L&ita Bi,oso vs. /sm&n0o 1illan&eva
A.3. !o. 3T%70#7#"*.. A5r. #.( 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 te ci#il case se ad pending in
=illan!e#aJs co!rt and cons!lt =illan!e#a regarding a complaint for estafa se wanted to file
against Na#arra$ Te SC fo!nd tat beca!se of material inconsistencies between BibosoJs
affida#it and er statements d!ring te cross0e-amination( te carges for se-!al arassment
were !ncorroborated$ %owe#er( te SC also fo!nd tat respondent =illan!e#a prepared te
affida#it of BibosoJs fater0in0law( s!c affida#it was !sed in te case against Na#arra$
%ELD: Cespondent so!ld be eld liable for is cond!ct in te Criminal case$ Cespondent acted
as a law"er for complainant and er fater0in0law wen e drafted complainant&s affida#it tat
became te basis of a complaint for estafa filed against %eidi Na#arra$ B" acting as co!nsel for
complainant and te latter&s fater0in0law in a case filed in is co!rt( respondent compromised is
ne!tralit" and independence$ %ow co!ld e ten be e-pected to decide wit ob3ecti#it" and
fairness te cases in wic e as acted as a law"er for te plaintiff or complainantT
Cespondent&s miscond!ct in tis case is f!rter compo!nded b" te fact tat e rendered te legal
ser#ices in 9!estion !sing go#ernment facilities d!ring office o!rs$
San==&nian= Bayan vs. %&0=e Estrella
A.3. !o. 0#7#.0' )T%. %an. #.( 200#. "-$ SC)A -.
PONENTE: .elo
FACTS: CTC 2!dge Estrella so!gt te elp of NB* andwriting e-perts to e-amine aro!nd
6E(??? ballots( p!rs!ant to te election protest of Papa against winning candidate :arcia$ Estrella
r!led in fa#or of Papa( based solel" on te concl!sions of te NB*( wito!t e-amining te
9!estioned ballots despite te mista'es in te NB* Ceport( and despite te res!lting margin of
onl" 6E< #otes$ EstrellaJs ob#io!s bias was also e#ident in oter instances: e did not set te NB*
report for earing) e did not allow :arcia to see te report onl" !ntil immediatel" before te
prom!lgation of 3!dgement) PapaJs .otion for E-ec!tion Pending Appeal was dated one da"
before te da" of prom!lgation( indicating e ad prior 'nowledge of te fa#orable decision$
%ELD Notwitstanding te errors in te NB* report and te res!lting margin of 6E< #otes(
Estella based is decision solel" on te concl!sions of te NB* wito!t e-amining te ballots in
co!rt0contrar" to Section 177 of te Election Code$ Te foregoing a#e also raised te s!spicion
of partialit" on te part of Estrella$ A 3!dge m!st promote p!blic confidence in te integrit" and
impartialit" of te 3!diciar"$ Tese stringent standards are intended to ass!re parties of 3!st and
e9!itable decisions and of a 3!diciar" tat 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= BeA C?en vs. Amalia An0ra0e
42
A.3. !o. )T%7$$7#*0-. !ov. #.( #$$$. "#' SC)A ##
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Ang Me' Cen filed administrati#e cases against 2!dge Andrade for 468 e-treme bias
and ostilit" wen an order den"ing is motion for dis9!alification was not mailed to defendant(
418 Dsabb" record 'eepingF as te complainant fo!nd te record of is case in
dise#eledNdilapidated condition( and 458 contin!o!sl" mailing orders and notices despite oral
manifestation of te co!nsel of co0defendant of te deat of is client$
%ELD: Alto!g te cler' of co!rt is tas'ed to maintain te records( te 3!dge a#ing
s!per#ision o#er te cler' of co!rt m!st see to it tat te records are in order$ %owe#er( te
C!les on Ci#il Proced!re pro#ide tat it is te attorne" of te deceased wo sall notif" te 3!dge
of te deat of te part" on te ass!mption tat te attorne" is in a better position to notif" te
co!rt of te deat of te part"$ Te 3!dge cannot be fa!lted for contin!o!sl" sending te
deceased orders and notices$
Carlito +. La8o v. %&0=e Antonio 1. Tion=
A. 3. !o. 3T%7$'7##4". +e. #*( #$$'. "00 SC)A 2#-
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: 2!dge Tiong was acc!sed of failing to inibit imself in a criminal case beca!se e was
related witin te fo!rt degree of affinit" to te acc!sed$ Te 3!dge claims e did so in te
opes tat is presence wo!ld allow te parties to settle amicabl"$
%ELD: 2!dge reprimanded$ A 3!dge so!ld ta'e no part in a proceeding were is impartialit"
migt reasonabl" be 9!estioned$ Also( C!le 65G( C!les of Co!rt( pro#ides tat no 3!dge or
3!dicial officer sall sit in an" case in wic e( inter alia( is related to eiter part" witin te
si-t degree pf consang!init" or affinit"( or to co!nsel witin te fo!rt degree comp!ted
according to te r!les of te ci#il law$ Hnder tis pro#ision( te Presiding 2!dge is mandated to
dis9!alif" imself from sitting in a case$ %e cannot e-ercise is discretion weter to inibit
imself or not$
Elma T. 2errer v. Genoveva C. 3aram,a( et al.
A. 3. !o. 3T%7$"74$*. 3ay #-( #$$'. 2$0 SC)A --
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Complainant alleged tat respondent 3!dge forced er to sign an affida#it of desistance
as basis for te dismissal of te criminal complaint for gra#e oral defamation against PO5 Eden(
and dragged er from te Cegional Office of te Department of Agric!lt!re to respondentJs
cambers to settle er differences wit PO5 Eden$ Complainant&s rigt slee#e was torn and er
gold nec'lace was damaged as a res!lt of te force !sed b" te 3!dge$
43
%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 te canons of 2!dicial Etics tat re9!ire tat a
2!dge&s acts wile in office so!ld be free from te appearance of impropriet" and er personal
bea#ior wile in office and also in er e#er"da" life( so!ld be be"ond reproac$ Se sowed a
predisposition to !se p"sical #iolence and intemperate lang!age in p!blic wic re#eals a
mar'ed lac' of 3!dicial temperament and self0restraint( traits wic( besides te basic e9!ipment
of learning in te law( are indispensable 9!alities of e#er" 3!dge$
*n ta'ing !nd!e interest in te settlement of te case( se se#erel" compromised te
integrit" and impartialit" of er office$ Alto!g te initiati#e for te settlement came from te
complainant( respondent 3!dge went o!t of er wa" to ins!re its s!ccess$ Se 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 te appearance of impropriet" in all
teir actions$
1eronia Gon8ales vs. %&0=e L&as 6. Bersamin
A. 3. !o. )T%7$.7#"-- 3ar. #"( #$$.. 2*- SC)A .*2
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: To satisf" 3!dgments in two cases in fa#or of :on/ales( two notices of le#" were
presented on real propert" of Cr!/( wic was preliminaril" attaced wile te case was pending
and s!bse9!entl" pro#isionall" registered in te Cegister of Deeds$ %owe#er( te same land was
sold to Can prior to le#"$ Can claims tat s!c annotations pertaining to te le#" be cancelled
since Cr!/ no longer owned te land$ Cespondent 3!dge ordered te cancellation$
%ELD:Tere is no e#idence on record to pro#e te carge tat respondent 3!dge !nd!l" fa#ored
spo!ses Can$ No proof of partialit" as been sown b" complainant$ .ere s!spicion tat a
3!dge is partial to one of te parties is not eno!g$ Nor is tere an" sowing tat respondent
3!dge 'nowingl" rendered an !n3!st interloc!tor" orders and an !n3!st 3!dgment$ it as not been
sown( in te first place( tat te 3!dgment is !n3!st or tat it is contrar" to law or not s!pported
b" e#idence( and( in te second place( tat it was made wit conscio!s and deliberate intent to do
an in3!stice$ %owe#er( respondent 3!dge so!ld a#e ordered notice to be gi#en to complainant
and petitioner to implead complainant since it appears tat se ad an ad#erse interest annotated
on te bac' of teir certificate title$ Section 6?@ of P$D$ No$ 671< re9!ires tis notice$ T!s( te
3!dge is admonised$
1.. $ailure to Give Due Notice =efore an Crder of 32ecution.
Aliia T. Baw vs. %&0=e Casiano 6. An&niaion( %r.
A. 3. !o. 3T%7$"7'##. 3ar. #( #$$*. 2-2 SC)A 2-$
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Maw complains tat *.C&s ,E- Parte .otion for E-ec!tion, was granted b" respondent
3!dge on te same da" tat it was filed wito!t notice to er and er !sband$ Se also claims
44
tat Seriff Arib!abo was not a!tori/ed to enforce te writ of e-ec!tion beca!se e was not te
dep!t" or branc seriff nor was e d!l" designated or appointed seriff b" respondent 3!dge$
%ELD: 2!dge is liable for iss!ing an order of e-ec!tion wen no prior notice of te motion for
e-ec!tion ad been gi#en to complainant&s !sband$ Seriff is also liable for not gi#ing d!e
notice to complainants$ Co!rt ereb" imposes a F*NE of P6?(???$?? eac on respondent 2!dge
Seriff *** Sam!el A$ Arib!abo and +ACNS tem tat a repetition of te same or similar acts in
te f!t!re will be dealt wit more se#erel"$
13. $ait!ful to t!e /aw and Maintain 8rofessional Competence
Iss&ane of Hol0 +e5art&re or0er of %&0=e L&isito T. A0aoa=( 3TC( Camilin=( Tarla
A.3. !o. $$7'7#2.73TC. Se5t. 22( #$$$. "#* SC)A $
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: A old0depart!re order was iss!ed b" .TC 2!dge Adaoag in a Criminal Case$ Te
Secretar" of 2!stice calls attention to te fact tat te order in 9!estion is contrar" to Circ!lar No$
5<0<G of te SC$ Said circ!lar limits te a!torit" to iss!e old0depart!re orders to te CTC in
criminal cases witin teir e-cl!si#e 3!risdiction$ 2!dge Adaoag admits is mista'e and pleads
ignorance of te circ!lar( e-plaining tat e ad no cop" of te circ!lar and it was onl" later on(
after researc( tat e fo!nd o!t tat said orders co!ld onl" be iss!ed b" te CTCs$
%ELD: Te Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct en3oins 3!dges to be Dfaitf!l to te law and maintain
professional competence$F Te" can li#e !p to teir d!ties onl" b" diligent effort to 'eep
temsel#es abreast of de#elopments in o!r legal s"stem$ Te process of learning law is a ne#er
ending and ceaseless one$ 2!dge Adaoag was reprimanded wit te warning tat a repetition of
te same or similar act will be dealt wit more se#erel"$
1>. $ull Control of t!e 8roceedings in !is )ala and )!ould -dopt a $irm 8olicy -gainst
#mprovident 8ostponements.
2laviano Ar:&ero vs. Tert&lo 3en0o8a
A.3. !o. 3T%7$$7#20$. Se5t. "0( #$$$. "#* SC)A *0"
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Arraignment of te acc!sed was postponed nine times before it was finall" eld$ Te
acc!sed failed to appear tree times wito!t notif"ing te trial co!rt$ Twice se appeared wit
new law"ers wo ad as'ed for postponement on te gro!nd tat teir ser#ices ad 3!st been
engaged and te" needed time to st!d" te case$ Se also failed to appear beca!se of an alleged
illness$ Te complainant claims tat te 3!dge as Dliberall" tolerated te series of
postponementsF and te Office of te Co!rt Administrator recommends a fine of P7(??? for te
!nreasonable dela" in te arraignment$
45
%ELD: Te 3!dge failed to ta'e te proper meas!res wen te acc!sed did not appear for
arraignment wito!t notif"ing te trial co!rt$ As se was o!t on bail( se was bo!nd to appear
before te trial co!rt wene#er so re9!ired$ %er fail!re to do so 3!stified te forfeit!re of er
bond$ %owe#er( te 3!dge tolerated te !ne-plained absences of te acc!sed$ As regards te
postponement beca!se of te iring of new law"ers( tere was no absol!te reason w" co!nsel
co!ld not a#e been re9!ired to confer wit te acc!sed witin a sorter period to prepare er for
te arraignment$ Tere was also no doc!mentar" e#idence presented to s!pport te claim tat
acc!sed was too ill to attend te arraignment$ Te postponement was terefore granted wito!t
s!fficient basis$
1?. Misconduct
a. =ribery. Misconduct. Due 8rocess. *urisdiction.
Calil&n= vs. S&ria=a
A.3. !o. 3T%7$$7##$#. A&=. "#( 2000. ""$ SC)A "-0
PEC CHC*A.
FACTS: NB* cond!cted an entrapment operation wic led to te filing of an information
alleging tat 2!dge S!riaga willf!ll"( !nlawf!ll" and felonio!sl" demand and recei#e P17?(???
from spo!ses Calil!ng for te p!rpose of mediating( ind!cing and infl!encing 2!dge *t!ralde into
rendering a fa#orable decision for said spo!ses$
%ELD: Te c!lpabilit" of respondent 3!dge for serio!s miscond!ct as been establised not 3!st
b" s!bstantial e#idence b!t b" an o#erwelming preponderance tereof$ A 3!dge so!ld so
bea#e at all times to promote p!blic confidence in te integrit" and impartialit" of te 3!diciar"$
*t is e#ident from te pro#ision tat bot realit" and appearance m!st conc!r$ Case law
repeatedl" teaces tat 3!dicial office circ!mscribes te personal cond!ct of a 3!dge and imposes
a n!mber of restrictions tereon( wic e as to pa" for accepting and occ!p"ing an e-alted
position in te administration of 3!stice$ *t is t!s( te d!t" of members of te benc to a#oid an"
impression of impropriet" to protect te image and integrit" of te 3!diciar"$
Co v. Calima=( %r.
A.3. !o. )T%7$$7#-''. %&ne 20(2000. ""- SC)A 20
PONENTE: .elo
FACTS: Te Co!rt designated respondent CTC 3!dge of Santiago Cit" as Acting Presiding CTC
2!dge of Ecag!e( *sabela( in addition to is reg!lar d!ties$ Later owe#er( 2!dge Ong too' o#er
as te reg!lar 3!dge of te latter co!rt$ S!bse9!entl"( a complaint for legal separation was filed
b" Co wit a pra"er for a TCO wit te Ecag!e co!rt against er !sband$ Despite 2!dge OngJs
a#ing alread" ass!med office as presiding 3!dge tereof( respondent immediatel" too'
cogni/ance of te case$ Considering tat te pra"er for te TCO was one of e-treme !rgenc"(
respondent in e2 parte proceedings temporaril" en3oined complainant$ Cespondent tereafter set
46
te s!mmar" earing of te application for te TCO for te ne-t da"( owe#er complainant failed
to appear( t!s te operation of te TCO was e-tended$
%ELD: +ile it is tr!e tat 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 te a!torit" to ta'e cogni/ance of old and newl" filed
cases in te Ecag!e co!rt d!ring tat period( notwitstanding te appointment of a new 3!dge to
said sala.
As to te iss!e of e-tortion( complainantJs allegation is s!pported onl" b" te affida#it
and testimon" of a witness to te effect tat se deli#ered an en#elope containing mone" to
respondent$ *nasm!c as wat is imp!ted against te respondent 3!dge connotes a miscond!ct so
gra#e tat( if pro#en( it wo!ld entail dismissal from te benc( te 9!ant!m of proof re9!ired
so!ld be more tan s!bstantial$
%owe#er( respondent is fined for is fail!re to obser#e proper co!rt proced!re in te
iss!ance of te order of in3!nction$ CespondentJs action is igl" irreg!lar( gi#ing rise to te
s!spicion tat te 3!dge is partial to one of te parties in te case pending before im$ Canon 1
of te Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct en3oins 3!dges to a#oid not 3!st impropriet" in teir cond!ct b!t
e#en te mere appearance of impropriet"$ Te" m!st cond!ct temsel#es in s!c a manner tat
te" gi#e no gro!nd for reproac$
b. Grave -buse of -ut!ority and Grave Misconduct
Antonio Ban=ayan vs. %immy B&taan
A.3. !o. 3T%7007#"20. !ov. 22( 2000. "-* SC)A "0#
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: B" #irt!e of 1 warrants of arrest( te acc!sed were arrested$ Bot were s!bse9!entl"
ordered released b" respondent 2!dge$ Complainant a#ers tat respondent appro#ed te Order of
Celease wito!t te s!bmission of te re9!ired bond wic was s!pposed to precede te order of
release( b!t te bond was s!bmitted onl" after te appro#al of te red!ction of bail$ Cespondent
arg!es tat e e-ercised is discretion !nder te r!les in granting a red!ction of bail and pra"s
tat te complaint against im be dismissed$
%ELD: Cespondent 2!dge granted te motion for red!ction of bail wito!t gi#ing prosec!tion
te cance to be eard$ %e also ordered te release of Ca!ilan( Sr$ despite is fail!re to post bail$
Tis is gra#e miscond!ct wic cannot be allowed to go !np!nised$ *t is also a gross #iolation
of C!le 5$?6( Canon 5 of te code of 2!dicial Cond!ct wic re9!ires 3!dges to Dbe faitf!l to te
law and maintain professional competenceF$ %e not onl" failed to li#e !p to is d!ties !nder te
law( e as also acted in bad fait for tr"ing to co#er !p wat e did K ordering te release of
persons lawf!ll" arrested e#en before te" ad posted bail$
Salva0or )&i8 vs. A=elio Brin=as
A.3. !o. 3T%7007#2... A5r. .( 2000. ""0 SC)A .2
PONENTE: .endo/a
47
FACTS: 2!dge Bringas was carged 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 te prosec!tors wo appear before im in
te presence of part" litigants and law"ers$ Te incidents were 3!st left !nnoticed b" te oter
law"ers lest te" wo!ld lose teir cases pending before respondent 2!dge$
%ELD: Te d!t" to maintain respect for te dignit" of te co!rt applies to members of te bar
and benc ali'e$ A 3!dge so!ld be co!rteo!s bot in is cond!ct and in is lang!age especiall"
to tose appearing before im$ %e can old co!nsels to a proper appreciation of teir d!ties to
te co!rt( teir clients( and te p!blic wito!t being pett"( arbitrar"( o#erbearing( or t"rannical$
%e so!ld remain from cond!ct tat demeans is office and remember alwa"s tat co!rtes"
begets co!rtes"$ Abo#e all( e m!st cond!ct imself in s!c manner tat e gi#es no reason for
reproac$ As stated in Canon 1 of te Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct( a 3!dge so!ld a#oid
impropriet" and te appearance of impropriet" in all is acti#ities$
Geronimo Goros5e vs. La&ro San0oval
A.3. !o. )T%7007#*"-. 2e,. #*( 2000.
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Spo!ses :orospe filed a complaint against respondent 2!dge Sando#al and O*C Cler' of
Co!rt Paceco beca!se te" s!stained Uirreparable damage( p!blic ridic!le( and !miliationJ as a
res!lt of teir imprisonment for contempt of co!rt$ A warrant of arrest ad been iss!ed for
repeated absence d!ring te earing$ +en te earings were s!bse9!entl" reset( 2!dge
Sando#al was on lea#e$ Te spo!ses manifested to te E-ec!ti#e 2!dge tat te" were not absent
d!ring te pre#io!s earings( ence te warrant of arrest was cancelled$ Tereafter( 2!dge
Sando#al ordered te spo!ses to e-plain in writing w" te" so!ld not be cited for contempt for
misrepresenting facts to te E-ec!ti#e 2!dge$ Te spo!ses were ten eld in contempt$ Te
spo!ses :orospe paid te fine imposed on te same da" te penalt" was imposed$ %owe#er( te
O*C Cler' of Co!rt still ordered teir commitment$ Te iss!e is weter or not Sando#al and
Paceco committed gra#e ab!se of a!torit"$
%ELD: Te S!preme Co!rt eld tat 2!dge Sando#al and Paceco did not commit gra#e ab!se
of a!torit"$ As for te 3!dge( records will sow tat te spo!ses were indeed absent on te
disp!ted date$ F!rtermore( te spo!ses accepted te decision b" not appealing$ As for te O*C
Cler' of Co!rt( tere is tr!t to PacecoJs claim tat e was merel" performing a ministerial
f!nction$ *t so!ld be stressed tat te spo!ses paid te fine at 7:??P. on te date te 3!dgment
was rendered$ *t was b!t proper for Paceco to wait for te order of release from te 3!dge$
.eanwile( it was correct for Paceco to order teir commitment$
1". $ailure to )upervise Court 8ersonnel
)e5ort on t?e 2inanial A&0it
A. 3. !o. $$7##7#*473TC. A&=. 4( 2000. ""4 SC)A "-4
48
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: *t was fo!nd tat Co!rt *nterpreter Deseo( former O*C of te .TC( ad !sed er cas
collections to encas personal cec's$ Se admitted te allegations and claims tat se did so in
good fait and tat se ad seen to it tat te amo!nts se ad ta'en from er collections were
e9!al to te amo!nts of cec's se deposited in te sa#ings acco!nt of te .TC( and tat se did
so wito!t a!torit" of 2!dge Castigador$ OCA recommended among oters tat 2!dge
Castigador be admonised for fail!re to closel" monitor te 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 so!ld a#e e-ercised direct and
immediate s!per#ision o#er er to ens!re tat se obser#ed te pro#isions of Circ No$ 7?0<7$
1%. 8erjury
Bis?o5 Crisolo=o Eal&n= vs. Enri:&e 6as&a
A.3. !o. 3T%70#7#"-2. %&ne 2#( 200#.
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: A complaint was filed against respondent 2!dge alleging tat in is application for
transferNpromotion wit te 2BC( e stated tat e ad not been carged wit an" criminal andNor
administrati#e case or complaint wen in fact e ad been carged wit briber"Ne-tortion and
wit administrati#e offenses in te SC$
%ELD: Te 9!estion was: ,%a#e "o! e#er been carged $ $ $ for #iolating an" law( decree(
ordinance( or reg!lationT, *n answering te 9!estion( respondent made it appear tat e ad
ne#er been carged wit an" #iolation of law( decree( ordinance( or reg!lation wen te fact is
tat( as alread" stated( e was$ %is e-planation tat e saw no need to indicate tis fact in is
personal data seet beca!se a certain congressman ad allegedl" alread" informed te 2BC of is
case before te Omb!dsman is flims"$ As a 3!dge( respondent o!gt to 'now better$
1'. #ntemperate )peec!.
+ela Cr&8 vs. Bersamira
A.3. !o. )T%7007#*.4. 3otion for )eonsi0eration. %an. #$( 200#$
PONENTE: Inares0Santiago
FACTS: *n a resol!tion( 3!dge was fined and was gi#en a stern warning tat 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 tat te recital of te ,.agtolis
Ceport, of te ,fact!al millie!, of te administrati#e complaint at and( was disonest and
distorted$
49
%ELD: Cespondent 3!dge&s carges of disonest" and distortion of facts against an associate
3!stice of te second igest co!rt in te land( wo was tas'ed to loo' into te administrati#e
indictments for wrongdoing against im( ring ollow in te absence of an" e#idence watsoe#er
sowing tat te in#estigator arbored an" ill0feelings or malice toward im$ D!c carges not
onl" re#eal a deplorable deficienc" in tat degree of co!rteo!sness respondent is s!pposed to
obser#e and e-tend towards oter magistrates li'e im( it also betra"s a caracter flaw wic
lea#es te co!rt e#en more con#inced tat e deser#es te administrati#e sanctions imposed on
im$ A 3!dge wito!t being offensi#e in speec ma" endea#or to call attention to wat e
percei#es to be erroneo!s findings against im$ %e ma" critici/e te 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 so!ld
e#er allow imself$ *ntemperate speec detracts from te e9!animit" and 3!discio!sness tat
so!ld be te constant allmar's of a dispenser of 3!stice$
1+. Duty to 8ractice Discretion of *udge
Sim5liio Ali, vs. %&0=e La,ayan
A.3. !o. )T% 007#*4.. %&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 te possibilit" tat te
prosec!tor co!ld be in error$ *t is not eno!g tat tere be diligence on te part of te trial co!rt
as well as ac9!aintance wit te applicable law and 3!rispr!dence$ +en te iss!es are so simple
and te facts are so e#ident as to be be"ond permissible margins of error( to still err tereon
amo!nts to ignorance of te law$ *ss!ance of a warrant of arrest is not a ministerial f!nction of
te co!rt$ Before iss!ing a warrant of arrest( a 3!dge m!st not rel" solel" on te report or
resol!tion of te prosec!tor( e m!st e#al!ate te report and te s!pporting doc!ments wic
will assist im to ma'e is determination of probable ca!se$ *t calls for te e-ercise of 3!dicial
discretion on te part of te iss!ing magistrate$
C. !otary 6&,li
1. Re&uisites for an M0C *udge to perform Notarial $unctions
)e=ino Bar,arona vs. Ale;an0ro Can0a
A.3. !o. 3T%70#7#"**. A5r. 20( 200#.
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Complainants were te defendants in a ci#il case pending before respondent .TC 2!dge
Canda$ Cespondent declared te defendants in defa!lt and conse9!entl" rendered 3!dgment
against tem$ Complainants filed an administrati#e complaint against im for 'nowingl"
rendering an !n3!st 3!dgment( ignorance of te law( etc$ One of te iss!es raised terein was tat
respondent was performing notarial f!nctions$ Te" presented as e#idence a Deed of Sale
notari/ed b" Canda$ Te respondent admitted notari/ing te said doc!ment b!t raised as is
defense te absence of an" oter notar" p!blic in te area$
50
%ELD: Te 6<@< Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct not onl" en3oins 3!dges to reg!late teir e-tra0
3!dicial acti#ities in order to minimi/e te ris' of conflict wit teir 3!dicial d!ties( b!t also
proibits tem from engaging in te pri#ate practice of law$ Te Co!rt( ta'ing 3!dicial notice of
te fact tat tere are still m!nicipalities wic a#e neiter law"ers nor notaries p!blic( r!les
tat .TC and .CTC 3!dges assigned to m!nicipalities or circ!its wit no law"ers or notaries
p!blic ma"( in te capacit" as notaries p!blic e- oficio( perform an" act witin te competenc"
of a reg!lar notar" p!blic( pro#ided tat: 468 all notarial fees carged be for te acco!nt of te
:o#ernment and t!rned o#er to te m!nicipal treas!rer and 418 certification be made in te
notari/ed doc!ments attesting to te lac' of an" law"er or notar" p!blic in s!c m!nicipalit" or
circ!it$ E#en if in tr!t tere was no notar" p!blic in te m!nicipalit"( respondent 3!dge failed to
certif" tis fact in te doc!ment itself$ .oreo#er( respondent 3!dge failed to remit te fees e
recei#ed to te m!nicipal treas!rer as re9!ired b" Circ!lar No$ 60<?$ *nstead( e remitted te
mone" to te 2!diciar" De#elopment F!nd$
Corona0o v. 2elon=o
A.C. !o. 2.##. !ov. #*( 2000. "-- SC)A *.*
PONENTE: P!no
FACTS: Coronado alleged tat Att"$ Felongco notari/ed a deed of promise to sell p!rportedl"
signed b" er deceased moter$ *t is alleged tat Att"$ Felongco #iolated te notarial law
%ELD: Te part" ac'nowledging m!st appear before te notar" p!blic or an" oter person
a!tori/ed to ta'e ac'nowledgments of instr!ments or doc!ments$ *n te case at bar( te
ac'nowledgment of te Deed stated tat on te 6?
t
of September( 6<@1 at So!t Cotabato
personall" appeared: FE ESTE=A and FLOCENDA FACAON before te respondent$ Este#a
died on Sept$ E( 6<@1( ence( it is clear tat te ac'nowledgment was made in #iolation of te
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 wito!t f!rter proof of its a!tenticit"$
.. Notaries as (itnesses
Solarte vs. 6&=e0a
A.C. !o. -4*#. %&ly "#( 2000. "". SC)A *.#.
PONENTE: R!is!mbing
FACTS: Solarte carged Att"$ P!geda wit gross miscond!ct$ P!geda allegedl" notari/ed certain
doc!ments in#ol#ing te sale of land$ Solarte claimed an interest in te lots sold$ Complainant
a#ers tat respondent co!ld not a#e legall" notari/ed a doc!ment to wic e also acted as
witness and alleges in partic!lar tat respondent participated in te fra!d!lent paartition and sale
of te propert"$ Cespondent co!ntered tat noting in te law proibits te notar" p!blic from
signing as witness te same doc!ments e notari/ed$
%ELD: Noting in te law proibits a notar" p!blic from acting at te same time as witness in
te doc!ment e notari/ed$ Te onl" e-ception is if te doc!ment is a will$ Complainant offered
51
no proof( b!t onl" mere allegations$ S!c a gra#e carge against a member of te bar and former
m!nicipal 3!dge needs concrete s!bstantiation to gain credence$ *t co!ld not prosper wito!t
ade9!ate proof$
+. Co&rt 6ersonnel
1. Cler;
a. Delay
/ffie of t?e Co&rt A0ministrator vs. Imel0a S. 6erle8
A.3. 67007#-2'. %an. #'( 200#. "-$ SC)A -#4
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: .TC 2!dge Agl!g!b filed a complaint against Cler' of Co!rt Perle/ for failing to
s!bmit te transcripts and stenograpic notes in some of te 2!dgeJs cases wic res!lted in te
fail!re of te 2!dge to decide 6< cases assigned to er witin te prescribed time$ Perle/
answered tat it was te fa!lt of stenograper Lancion( wo ref!sed to deli#er te records
transcribed despite orders of te 2!dge and reminders from Perle/$ Cespondent claims tat since
te 2!dge co!ld not control te stenograper( ow co!ld seT
%ELD: Perle/ is te administrati#e officer of te co!rt$ As s!c( se is carged wit te control
and s!per#ision of all s!bordinate personnel of te co!rt( incl!ding te stenograpers$ *t is
inc!mbent !pon er to ens!re tat te" perform teir d!ties well$ As administrati#e officer( te
d!t" of te Cler' of Co!rt is to ens!re tat stenograpers compl" wit teir d!t" to s!bmit te
transcripts not later tan 1? da"s from te time te notes were ta'en$ *f indeed Lancion did not
s!bmit te notes( Perle/ so!ld a#e reported te matter to te 2!dge and recommended te
imposition of administrati#e sanctions$ S!per#ision is not a meaningless ting$ Perle/ as
sown passi#it"( if not indifference( to te fail!re of tose !nder er s!per#ision to perform teir
d!ties well$
3a=leo vs. Taya=
A. 3. !o. 67$47#2-2. %&ne #$( #$$4. 24- SC)A 2.
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Hnion Cefiner" Corporation 4HCC8 was plaintiff in Ci#il Case 77?0.0@G of te CTC in
.alolos$ TC 3!dgment was rendered against it$ HCC filed a notice of appeal$ Te presiding
3!dge( 2!dge Demetrio B$ .acapagal( Sr$ ordered respondent branc cler' of co!rt to forward
,te complete records, of te case to te CA$ After repeated in9!iries wit te CA( HCC&s
co!nsel was informed tat te records were not "et wit te Co!rt$ Complainant( as #ice
president of HCC( ten filed te instant complaint$
%ELD: Te respondent be fined P7(???$?? and warned tat repetition of tis infraction in te
f!t!re will be dealt wit more se#erel"$ Te reason gi#en b" respondent for is fail!re to
52
transmit te records of te case are ins!bstantial$ Te Administrati#e f!nctions of te Branc
Cler's of Co!rt are #ital to te prompt and proper administration of 3!stice$ *t is te d!t" of te
Branc Cler' of Co!rt to deli#er te complete record of te case to te Cler' of Co!rt so tat it
co!ld be transmitted to te appellate co!rt witin fi#e 478 da"s after te acc!sed ga#e notice of
is appeal$ Tis d!t" co!ld not be e-c!sed simpl" beca!se copies of te stenograpic notes as
not been made b" te stenograpers$ +at is re9!ired to be transmitted witin fi#e 478 da"s from
te filing of a notice of appeal is te complete record( not te TSN$
3ariles I. 1illan&eva vs. Atty. )o0olfo B. 6ollentes
/CA I.6.I. !o. $*7#276. A&=. "( #$$*. 2-4 SC)A 2-
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Tis relates to an administrati#e complaint filed b" against Att"$ Pollentes( Cler' of
Co!rt of te CTC of *loilo Cit"( for dela" in te transmittal of te record of a criminal case to te
Co!rt of Appeals$
%ELD: Pollentes is g!ilt" of ,some degree of negligence, in failing to transmit te record of te
case on time$ Strict compliance wit te d!t" to transmit te record of cases witin fi#e 478 da"s
from te filing of a notice of appeal was especiall" re9!ired beca!se te case is a criminal case$
b. 5surpation of *udicial $unction
Lorena Colla0o vs. Teresita Bravo
A.3. !o. 0#7#70#7SC. A5r. #0( 200#
PONENTE: R!is!mbing
FACTS: Cespondent Cler' of Co!rtJs act of iss!ing s!bpoena to complainant was e#identl" not
directl" or remotel" connected wit respondentJs 3!dicial or administrati#e d!ties) se merel"
wanted to act as mediator between 1 disp!ting parties !pon te re9!est of one part"$
%ELD: Per!sal of te s!bpoena se iss!ed to complainant sows tat te form !sed was te one
!sed in criminal cases( gi#ing te complainant te impression tat er fail!re to appear wo!ld
s!b3ect er to te penalt" of law$ Iet neiter ad a complaint been commenced to s!pport te
iss!ance of said s!bpoena$ Te respondent was !sing( wito!t a!torit"( some element of state
coercion against complainant wo was !nderstandabl" compelled to eed te contents of te
s!bpoena res!lting in er !miliation$
%&0=e 6lai0o 1allarta vs. Eolan0a Lo5e8 1+A 0e Batoon
A.3. !o. 67$$7#"02. 2e,. 2'( 200#.
PONENTE: R!is!mbing
FACTS: 2!dge =allarta alleged tat wile e was on lea#e( respondent Cler' of Co!rt ca!sed te
preparation of an Order of Celease in connection wit a ten0pending Criminal Case$ Batoon
signed and iss!ed te d!plicate original of te order aware tat te 3!dge was on lea#e and co!ld
53
not sign te original order of release( and wito!t te cas bond for te release$ On te basis of
said d!plicate order( te acc!sed was released from c!stod"$
%ELD: Te appro#al of te bail of an acc!sed person and te a!torit" to order te release of a
detained person is a p!rel" 3!dicial f!nction$ Te Cler' of Co!rt( !nli'e a 3!dicial a!torit"( as
no power to order eiter te commitment or te release on bail of person carged wit penal
offenses$ Te Cler' of Co!rt ma" release an order D!pon te order of te 2!dgeF or Db" a!torit"
of te 2!dgeF b!t !nder no circ!mstance so!ld te cler' ma'e it appear tat te 3!dge signed te
order wen in fact( te 3!dge did not$
%&0=e Esanan vs. ClerA of Co&rt 3onterola
A.3. !o. 67$$7#"-4. 2e,. .( 200#
Per C!riam
FACTS: 2amero was con#icted for sligt p"sical in3!ries from wic 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 wo( on te basis tereof( was detained for 5 da"s$
%ELD +ile a cler' of co!rt as te a!torit" to iss!e writs incident to pending cases( s!c
iss!ance m!st not in#ol#e te e-ercise of f!nction appertaining to te co!rt or 3!dge onl"$ Te
iss!ance of a warrant of arrest and matters relating tereto is p!rel" a 3!dicial f!nction$ *n
ordering te arrest and confinement of 2amero in police c!stod"( .onterola !nd!l" !s!rped te
3!dicial prerogati#e of te 3!dge$ .onterola is g!ilt" of gra#e miscond!ct and !s!rpation of
3!dicial f!nction) dismissed from te ser#ice wit forfeit!re of benefits( wit pre3!dice to re0
emplo"ment in te go#ernment$
Santos vs. %&0=e Silva
A.3. !o. )T%7007#*4$. %an. #'( 200#. "-$ SC)A -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 te act of Cler' of Co!rt Soriano in e-panding te
co#erage of te demotion order wic res!lted in te destr!ction of teir properties e#en if te"
were not te defendants in te case$ Soriano admitted inserting te words Dtird partiesF in te
demolition order$ 2!dge Sil#a denies gi#ing an" a!tori/ation to ca!se s!c amendment$
%ELD A cler' of co!rt so!ld be g!ided b" te e-press directi#e of te co!rt or 3!dge and refrain
from e-ercising f!nctions tat are e-cl!si#e tereto$ Before e can amend a writ( te co!rtJs
order granting its iss!ance so!ld first be amended$ B" amending te +rit on is own initiati#e(
Soriano !s!rped a 3!dicial f!nction0contrar" to C!le 65E( Section; of te C!les of Co!rt$ %e is
fined P7(???$ .oreo#er( 2!dge Sil#a failed to e-ercise diligence in s!per#ising te acts of is
acting cler' of co!rt$ Hnder Canon 5 of te Code of 2!dicial Cond!ct( a 3!dge so!ld organi/e
and s!per#ise te Co!rt personnel to ens!re te prompt and efficient dispatc of b!siness( and
54
re9!ire at all times te 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"$
c. Negligence in 9eeping Court Records by Court 8ersonnel
+aniel Cr&8 v. ClerA of Co&rt( et al.
A. 3. !o. 67$$7#2$. 3ar. 2*( #$$$. "0* SC)A #2'
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Cr!/ filed a notice of appeal$ %owe#er( is appeal co!ld not be acted !pon beca!se te
records of te case were allegedl" missing$ %ence( tis administrati#e complaint against bot
Branc Cler' of Co!rt and Staff Assistant for gross negligence$ B!t tree 458 da"s after e-erting
effort to locate said records( it was fo!nd togeter wit oter records s!pposed to be eard on
said date$ Said records was transmitted to te CTC for te p!rpose of appeal$
%ELD: Te Co!rt ordered tat te cler' and staff assistant be reprimanded wit stern warning
tat a repetition of te same will be dealt wit more se#erel"$ As officers of te Co!rt( te" are
e-pected to discarge teir d!t" of safe'eeping co!rt records wit diligence( efficienc" and
professionalism$ Capter ** of te .an!al for Cler's of Co!rt pro#ides te general f!nctions and
d!ties of Cler's of Co!rt( one of wic is te safe'eeping of co!rt records( to wit: 5$ D!ties$ a$
safe'eeping of Propert"$ P Te Cler's of Co!rt sall safel" 'eep all records( papers( files(
e-ibits and p!blic propert" committed to teir carge( incl!ding te librar" of te Co!rt( and te
seals and f!rnit!re belonging to teir office$ Section G( C!le 65E of te C!les of Co!rt imposes
same responsibilit" !pon te cler's of co!rt$
d. Court 8ersonnel @8ublic CfficersA -ct wit! )elfRestraint and Civility
Atty. )oel 6aras vs. 3yrna Lofrano
A.3. !o. 670#7#-.$. 3ar. 2.( 200#.
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Paras filed an administrati#e complaint against respondent cler' of te CTC for
disco!rtes" and cond!ct !nbecoming a co!rt emplo"ee$ Paras tried to as' for te witdrawal of
a cas bond in a case e was andling$ *t seems tat 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' anoter$
Cespondent claims tat se was pro#o'ed b" te complainant$
%ELD: *t is te polic" of te state to promote a ig standard of etics in p!blic ser#ice$ P!blic
officials and emplo"ees are !nder obligation to perform te d!ties of teir offices onestl"(
faitf!ll"( and to te best of teir abilit"$ Te"( as recipients of te p!blic tr!st( so!ld
demonstrate co!rtes"( ci#ilit"( and self0restraint in teir official act!ation to te p!blic at all
times e#en wen confronted wit r!deness and ins!lting bea#ior$ Losing oneJs temper and
!ttering !nsa#or" remar's e-ibits a fail!re to act wit self0restraint and ci#ilit"$ Te co!rt is
55
loo'ed !pon wit ig respect and is regarded as a sacred place$ .isbea#ior witin and aro!nd
its #icinit" diminises its sanctit" and dignit"$
e. 8ro!ibition on public officials from 3ngaging in 8rivate 8ractice of /aw
/ffie of t?e Co&rt A0ministrator vs. ClerA of Co&rt La0a=a
A.3. !o. 67$$7#2'4. %an. 2.( 200#. "*0 SC)A "2.
PONENTE: Map!nan
FACTS: .TC Cler' of Co!rt Ladaga( wile 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!gt against Ladaga for #iolation of te Code of Cond!ct and
Etical Standards for P!blic Officials and Emplo"ees( wic proibits tem from engaging in te
pri#ate practice of teir profession$ C!le 655 of te C!les of Co!rt li'ewise proibits emplo"ees
of te s!perior co!rts from engaging in pri#ate practice as a member of te bar$
%ELD: LadagaJs appearance did not amo!nt to Dpri#ate practice of law(F as it was merel" an
isolated co!rt appearance( wito!t te 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
te Ce#ised Ci#il Ser#ice C!les: DNo officer or emplo"ee sall engage directl" in an" V
professionVwito!t a written permission from te ead of te Department$F Te presiding 3!dge
of te co!rt to wic Ladaga is assigned is not te ead of te Department contemplated b" law(
wic in tis case is te S!preme Co!rt$ Alto!g e filed lea#e applications corresponding to
te dates e appeared in co!rt( e failed to obtain prior permission from te ead of tis
Department) e is reprimanded$
f. )imple MisconductD /eaving 8ost
Loyao( %r. v. Armein
A.3. !o. 67$$7#"2$. A&=. #( 2000. ""4 SC)A -4
PONENTE: Inares0Santiago
FACTS: Cespondents were carged wit Simple .iscond!ct and cens!red in a Ceport b"
complainant e-ec!ti#e 2!dge for lea#ing teir posts at te Office of te Cler' of Co!rt of te
CTC wito!t permission for personal p!rposes$ Teir absence allegedl" left te entire office
!ndermanned$ *t wo!ld appear tat te respondents left teir posts beca!se a certain Seriff
re9!ested tem to b!" food at te p!blic mar'et for te latterJs birtda" part"$
%ELD:Te SC fo!nd tat indeed respondents were remiss in teir obligations as 3!dicial
emplo"ees wen te" went o!t d!ring office o!rs wito!t as'ing te permission of teir
s!perior$ Teir e-planations tat te" went to b!" and prepare food for te birtda" celebration
of teir officemate and tat te" did te same o!t of pa;i;isama is !nsatisfactor" and so!ld not
be co!ntenanced$ +ile pa;i;isama is a #al!e deepl" imbedded in o!r tradition and mores tat
often fosters armon" and good wor'ing relationsips in te wor'place( carr"ing o!t its
56
obser#ance and practice to te degree were it fr!strates or pre3!dices te administration of
3!stice so!ld not be tolerated$ A p!blic office is a p!blic tr!st tat en3oins all p!blic officers and
emplo"ees( partic!larl" tose ser#ing in te 3!diciar"( to respond wit te igest degree of
dedication often e#en be"ond personal interest$
g. Cler; of court deposited settlement money in !er personal account
+inna Castillo vs. Denai0a B&enillo
A.3. !o. 67$47#2-#. 3ar. 20( 200#
PONENTE: .elo
FACTS: Castillo( as pri#ate complainant in a criminal case( was rel!ctant to recei#e PG?(??? as
settlement for te ci#il aspect$ Cler' of Co!rt B!encillo recei#ed te mone"$ Fearf!l tat it
migt be lost( B!necillo deposited te amo!nt in er personal ban' acco!nt$ Tereafter( te
acc!sed ga#e Castillo postdated cec's as pa"ment( incl!ding te PG?(??? as pa"ment for te
ci#il obligation$ %owe#er( B!encillo onl" remitted P7?(???( retaining P1?(??? in er possession$
%ELD: E#en if te deposit was done in good fait( still it was inappropriate and wito!t
3!stification$ E#er" p!blic officer is bond to e-ercise pr!dence and ca!tion in te discarge of
is d!ties( acting primaril" for te benefit of te p!blic$ *f te office cabinet ad no loc'(
respondent so!ld a#e informed te 3!dge of te circ!mstance so tat proper arrangements
co!ld a#e been made$ P!blic officials and emplo"ees so!ld alwa"s !pold p!blic interest o#er
and abo#e personal interest$ Te" are en3oined to respond to te call of teir d!ties wit te
igest degree of dedication often be"ond teir own interest$
!. 1iolation of -ntiGraft and Corrupt 8ractices -ct
Eliseo Soreno vs. )?o0eriA 3aGino
A.3. !o. 67007#".0. %an. #'( 2000. "22 SC)A #2
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Att"$ .a-ino( Cler' of Co!rt and e-0officio Seriff of te .TC and Tambolero( dep!t"
seriff of te same co!rt( were carged wit Drobber" wit old0!p and #iolation of CA 5?6<8 for
allegedl" pointing a g!n( wit intent to intimidate wile ta'ing tric"cles of te complainant$
%ELD: Hpon in#estigation( facts elicited re#eal tat te ta'ing of te tric"cles were p!rs!ant to a
lawf!l order of te co!rt and tat te acts alleged were not emplo"ed$
.. )!eriff
a. $ailure of )!eriff to #mplement t!e (rit of 32ecution
)osanna Casalme vs. 3arvin )ivera
A3 67$$7#*#-. %&ne 2*( #$$$. "0$ SC)A .$
57
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Cespondent Dep!t" Seriff went to complainantJs o!se at fi#e in te morning and
sowed tem a writ of e-ec!tion iss!ed b" stenograper Cal!ag$ Cespondent ten demanded
pa"ment b!t wen te complainants as'ed for more time( te Dep!t" Seriff instead iss!ed a
Notice of Le#" indicating receipt of complainantJs Tamaraw F>$ Te complainants told te
seriff tat te F> was not f!ll" paid for and instead offered anoter #eicle( te seriff ref!sed$
%ELD: Te seriffJs acts were improper$ +ile it was is d!t" to enforce te writ( e ad not
e-plained w" e ad enforced te writ so earl" in te morning wen tere was not e#en an
allegation tat te propert" e wanted to le#" !pon was in danger of being concealed from im$
%is !nseeml" cond!ct gi#es rise to te s!spicion tat e as !lterior moti#es$
L&0ivina 3aris=a73a=,an&a v. Emilio T. 1illamar 1
A. 3. !o. 67$$7#2$4. 3ar. 2*( #$$$. "0* SC)A #"2
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: After te decision in a case of e3ectment ad become final and e-ec!tor"( te CTC
iss!ed a writ of e-ec!tion$ Tereafter( .agban!a mo#ed for te iss!ance of an alias writ of
e-ec!tion and order of demolition( alleging tat te same was necessar" in #iew of te seriffJs
report sowing tat tere was fail!re in implementing te writ of e-ec!tion and also beca!se se
was in dire need of te propert"$ Te CTC granted er motion$ %owe#er( te seriff still failed to
enforceNimplement said e-ec!tion wen it was is ministerial d!t" to do so$ %ence( .agban!a
filed a complaint against respondent Seriff for dereliction of d!t"$
%ELD: Te seriff is g!ilt"$ %e was ordered to pa" a fine of P1(???$?? wit a warning tat
repetition of a similar offense will be dealt wit more se#erel"$ A reading of te decision sows
tat .agban!aJs ca!se of action is based on er claim tat se is te owner of te propert" b"
#irt!e of te Deed of Sale and +ai#er of Cigts e-ec!ted in er fa#or b" er co0eirs$ T!s( te
CTC in rendering its decision limited its ad3!dication to complainantJs claim of ownersip and
possession o#er te s!b3ect propert" #is0a0#is tat of defendant spo!ses Canton3os$ Te decision
being clear( it is te seriffJs ministerial d!t" to implement te same despite te claim of te
oter eirs of .arisga tat te" own te s!b3ect propert" in common wit complainant$ S!c a
claim in an" case is still !nder litigation in anoter proceeding( and it does not appear tat te
oter .arisgas a#e obtained and 3!dicial writ of process to sta" e-ec!tion of te decision$
b. Grave -buse of -ut!ority of )!eriff in 3nforcement of (rit of 32ecution
6BC/3 v. S?eriff Ca?ero
A.3. !o. 67007#"$$. 2e,. #$( 200#.
PONENTE: Map!nan
FACTS: Seriff Cacero was appointed to enforce a +rit of E-ec!tion Pending Appeal against
PBCom0B!endia ban'( for te reco#er" of mone" wic te ban' !nlawf!ll" witdrew from te
58
acco!nt of its own depositor( FALCON corporation$ PBCom alleged tat Cacero emplo"ed
irreg!lar means in enforcing te writ b" torcing te #a!lt despite being informed tat a TCO
ad been iss!ed( and tat a cop" was on its wa" from te main office$
%ELD +ile a seriff 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 te ig degree of diligence and professionalism
e-pected of tem as agents of te law$ Te" co!ld a#e sealed or placed te #a!lt !nder g!ard
and as'ed te 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 te #a!lt in order to sei/e te cas
'ept terein$ T!s( te !se of force b" respondents and te res!lting damage to ban' propert"
was clearl" !n3!stified and is !nacceptable$ Cacero is g!ilt" of gross miscond!ct for irreg!larl"
enforcing te writ of e-ec!tion in a ig0anded manner and wit te !se of !nnecessar" and
!nwarranted force) fined P7(???$
Canlas v. Balas,as
A.3. !o. 67$$7#"#4. A&=. #( 2000. ""4 SC)A -#
PONENTE: Panganiban
FACTS: Te CTC of Angeles Cit" iss!ed 1 writs of attacment 4+OA8 in 1 separate Ci#il cases(
bot assigned to respondent Seriff for implementation$ *n compliance wit te +OA iss!ed in
te 6
st
case( respondent le#ied on attacment real and personal properties of te defendant$ *n
compliance wit te +OA in te 1
nd
case( e le#ied on attacment te real properties of te
defendant$ *t is te contention of complainants tat before implementing te writ( respondent
as'ed for mone" for te latterJs e-penses$ Bot complainants a#er tat alto!g te" were able
to pinpoint to respondent te wereabo!ts of te two cars owned b" defendant( e still failed to
ta'e possession of tem$ Te in#estigating 3!dge fo!nd tat 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
te e-ec!tion of te +OA$
%ELD:CespondentJs d!t" in te present case is prescribed in O < of C!le ;6 of te C!les of
Co!rt$ *t re9!ires tat te seriffJs estimate of te e-penses to be inc!rred in te e-ec!tion of a
writ so!ld be appro#ed b" te 3!dge$ *t f!rter directs tat te appro#ed estimate be deposited
wit te cler' of co!rt and e2 oficio seriff( wo sall ten disb!rse te same to te seriff
assigned to implement te writ$ .oreo#er( an" !nspent amo!nt sall ten be ref!nded to te
part" ma'ing te deposit$ *n tis case( respondent admits tat e did as' for and recei#e certain
amo!nts from te complainants for gasoline and oter e-penses necessar" to implement te 1
+OA$ Te amo!nt was not part of te appro#ed estimate of e-penses and was not deposited
wit te cler' of co!rt( b!t came directl" from complainants for te !se of respondent$
c. 8artiality 0antamount to Gross #nefficiency
C?risto5?er 1alenia vs. )o0olfo 1alena
A.3. !o. 67007#-0$. A&=. #.( 2000. ""' SC)A #*0
PONENTE: .endo/a
59
FACTS: Cespondent Seriff =alena was carged for fail!re to enforce a writ of e-ec!tion$ Te
Seriff reasons o!t tat one of te parties( R!e3ada( ref!sed to deli#er possession of properties
beca!se e ad in#ested P1??(??? on te lands and wanted to cons!lt is law"er first$ Tree
alias writs of e-ec!tion were iss!ed( all of wic were ret!rned !nsatisfied$ Complainants allege
tat respondent failed to e-ec!te te decision beca!se e readil" accepted R!e3adaJs e-c!ses and
s!spects tat =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 te performance of official d!ties cannot be tolerated$
CespondentJs fail!re to carr" o!t wat is a p!rel" ministerial d!t" cannot be 3!stified$ %is onl"
d!t" was to e3ect R!e3ada from te 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 te s!b3ect properties wito!t raising s!spicion tat respondent was fa#oring
im$ A period of < "ears as lapsed( a period too long a time for te writ of e-ec!tion not to be
enforced$ As an officer of te co!rt( respondent was tas'ed to enable te pre#ailing part" to
benefit from te 3!dgment$ Complainant is entitled to reali/e te lawJs promise tat is rigt to
possession wo!ld be #indicated as speedil" as possible to preser#e peace and order$
d. )!eriff<s Conduct -bove Reproac! or 8artiality
)estit&to Castro vs. Carlos Ba=&e
A.3. 67$$7#"-.. %&ne 20( 200#.
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Complainant Castro was te igest bidder in a foreclos!re sale cond!cted b" Seriff
Bag!e$ Despite CastroJs insistence tat Bag!e iss!e a certificate of sale( Bag!e failed to compl"
wit s!c d!t"$ *nstead( Bag!e allowed te redemptioner to redeem te propert" e#en after te
lapse of 6@ monts from te date of sale$ Cespondent iss!ed a Uresol!tionJ declaring tat
redemptionerJs stand olds more weigt( tereb" granting redemptioner te rigt to rep!rcase
propert"$ F!rtermore( respondent iss!ed te p!rported resol!tion after te period for
redemption as lapsed( ma'ing it appear tat it was iss!ed witin te period$
%ELD: Te 3!dicial power #ested in a 3!dge and its e-ercise is strictl" personal to te 3!dge
beca!se of( and b" reason of is igest 9!alification( and can ne#er be s!b3ect of agenc"$ Tat
wo!ld not onl" be contrar" to law( b!t also s!b#ersi#e of p!blic order and polic"$ Tis Co!rt
condemns and wo!ld ne#er co!ntenance an" cond!ct( act or omission on te part of all tose
in#ol#ed in te administration of 3!stice wic wo!ld #iolate te norm of p!blic acco!ntabilit"
and wo!ld diminis or e#en 3!st tend to diminis te fait of te people in te 3!diciar"$ B" te
#er"0nat!re of teir f!nctions( seriffs perform a #er" sensiti#e f!nction in te dispensation of
3!stice$ Accordingl"( teir cond!ct m!st at all times be abo#e s!spicion$
e. Nonfeasance.
60
1itor Eli5e vs. Honesto 2a,re
A. 3. !o. 67$-7#0.' 2e,. #"( #$$*. 2-# SC)A 2-$
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Fabre was carged wit nonfeasance and incompetence in te performance of is d!ties
as Dep!t" Seriff$ Fabre allegedl" did not ma'e an" effort to pre#ent te 3!dgment debtors from
remo#ing le#iable properties to implement te writ( despite te fact tat e ad been told b"
complainant of te 3!dgment debtors& acti#ities$
%ELD: *f Fabre was dedicated in is wor'( e co!ld a#e cosen to stop te carting awa" of te
#al!able properties of 3!dgment debtor for te #er" p!rpose of le#"ing it and for te p!rpose of
compl"ing wit te Order$ %e was bo!nd to discarge is d!ties wit pr!dence( ca!tion and
attention wic caref!l men !s!all" e-ercise in te management of teir affairs$ Te seriff( an
officer of te co!rt !pon wom te e-ec!tion of a final 3!dgment depends( m!st be circ!mspect
and proper in is bea#ior$
f. Malversation and #nsubordination
Art&ro <. Ba&tista vs. 3ar=arito C. Castilo( %r.
A. 3. !o. 67$-7#0-". 2e,. 2'( #$$.. 2*- SC)A #-'
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: An administrati#e complaint was filed b" cler' of co!rt Ba!tista carging dep!t" seriff
Costelo( 2r$ wit mal#ersation( ins!bordination( gra#e miscond!ct and #iolation of SC Circ!lar
50<1( wic proibits te !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 te carges for
mal#ersation and ins!bordination is dismissed for lac' of merit$ Tere is no e#idence to sow
tat respondent !sed scrap materials ta'en from te former P$C$ barrac'$ Nor is tere an"
sowing tat e appropriated fr!its ta'en from cocon!t trees fo!nd in te co!rt gro!nds$ +it
respect to te carge tat e made onl" gr!dging compliance wit te directi#e of te
complainant for im to remo#e te coop in wic e 'ept fi#e t!r'e"s( te record sows tat e
did compl" wit te directi#e$ Tere is( terefore( no basis for finding im g!ilt" of
ins!bordination$ As to te allegation tat respondent !sed a room of te co!rto!se for is li#ing
9!arters( te records sow tat e did not sta" in te co!rto!se wic formerl" ser#ed as
enlisted men&s barrac' of te 57;t P$C$ Compan" in Cal!bian( Le"te$
3. )tenograp!er
A,elar0o Santos vs. A&rora Laranan=
A.3. !o. 67007#".'. 2e,. 2'( 2000. "2. SC)A "4"
PONENTE: .endo/a
61
FACTS: Hnsatisfied b" co!rt stenograper LaranangJs e-c!ses of illness( .TC 2!dge Santos
filed administrati#e complaints for fail!re to transcribe EE stenograpic notes witin te
prescribed period) and for repeated tardiness$
%ELD Administrati#e Circ!lar 1;0<? en3oins stenograpers to transcribe all notes not later tan
1? da"s from teir ta'ing$ Laranang transcribed onl" 77 b!t s!bmitted tem o!t of time) te
oter 66 were ne#er transcribed$ Ass!ming er e-c!se of illness( Laranang so!ld a#e as'ed for
an e-tension$ .oreo#er( records sow er tardiness 57 times witin a span of 5 monts$ Se is
g!ilt" of gross neglect of d!t" and abit!al tardiness) s!spended for E monts$
!elia B. Esmeral0a7Baroy vs. %&vy !. Cosa
A. 3. !o. 67$"74$$. %&ne 2#( #$$*. 2-* SC)A 224
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Carge is tat co!rt stenograper Cosca bro!gt ome wit er te stenograpic notes
wic se ad ta'en in certain cases pending before te .TC and failed to s!bmit te
corresponding transcript and er notes despite demand b" te 3!dge of te .TC$ T!s( Cosca
#iolated C!le 65E( SS6; and 6G( of te C!les of Co!rt$
%ELD: +it te prom!lgation of Administrati#e Circ!lar No$ 1;0<? on 2!l" 61( 6<<?( te
re9!irements to deli#er te notes to te cler' of co!rt immediatel" at te close of te session so
tat te" can be attaced to te record m!st be !nderstood to a#e been pro tanto modified in te
sense tat stenograpers are re9!ired to deli#er teir notes onl" after transcribing tem( wic
m!st be done witin twent" 41?8 da"s after te notes a#e been ta'en$ Te transcription of notes
m!st be done in office$ +it te re9!irement in Administrati#e Circ!lar No$ 1;0<? to transcribe
notes witin a sort time( owe#er( we can accord to te pres!mption of good fait$ Cosca ad
bro!gt ome te notes in good fait and wito!t an" !lterior moti#e) prompted onl" b" te
to!gt of elping more effecti#el" in te speed" administration of 3!stice$
>. Ct!er Cfficers
a. )ummons Cfficer $alsified Return of )ummons
Gil,ert Catalan vs. )eynal0o Umali
A.3. 67$$7#"00. %&ne 2"( 2000. ""- SC)A 2-4
PONENTE: .endo/a
FACTS: Hmali was designated b" te co!rt to ser#e s!mmons to NE:A( an association$ Te
s!mmons was ser#ed b" s!bstit!ted ser#ice to .ara#illas( a competent person fo!nd in carge of
te gi#en address$ As e-ec!ti#e secretar" of NE:A( Catalan claims tat Hmali co!ld not a#e
ser#ed te s!mmons since te address indicated terein was not te address of NE:A$
%ELD Te facts sow tat te address in te s!mmons was not te address of NE:A$ Te cross0
e-amination of Hmali also sows inconsistencies wit wat e stated in is s!mmons report$ *n
62
fact( te person named .ara#illas is a non0e-istent person$ Falsification of te ret!rn is a gra#e
miscond!ct p!nisable b" dismissal$ %owe#er( it does not appear tat te falsification was dons
to fa#or te plaintiffs in te case or depri#e NE:A of te rigt to be eard$ Considering tat tis
is respondentJs first administrati#e case( a lesser penalt" is imposed) s!spended for E monts$
b. $alsification by -pprentice 5tility (or;er
6i8arro v. 1ille=as
A.3. !o. 67$47#2-". !ov. 20( 2000. "-* SC)A -2
PONENTE: Panganiban
FACTS: *n 6<<E( 2!dge Pi/arro( ten assigned to CTC of *loc!s S!r( engaged te ser#ices of
respondent as an apprentice for 1 wee's( in order to determine te 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$ Te latter to!gt tat e no longer ad an" a!torit" to
recommend an application for emplo"ment in te former CTC( in #iew of an en banc Cesol!tion
of te SC detailing im to te CTC of R!e/on Cit"$ Complainant learned later from is former
personnel tat respondent ad been appointed !tilit" wor'er and was alread" reporting for wor'
in is former sala$ Complainant tereafter carged respondent wit falsif"ing is signat!re in
order to sec!re from te SC is appointment as co!rt aide$
%ELD:Te appointment of te respondent is cancelled$ Disonest" is a male#olent act tat as
no place in te 3!diciar"$ *ndeed( all go#Jt$ personnel are mandated to act wit 3!stice and
sincerit" b" te Code of Cond!ct and Etical Standards for P!blic Officials and Emplo"ees$
c. Due Diligence Cver Court 8arap!ernalia by /egal Researc!er
3&tia7Ha=a0 vs. +enila
A.3. !o. 67007#-"0. /t. "( 2000. "-# SC)A "'2.
PONENTE: .elo
FACTS: Te complainant carged te defendant for gross malfeasance for losing certain records
of a case tat was entr!sted to im and not caring weter te" were reco#ered$
%ELD: B" te #er" nat!re of is d!ties and responsibilities as legal researcer( e so!ld a#e
borne in mind tat is arrogant and insolent attit!de in ref!sing to elp locate and find te
missing record of a case is #iolati#e of te norms of p!blic acco!ntabilit"$ %is arg!ment tat it is
no longer is 3ob to reco#er te record is !nwarranted and a clear sowing of is Us!percilio!s
comportmentJ$ Again( te cond!ct and bea#ior of e#er"one connected wit an office carged
wit te dispensation of 3!stice( from te presiding 3!dge to te lowliest cler'( so!ld be
circ!mscribed wit te ea#" b!rden of responsibilit"$ 4Also notable in tis case( te SC red!ced
te recommended penalt" beca!se it was a first offense8
d. Repeated -bsences
63
A,sene Cit?o&t /ffiial Leave (AC/L) of E0elito Alfonso
A.3. !o. 0072724 3TCC. /t. #0( 2000. "-2 SC)A "'$.
PONENTE: P!no
FACTS: E-ec!ti#e 2!dge Liga"a iss!ed a Directi#e placing Alfonso on A+OL stat!s$ Te latter
claims e was absent beca!se e !nderwent medical treatment for peptic !lcer 4wic was tr!e8$
Te new E-ec!ti#e 2!dge recommended dismissal$ Before Alfonso co!ld be formall" fired
owe#er( Liga"a wrote to te Office of te Co!rt Administrator a letter reporting tat Alfonso
ad ret!rned and was reg!larl" reporting for wor' and diligentl" performing is d!ties( tat e
was a UreformedJ man and e was reall" absent beca!se of illness$
%ELD: Alto!g Liga"aJs letter migt a#e seemed to a#e sa#ed te da" for Alfonso( te SC
too' notice of AlfonsoJs fre9!ent absences wito!t official lea#e e#en before te present case$ So
e#en to!g te SC granted te lifting of te A+OL stat!s for !manitarian considerations( it
felt it proper to teac Alfonso a lesson b" s!spending im for E monts wito!t pa" pl!s te
!s!al Ustern warningJ$ %abit!al absence wito!t appro#al is inimical to p!blic ser#ice and
deser#es to be meted a disciplinar" sanction$ *n tis case( were it not for te letter and te illness(
Alfonso wo!ld a#e been probabl" dismissed$
e. )uppressing $acts7 Ma;ing $alse )tatements7 and Destroying 3vidence.
Atty. %oa:&in E&seo vs. %&anito Berna0
A. 3. !o. $-7#70.#7SC( 3ar. 2$( #$$*. 2-" SC)A #$
PONENTE: .endo/a
Facts: Tis complaint was filed b" Att"$ I!seco and :ercia against Dep!t" Co!rt Administrator
Bernad( carging im wit s!ppressing facts and ma'ing false statements in is report to te
Co!rt in te disbarment case against :ercia$
%eld: Bernad ad no d!t" to f!rnis im a cop" of is report in te disbarment case$ Tat report
was s!bmitted to te co!rt solel" for its !se$ *t was te decision of te Co!rt tat :ercia as
respondent was entitled to recei#e$ +at complainants carge as s!ppression in te report are
omissions of facts wic in te e-ercise of so!nd 3!dgment were fo!nd to be immaterial$
64